Poll: Should we be the World's Policeman?

[Bubba Wheels]

Just interested, since McCain's position is basically 'that's the way it is and is going to be' without debate and with much Neo-con support (Bush 1 and 2, Dole, etc.)

[Cringer]

If we had free reign, could blow lots of stuff up, and nobody in the world cared one little bit. Sure.

Otherwise, nope.

[Groundhog]

Does that mean the rest of the world gets a say in who's in charge of the world's police force?

But if it isn't the United States, then it'd just be somebody else, and hey, at least you guys don't seem too interested in spreading your "democracy" to our country, so more power to you!

[Mustang]

America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the motherfucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way, yeah,
Terrorists your game is through / 'cuz now you have to answer to...
America, FUCK YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls!
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you gonna do when we come for you now?
It's the dream that we all share, it's the hope for tomorrow,
FUCK YEAH!

[Flasch186]

in cases of stopping a genocide I say yes.

Im sure there are other reasons to intervene but I dont feel like listing them or thinking since Im NOT watching American Idol right now.

[Raiders Army]

What about policewomen? Angie Dickinson?

[JPhillips]

If it means hummers in exchange for tearing up tickets, yes.

[Joe]

Ron Paul, fuck yeah

[MrBug708]

Policeperson

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Just interested, since McCain's position is basically 'that's the way it is and is going to be' without debate and with much Neo-con support (Bush 1 and 2, Dole, etc.)

He is an accident waiting to happen

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Cringer

If we had free reign, could blow lots of stuff up, and nobody in the world cared one little bit. Sure.

Otherwise, nope.

Agreed!

In reality we need to back off from starting potential world wars to get rid of guys we don't like... But I really have no problem in sending in a Special Forces team to take out a group that is planning us harm. We just better be damn sure it doesn't turn out to be a day care center, and we need to work with other nations/get permission or be ready to face the potential fallout.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Does that mean the rest of the world gets a say in who's in charge of the world's police force?

But if it isn't the United States, then it'd just be somebody else, and hey, at least you guys don't seem too interested in spreading your "democracy" to our country, so more power to you!

I second this.

Of course, if there's no oil there, the US doesn't really try and spread their democracy.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

in cases of stopping a genocide I say yes.

Im sure there are other reasons to intervene but I dont feel like listing them or thinking since Im NOT watching American Idol right now.

For right or wrong this is the difference between us and say China or Russia. They don't give a fuck and we just act like we do. I for one have changed on this after serving for 8 years in the air force almost all overseas and with age as well. I no longer think we should be the only one when no else cares. Sorry isn't that why there is a UN?

[Groundhog]

Yes, that is the reason why the UN is supposed to exist, but we all know how much good they do in practice.

The US only really gets involved when it suits them, and that's fine - not fair to expect anything more. If they want to actually be the official World Police though, well, I guess that's fine too, but it's going to cost an awful lot of money getting involved in all the kinds of mess for the greater good that in no way impacts or helps their own country.

[Vegas Vic]

I agree with George W. Bush on this issue.

"I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders." - George W. Bush, October 3, 2000

[Chief Rum]

Amazing what a terrorist attack on home land will do, eh?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Amazing what a terrorist attack on home land will do, eh?

Yeah, the Afghanistan invasion and nation building was the right thing to do. I was referring to Iraq, which Rummy and Cheney had on the drawing board before the 2000 inauguration.

[SackAttack]

I think it's more complicated than a yes/no answer.

You look at Congress, right? The general consensus is that Congress is corrupt. You have a bunch of favor-traders who aren't doing what's necessarily right, or best, but what's in their personal interest. Sure, you've got some people in there who have the nation's best interests at heart, but they're few and far between.

When they do identify a problem and say "we need to act," action is never taken purely in the best interests of those affected. There's always a taint of "What's in it for me?" More favor-trading, in other words.

Now, let's take the Congressional example, and blow it up to the world at large. You've got, instead of 535 House members/Senators, a bunch of nations. Instead of two factions, though, you've got dozens. Or hundreds. Everybody's got an agenda to push, and even if you manage to get the small fish to agree on something, you have the Security Council. Any of the permanent members can veto an action at any time, which, again, goes right back to the 'personal interest' bit.

Thus, when you have a major international crisis, frequently unilateral action is going to be the only way something gets done in anything approaching a timely manner...but you don't really think self-interest gets tossed to the curb when that happens, right?

Look at the various unilateral actions the US has taken over the years internationally. Seldom has the long-term view been taken. Instead, you've got several examples of "he may be a sonuvabitch, but he's OUR sonuvabitch," particularly with respect to countering Communism and the nascent days of (I hate the word, but if the shoe fits) Islamofascism. We supported putting guys in power whose major benefit is that they weren't the other guy. In the case of Iraq, we supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, only to fight two wars against him in the ensuing decades.

