andrewr5 Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 China i know is up and coming as a super power but for now we are alone should America be responsible for the rest of the world or should we remove ourselves as to not change the natural progression in other nations to be more useful to us both sides hold legitimate claim as policies on one hand we could change the world for the better but we could end up destroying our advantage over the other nations as the largest consumer and economic producer then on the other end of the spectrum we could isolate ourselves diplomatically and wait for the rest of the world to change and fix our own problems but that would alienate our allies and we cant take the whole world ourselves if it ever came to that so which path is more profitable to the USA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 Globalization of the worlds economies have given new meaning to world powers. most all the major US corporations are not only world wide but in nations that do not particularly care for western ideas. then we have treaties and/or obligations with many nations, which require to some degree a presence. this works both ways however and many foreign nations have interest in the US and obligations to our country. as for the oil producing nations the worldwide implications are obvious, but the are other interest with just as complicated as oil. a world health epidemic, an unruly government with intents to destroy others, just a couple.... in the process of having the title, Single Super Power, comes the advantage of having an internal standard of living others still dream of. what i think your addressing is being the police of the world, which i do wish could be cut back on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imp Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 Globalization of the worlds economies have given new meaning to world powers. most all the major US corporations are not only world wide but in nations that do not particularly care for western ideas. then we have treaties and/or obligations with many nations, which require to some degree a presence. this works both ways however and many foreign nations have interest in the US and obligations to our country. as for the oil producing nations the worldwide implications are obvious, but the are other interest with just as complicated as oil. a world health epidemic, an unruly government with intents to destroy others, just a couple.... in the process of having the title, Single Super Power, comes the advantage of having an internal standard of living others still dream of. what i think your addressing is being the police of the world, which i do wish could be cut back on. Global economy proliferation has been made possible by the computerization of society and the hunger for ever-increasing revenue by enormous multi-product industries. The "Mom and Pop" stores are largely gone. If the standard of living is gauged by considerations other than personal income, how many toilets & cars one has, and how big his/her house is, it seems some countries abroad easily approach ours (America's). Yes, policing the world should definitely by reduced, as it simply increases dissent and distrust of the U.S. imp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bettina Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 Yes, policing the world should definitely by reduced, as it simply increases dissent and distrust of the U.S. imp So, when genocide is being committed, we should just turn our gaze away? Bettina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 should America be responsible for the rest of the world or should we remove ourselves as to not change the natural progression in other nations It depends. Most would agree with us having invaded Iraq in Gulf War I. Ditto for Afghanistan. Our defense of S. Korea has done a world of good although it has been expensive. The "natural progression" of Europe post WWII without the United States would have been to live under the boot of the Soviet Union. The natural progression of the world without the United States in 1940 is unbearable to contemplate. Darfur could do with a bit of policing right now but China and Russia are shamefully allowing genocide for oil, yet it is the US that takes all of the heat. You have to talk specifics. Finally, please don't take offense but for the love of all that is good and holy, please won't you punctuate your sentences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolotovCocktail Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 According to the UN Charter its members, including the US, is obliged to help police the world, doesn't it? Of course, I can hardly consider the Iraq War policing, but that is besides the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 It's hard to say. Some policing has turned out well, and some hasn't. On the one hand, you have, say, the existence of South Korea. On the other, you have endless commitments, international resentment, and the intoxication of power. We in the U.S. have gotten very used to being able to just "change" anything we want, anywhere, with basically no sacrifice on the individual level. How accurate that is is questionable, but the mindset is quite real. The debate is always "should we" and not "can we," and it results in a funny perspective. The U.S. has military operations of one sort or another in most other countries, and this seems normal to us. Yet the idea of a hundred different foreign militaries operating on American soil without American permission sounds completely absurd, and it is completely absurd. The prospect of war with Iran is the prospect of invading Iran. Nobody in their wildest dreams imagines that Iranian tanks in Washington is even the remotest possibility. I believe this power is extremely corrupting, and it is of unprecedented importance to constantly work to keep things in perspective, and, as with any absolute monarch, our national conscience has to be especially robust to take up the slack from lack of adversity. So I guess in answer to the question, interventionism is not necessarily bad, but it MUST be approached with the utmost skepticism and reluctance in all cases, because our situation constantly pushes us towards abusing power, and it must be compensated for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 actually the *Mom and Pops* are doing very well. i would agree globalization has been benefited a great deal by computer technology, but far from the cause. in short is the need for business to expand. from a capitalist viewpoint, policing the planet is a non-productive process when interest served are not ours. from the humane viewpoint any genocide is not acceptable. this includes Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq. the problem is what we call genocide is the foundation of some religious or government policy. not only is the US obligated to the UN, its obligations through treaties are worldwide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 [A]ny genocide is not acceptable . . . . this includes Iraq. [T]he problem is what we call genocide is the foundation of some . . . government policy. What are you suggesting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 am not in the mood today for WWIII. however that are some leaders of National Governments and/or their clergy which not only applaud genocide but promote the idea. its not possible to protect all these folks, call their enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 am not in the mood today for WWIII. however that are some leaders of National Governments and/or their clergy which not only applaud genocide but promote the idea. its not possible to protect all these folks, call their enemy. