Should we be the world's policeman?

[Bubba Wheels]

Interesting discussion with Flash in another thread. We differ on the coming U.S. role in world events. I say we started Iraq and we need to finish it, but after that we quit being the policeman for an ungrateful world where its our kids getting maimed and killed. He sees it differently, and I respect that. But I wonder out of this sample, how many here see us as becoming the willing global cop? Boston Legal had something on this last Sunday night, and I really do see this as looming large in the near future. I am dead set against it, and will leave the GOP in a heartbeat if they advocate this.

[Dutch]

The bottom line is that we didn't oust Saddam Hussein or the Taliban in Afghanistan to help the world, we did it to help ourselves. The world and Iraqi's and Afghan's just happened to be beneficiaries of that.

As for Bosnia/Herzogovena/Slovakia/Ethiopia/Sudan/Mogadishu and the next one in the list? I've lost my belief that one day the world will ever again appreciate how much we help.

If we help, the international media tells their people we are evil for trying to buy favor. If we don't help, they say we are evil and don't care.

So the true answer, who knows?

[Ragone]

I think you have to be careful.. we cannot let places become rogue states.. festering grounds for terrorist activities and such..

and i especially don't think we should help out countries who just stood by and did nothing after 9/11 (france for instance)

[SackAttack]

I think it's a no-win scenario.

If we get involved as the world's policeman (or, more properly, remain involved as such), then we're a focal target for "all the rage and hate," as Herman Melville might've said. Groups in unstable countries with agendas in opposition to ours (or, perhaps, the global community's) will still use the United States as kind of the bull's-eye to draw new members to the fold. Kinda how the Iraqi terror groups are currently operating, actually.

If, on the other hand, we withdraw completely, we still act as a focus for the hatred of extreme groups in those countries. Instead of "look at the meddling Americans," it becomes "Look at the lazy Americans, sitting smug and secure with their wealth while your children starve in squalor." And, perhaps, those groups attempt to bring further terror attacks over here in an extortionary effort. "Give us what we want, or we show you what it's like to watch your children die as we have had to do." Instead of our boys dying overseas, perhaps we face the prospect of them dying on our own soil.

I could go a little deeper into that, maybe, but I think that's an entirely different can of worms.

We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. If we get involved, we're a bunch of overbearing imperialists. If we don't get involved, we're typical uncaring Americans (and probably devil-worshippers) who are content to sit on the sidelines in relative prosperity while much of the undeveloped world suffers under the yoke of oppression.

[Easy Mac]

I don't think we're seen as "ungrateful", but rather we're seen as selectively policing the world. I think the problem is, police have their own agenda. Put a nation behind that force, and it looks like you're pushing it down everyone's throat, even if you feel like you have altruistic motives. I'm fine with backing off the world stage and waiting for people to say help us... to an extent. I think there are certain times when we say things have gone too far (the holocaust being the extreme example). Also, this comes from the "why should I pay for Sanjay's protection when I don't see our own nation breaking its back for me" mentality.

On the other hand, nations don't last forever, so why shouldn't we use what we have. Chances are, America probably only has another 200-500 years to do something with the world (assuming thats the normal lifespan for previous "superpowers" through history), so why not try to make it better before we become just another player.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ragone

I think you have to be careful.. we cannot let places become rogue states.. festering grounds for terrorist activities and such..

and i especially don't think we should help out countries who just stood by and did nothing after 9/11 (france for instance)

There are plenty of reasons to be angry at the French Government, but after 9/11 they did sent their soldiers to Afghanistan, which was very generous.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The bottom line is that we didn't oust Saddam Hussein to help the world, we did it to help ourselves. The world and Iraq just happened to be beneficiaries of that.

As for Bosnia/Herzogovena/Slavia/Ethiopia/Sudan/Mogadishu and the next one in the list? I've lost my belief that one day the world will ever again appreciate how much we help.

If we help, the international media tells their people we are evil for trying to buy favor. If we don't help, they say we are evil and don't care.

So the true answer, who knows?

Yes, but that's caring about what the rest of the world thinks of us being or not being the world's cop (and I don't care what they think.) I would just really like to know if there are many who think that we actually should do this or if we even have an obligation to do this for moral reasons. Cause rest assured, it we do this even if 100 countries sign up with us for it 80%+ of the kids doing the job are going to be ours...from the United States.