So the problem you have is that, yeah, ideally the US could use its status as superpower to "be the world's policeman." Practically speaking, you're going to get ill-considered actions designed with self-interest in mind that, more often than not, are simply going to self-propagate over the years. This is exacerbated by the fact that we're a democratic republic, and not a dictatorship. What exactly constitutes our "self-interest" is not going to stay stable. What the Democrats consider to be in the nation's best interests in terms of foreign policy will frequently not match what the GOP thinks.

On the other hand, if you leave it to the UN, you prove the adage that "too many cooks spoil the pot," and even if they didn't, you have a council, wielding veto power, with wildly divergent interests.

National sovereignty's a bitch, ain't she?

Just to really make things "fun" - it's easy to talk about going into Darfur and putting a stop to the genocidal campaign there...but what do you do if Darfur were a nuclear power, particularly if the dudes with the finger on the button didn't want you there? It's a thought worth considering, particularly since China's human rights record isn't the greatest, and they DO have nukes. Russia's got the gulags in its not-so-distant history. If either of those nations were to reprise Darfur on a massive scale, would you support military intervention?

If you're going to play the world's policeman, you have to take full measure of what that means, because the minute you start making exceptions, your credibility is going to be shot, and that just makes the job that much harder. If you believe that it's America's responsibility to be the world's policeman, to what extent are you willing to commit the nation?

I realize all of that probably sounds incredibly cynical. Maybe it is. I'm not trying to advocate an isolationist policy here; I'm just saying that being "the world's policeman" is a few orders of magnitude more complicated than just putting boots on the ground.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

What about policewomen? Angie Dickinson?

she really was hot back in da day.

[lordscarlet]

Wow. I was going to vote until I saw the true Bubba Wheels flavor. Is it too much to ask that the answers be unbiased? I know you're trying to troll here, but a simple "No, I don't think we should" would be helpful, rather than implying much more with your "no" answer.

[rkmsuf]

John Spartan could do the job.

[Butter]

"Uncle Ben in Spiderman?"

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, he said we need more rice to do the job.

[Cringer]

We should send Condi then?

[JediKooter]

The unfortunate thing is (to me), that no matter what the 'cause', it's always politcal.

And this poll is useless without the trout option.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I second this.

Of course, if there's no oil there, the US doesn't really try and spread their democracy.

Wish that were so, but how much oil does Bosnia and Kosovo have?

[Flasch186]

they had genocidal blood on the ground....my Jewish sweet spot on the bat, sorry. Unfortunately not as valuable as oil I suppose.

[aran]

The "yes" option should read "Yes, I'm excited to force all of my ethical ideas down other people's throats." Because that's what it implies.

Because you have the power to do something doesn't mean that it should be done. The more often power is exercised the worse the public opinion of that power is going to be.

[Dutch]

Iraq was a humanitarian crisis under the rule of Saddam Hussein, under the rule of the UN sanctions, and under the occupation of the US. Unlike the first to instances, they are not a threat to the US economy or a threat to arm with nuclear power. Worth the investment? Obviously that's heavily debated and it basically falls along party lines in the US, with Republicans in the minority. But what about the way ahead under Gore? Things would have gone differently, no doubt, but how?

Presumably, UN sanctions would have been lifted off of Iraq (the EU and Russia contractor based incentives were beginning to push for this if we recall) and the US would still be enemy #1....and how close would Saddam Hussein and his sons be to having their nuclear weapons (whether through development or from resale)?

I will always agree that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a risky move. And risk means the possability of failure.

Right now, the way that Iraq ultimately becomes a failure is the day a fundamentalist/radical religious government assumes control. That largely rests upon the shoulders of the current Iraqi government and it's army and security forces.

And to be fair, the way to success is a government and securty force that is strong enough to police itself and rejoin the league of nations as a contributor and not as a rogue element.

Both victory and failure seem far-fetched without a change in our policy. But which end result do we want? Do we have the power to achieve either or just failure? The populist theory is that we can achieve no victory and Iraq will always just be a rogue state threatening the US with violence. I disagree.

Anyway, we are policing in places that have needed it. We aren't policing "the world". Just places that have distinct US interests and places that a void would be filled one way or another by one group or another. To not invoke our influence over parts of the world where influence will be invoked anyway by our rivals is bad business. Isolationism in today's modern world is a b-line to failed economic strategy.

I do not agree with policing everywhere. Policing humanitarian tragedy's would be the subject of the world police. I've said it before and I'll continue saying it, if the UN truly wants to make it's mark on this planet, it needs to step up to the plate in places like Darfur, which is a crisis that we should all be sympathetic with. However, the problem with the UN right now is it's dominated by US money. There are 6 billion people on the planet, that think they are getting a free ride on Uncle Sam's dime. That has got to stop, especially if the end result is a diminished influence role over the areas that effect the US economy.

The difference is and always will be that places like Iraq are critical to US interests while Darfur is not. Nobody is suggesting that Iraq be the 51st state, we are just asking that they act properly and fairly among the nation states of this planet. That is not " forcing ethical ideology down people's throats"...that's forcing "action-consequence" or "have some fucking internal responsability" on a rogue state. There's a difference.