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but in the previous post it almost seemed like you were comparing the US policy in Iraq to genocide. You don't mean that, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 my goodness; no...never crossed my mind. if anything the US goes to far the other way... any nation under Islamic Rule, radical or not, teaches dominance over others. as you go further out toward radical, it becomes matter of fact. genocide of the infidel a worthy goal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 should America be responsible for the rest of the world or should we remove ourselves as to not change the natural progression in other nations... America should remove ourselves from the title of world police. We should trade with all nations in order to secure friendly relations. Let the consumer market forces make the political statements. So' date=' when genocide is being committed, we should just turn our gaze away? Bettina[/quote'] Yes. Just like we are today already, only consistent... According to the UN Charter its members, including the US, is obliged to help police the world, doesn't it? Shouldn't we ditch the UN? Why should we allow an external entity to dictate military policy? I have never liked the idea of foreign powers compelling our countrymen into combat. We should never pre-agree on anything like that - particularly armed conflict. There's a line between alliances with other nations and pre-arranged alignments with a dynamic entity. from a capitalist viewpoint, policing the planet is a non-productive process when interest served are not ours. Particularly when the interests served are more about business livelihood than humanity. We can buy our oil from a variety of sources, why must we be so concerned with theirs? Why not pay more, a whole lot more for oil, than fight for it? Especially when we should and are so much smarter and resourceful than that... I think we have to hang our heads in shame if we really believe we are dependent upon the finite resources of a 3rd world country in order to maintain...what kind of superpower is that? At this point, I would like to see the american government go into a non-intervention status with the rest of the world, and let our markets seal our friendships. We have no duty to police the world or interfere with the progress of other governments unless threatened. Anything we do proactively, should be done out of view and disavowed. If the american people want war, let them vote for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 America should remove ourselves from the title of world police. We should trade with all nations in order to secure friendly relations. Let the consumer market forces make the political statements. Easily said but what, exactly, do you mean? For example, do we withdraw forces from S. Korea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 my goodness; no...never crossed my mind. if anything the US goes to far the other way... any nation under Islamic Rule, radical or not, teaches dominance over others. as you go further out toward radical, it becomes matter of fact. genocide of the infidel a worthy goal... Sorry for the misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Easily said but what, exactly, do you mean? For example, do we withdraw forces from S. Korea? Well, in practice, this couldn't be 100%. We do have obligations to maintain. Yes, I'd like to withdraw forces from all over the globe, but that's not realistic. There's humanitarian concerns as well, since we use our military forces for more than just killing people. I would like to see us much more introverted and proud, self sufficient. We're way too global. We've been allowing big business to sell out our country with outsourcing - as unpatriotic as that is. We're becoming more and more a nation of consumers - fat consumers. From my perspective, it looks more like the world is simply feeding the piggies - biding their time until we get so fat and dependent we can't do anything on our own. Or are we already there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wormwood Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Well' date=' in practice, this couldn't be 100%. We do have obligations to maintain. Yes, I'd like to withdraw forces from all over the globe, but that's not realistic. There's humanitarian concerns as well, since we use our military forces for more than just killing people. I would like to see us much more introverted and proud, self sufficient. We're way too global. We've been allowing big business to sell out our country with outsourcing - as unpatriotic as that is. We're becoming more and more a nation of consumers - fat consumers. From my perspective, it looks more like the world is simply feeding the piggies - biding their time until we get so fat and dependent we can't do anything on our own. Or are we already there?[/quote'] Good post. I was just curious where the line is drawn between "humanitarian" military action, and being poilce for the world? Obviously there is a distinction, but I think that is a very opinion based distinction. Thus, if we leave the door open for "humanitarian" action, then we are still subject to this abuse of power. I say, if the rest of the world hates the U.S. so much, then let them solve their own problems. If South Korea doesn't want to fall to an enemy, the should get to work on a strong military like everyone else in the world that doesn't want to be invaded. This idea that we have to help everyone simply because we are able, is silly. Almost every other nation has been a super power at some point, and look how they behaved with that power. Do you think the Romans cared if people in other countires were suffering or treated unfairly? Do you think they listened to the constant complaints about how terrible they were? If people spoke out against Rome too much, the Legions would kill all of the men, sell the women and children into slavery, and salt the earth so nothing would ever grow there again. I say we are more than fair compared to any other super power that has ever existed, and we owe the world nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I was just curious where the line is drawn between "humanitarian" military action, and being poilce for the world? Well, by humanitarian military action, I meant as in some kind of relief effort, like food or disaster recovery, as opposed to killing people and breaking stuff. So, to me that line is simple. I say, if the rest of the world hates the U.S. so much, then