[Ragone]

Originally Posted by Dutch

There are plenty of reasons to be angry at the French Government, but after 9/11 they did sent their soldiers to Afghanistan, which was very generous.

Yea, i guess someone had to cook..

Bad humor aside, i didn't care for the i told you so attitude the french seemed to have after 9/11

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Ragone

I think you have to be careful.. we cannot let places become rogue states.. festering grounds for terrorist activities and such..

and i especially don't think we should help out countries who just stood by and did nothing after 9/11 (france for instance)

So let's say France were to be the target of a major Al Qaeda plot. Let's say they conspired to bring down the Eiffel Tower, and succeeded. You would choose to stand by and do nothing, because France "did nothing" after 9/11?

How does that bolster our argument that terrorism is a global threat, and must be faced globally, if we only respond when our own interests, or those of nations that "stood with us" after 9/11 are threatened? If our ultimate goal is, in fact, the eradication of terror as a threat to the world, do you think such an decision would serve that goal?

[Ragone]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

So let's say France were to be the target of a major Al Qaeda plot. Let's say they conspired to bring down the Eiffel Tower, and succeeded. You would choose to stand by and do nothing, because France "did nothing" after 9/11?

How does that bolster our argument that terrorism is a global threat, and must be faced globally, if we only respond when our own interests, or those of nations that "stood with us" after 9/11 are threatened? If our ultimate goal is, in fact, the eradication of terror as a threat to the world, do you think such an decision would serve that goal?

France would likely turn down our help or surrender, thusly making this a moot point

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Ragone

France would likely turn down our help or surrender, thusly making this a moot point

You're avoiding the issue. The issue isn't whether they would want us to help. The issue is whether or not it would be proper to refuse to help them because they "did nothing" when it was our turn on the hot seat.

[Ragone]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You're avoiding the issue. The issue isn't whether they would want us to help. The issue is whether or not it would be proper to refuse to help them because they "did nothing" when it was our turn on the hot seat.

Ok, say you had a friend in trouble who would never accept help for anything no matter what, would you still ask if he needs help?

[Telle]

I don't think we should be the world's policeman, but I do think we should do our part in multinational efforts when there is a need. I don't think that we have the responsibility, or even the right, to go out and try to fix all the world's problem areas. However, I wouldn't recommend turning a blind eye either. We need to have balance and be a team player when it comes to engaging the world in this manner.

[Peregrine]

Ok, say you had a friend in trouble who would never accept help for anything no matter what, would you still ask if he needs help?

In my opinion, if you didn't, you wouldn't be the person's friend.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Ok, say you had a friend in trouble who would never accept help for anything no matter what, would you still ask if he needs help?

If its your friend you would.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Ok, say you had a friend in trouble who would never accept help for anything no matter what, would you still ask if he needs help?

I think the key word there is "friend." If he's your friend, you make the offer. If he turns it down, that's his own responsibility, but if your friend's in trouble, and you possess the wherewithal to help him, you should.

But let me turn that back on you. If you saw somebody get mugged on the street, and you had the ability to either stop it from happening, or help the victim recover what gets stolen from him, would you seriously stop to consider whether he's your friend or not before you stepped in?

"Oh, that's Bob, he didn't return my tools. Serves him right, getting mugged like that."

Somehow, that doesn't set too well with me.

[Ragone]

Yea, friend was a bad choice of words.. cause i'd hardly call US and france friends..

And as far as the mugging goes, i'd have to weigh my own personal safety above a strangers ( i got people who depend on me.. its not a selfish view by any means, at least i don't think it is)

[Bubba Wheels]

Seems to me, that this was what the U.N. was set up for. We were supposed to be a part of that, but not the whole frigg'n enchilada. Then the rest of the world decides that they won't or can't so we start stepping forward to do it cause we have the biggest military and all. Now that's become the status quo, the 'let the U.S. do it, they be the biggest." So now we continue to keep the biggest tax-draining military not just for self-defence, but because we owe it to everybody else to keep the world safe? And Carlos, and Rolf, and Jaque, ect... all want to live the good life in Spain and Germany and France so we need it to be our kids that go pay the price for a safe world because it ultimately benefits us? I just don't get it, how this thinking seems to keep escalating that its always going to be us, or mostly us.