let them solve their own problems. If South Korea doesn't want to fall to an enemy, the should get to work on a strong military like everyone else in the world that doesn't want to be invaded. This idea that we have to help everyone simply because we are able, is silly. I agree. When I hear GWB give speeches about "spreading" democracy, I curl up inside. Spreading democracy? Then I hear this bull about fighting for our freedom...in Iraq. Fighting for our freedom? Poetry.... When you open the door to policing the world, it's not that far of a stretch to go from a noble action to imperialism. "Spreading democracy" is a great start to that end. Romanticizing how freedom and the american dream of liberty should be given to all...blah blah blah...roll the tanks, we're "saving" the people... Which always reminds me of those serial killers that "save" others by killing them and sending them to god. Getting in the middle of wars and so forth is like stepping in the middle of a fight between your next door neighbors. You'll be thanked and you'll be hated at the same time. How about just being nothing, and let them fight it out themselves? But then, on the other hand, what about WWII? What about the arguments of appeasement and allowing Hitler to develop? What about the Japanese? Could we have stopped those situations from happening, and still NOT be the world police? Because those superpowers would have focused on America once their work was done in Asia and Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolotovCocktail Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Well, by humanitarian military action, I meant as in some kind of relief effort, like food or disaster recovery, as opposed to killing people and breaking stuff. So, to me that line is simple. I agree. When I hear GWB give speeches about "spreading" democracy, I curl up inside. Spreading democracy? Then I hear this bull about fighting for our freedom...in Iraq. Fighting for our freedom? Poetry.... When you open the door to policing the world, it's not that far of a stretch to go from a noble action to imperialism. "Spreading democracy" is a great start to that end. Romanticizing how freedom and the american dream of liberty should be given to all...blah blah blah...roll the tanks, we're "saving" the people... Whats even more ironic is that in the effort to spread "democracy", we set up dictatorships in various countries, many in Latin American and Southeast Asia. Saddam Hussein was installed by the US in order to stop "the spread of communism". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Saddam Hussein was installed by the US in order to stop "the spread of communism". Apf! In Cindy Sheehan's history text, maybe. Not in mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wormwood Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Well, by humanitarian military action, I meant as in some kind of relief effort, like food or disaster recovery, as opposed to killing people and breaking stuff. So, to me that line is simple. Ah ok, I just wanted to clarify because you said "military" action. I realize that the soldiers also perform strictly non combat relief as well. I agree. When I hear GWB give speeches about "spreading" democracy, I curl up inside. Spreading democracy? Then I hear this bull about fighting for our freedom...in Iraq. Fighting for our freedom? Poetry.... Good points. Every free nation in the world, got that way because it's own people demanded to be free. It should be obvious from the insurgency that if the people of the middle east wanted to remove or resist a leader, they could do it on their own. We aren't spreading democracy, we are expanding american boarders for financial interests. But then, on the other hand, what about WWII? What about the arguments of appeasement and allowing Hitler to develop? What about the Japanese? Could we have stopped those situations from happening, and still NOT be the world police? Because those superpowers would have focused on America once their work was done in Asia and Europe. You do raise a good point, but you can't have it both ways. Pre-emptively attacking anyone that can stand up to us will cause imperialism to follow. We waited until we were attacked, just as we should have, and everything turned out ok in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Apf! In Cindy Sheehan's history text, maybe. Not in mine. That's not quite true, but the point stands that in the Cold War we got into the habit of supporting bad guys just because they were our bad guys, no? I'd also remind everyone that the Korean War was fought not by the United States but by the United Nations, which is rather different (or at least I think it is). And even that, probably the greatest success of "world policing," has resulted in a fifty year military commitment and the particular ire of a rogue nuclear power - N. Korea doesn't even direct rhetoric against S. Korea anymore, but it does against the United States! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 We supported Hussein. We did not put him in power. Molotov was firmly in Cindy Sheehan territory in saying that. I stand by that reply, and note that he didn't correct himself, which means I was on target. I share your assessment of Korea, but it's worth pointing out that what we supported in South Korea at that time was hardly a representative of a firm constitutional democracy. That didn't happen for a long time afterwards, and would seem to support the idea of bolstering questionable nations from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolotovCocktail Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 We supported Hussein. We did not put him in power. Molotov was firmly in Cindy Sheehan territory in saying that. I stand by that reply, and note that he didn't correct himself, which means I was on target. Well, then maybe you should read this then. The CIA was directly involved in the coup. This set of articles also has some information on the CIA's connection with Saddam from the time of his coup to the Persian Gulf. You'll find that in every case we were directly involved. We did more than just support his regime, we helped it come into existence and gave them everything from arms to helping him suppress dissidents within Iraq. Here are some other documents regarding what the US did to support him, though it does not cover what they did to put him in power: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB21/index.html <edit> Well, technically, we put the Baath Party in power, but Saddam became dictator later on with the help of the CIA. Also, the CIA helped to maintain his rule all the way until the Gulf War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Egad, what a brainwash. Your "Representative Press" is a 9/11 conspiracy theory site (along with hordes of other extremist nonsense)! I could barely find the article amidst all the flashing headlines about US imperialism. I feel unclean. Anybody got any sanitizer for my modem? Yeesh. Is that all you have to support your claim that the US put Saddam Hussein into power, MolotovCocktail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now