[Ragone]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You don't think friends are capable of having disagreements or fights?



So why is there a problem with France having "done nothing" after 9/11? If your worldview is such that you would put your personal safety ahead of your ability to help the person in need, then why is France in any way compelled to assist us when we're attacked? Don't they have the same right to put the personal safety of their soldiers above "a stranger's"?

They do, just as long as they don't expect our help in return.. or cry/bitch/moan about not getting help

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Yea, friend was a bad choice of words.. cause i'd hardly call US and france friends..

You don't think friends are capable of having disagreements or fights?

And as far as the mugging goes, i'd have to weigh my own personal safety above a strangers ( i got people who depend on me.. its not a selfish view by any means, at least i don't think it is)

So why is there a problem with France having "done nothing" after 9/11? If your worldview is such that you would put your personal safety ahead of your ability to help the person in need, then why is France in any way compelled to assist us when we're attacked? Don't they have the same right to put the personal safety of their soldiers above "a stranger's"?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Seems to me, that this was what the U.N. was set up for. We were supposed to be a part of that, but not the whole frigg'n enchilada. Then the rest of the world decides that they won't or can't so we start stepping forward to do it cause we have the biggest military and all. Now that's become the status quo, the 'let the U.S. do it, they be the biggest." So now we continue to keep the biggest tax-draining military not just for self-defence, but because we owe it to everybody else to keep the world safe? And Carlos, and Rolf, and Jaque, ect... all want to live the good life in Spain and Germany and France so we need it to be our kids that go pay the price for a safe world because it ultimately benefits us? I just don't get it, how this thinking seems to keep escalating that its always going to be us, or mostly us.

The problem with global organizations like the UN is that, ultimately, one of Communism's principles comes into play:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

A country such as, say, East Timor doesn't have the same resources as your US, your England, your France or Germany, but they generally have more need of what the UN has to offer. So what ends up happening is that your large, industrialized nations foot the bill and receive comparatively little of the resources the UN doles out. If every country received UN assistance on a scale relative to what they pay into the system, what would be the point of having the UN at all?

[Ragone]

My biggest problem is all the money we throw at 3rd world nations. when we have people living in the us who are just as destitute/dire need

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Ragone

France would likely turn down our help or surrender, thusly making this a moot point

That's silly. A cursory read of the current events will turn up the fact that recent French military activity in west Africa was quite heavy-handed (and some may say just as neo-colonialist as anything the US has done in the past 5 years).

Anybody who just assumes that France will roll over and play dead is under-estimating them. They have shown throughout the post WWII period that it will defend it's interests ruthlessly and unethically, if necessary. They actually play the self-interest game better than most...

Nobody knows what will happen in the next 20 years, but a resurgent and re-militarized Europe is not out of the realm of possibility. The Euro is rapidly becoming the global currency of choice in many sectors, and the dollar is pretty weak right now. We do not share the same values and interests, and I forsee a future of more open hostility--the costs to us in trade wars and defense expenditures to counter Western European (along with the more recognized Chinese and Russian) ambitions could potentially be more costly to us in the long run than what is being incurred in the "war on terrorism".

[Sharpieman]

I don't want world police for a different reason. If we have world police, then aren't we getting rid of the obligation of the US to be a leader in the world? More importantly, doesn't that mean we are giving up on creating coalitions and warm relations with other nations? Its a horrible idea, leave the control of in the hands of individual countries, leave the responsibility of military and humanitarian actions in the hands of the international community and the responsibilty of being the moral and humanitarian rights leader to the US.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The problem with global organizations like the UN is that, ultimately, one of Communism's principles comes into play:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

A country such as, say, East Timor doesn't have the same resources as your US, your England, your France or Germany, but they generally have more need of what the UN has to offer. So what ends up happening is that your large, industrialized nations foot the bill and receive comparatively little of the resources the UN doles out. If every country received UN assistance on a scale relative to what they pay into the system, what would be the point of having the UN at all?

So your in agreement with my 'status quo' theory: That because the U.S. has the largest military and has been using our kids to fight for 'world peace' that makes it the best plan of action for the future?

[Loren]

Originally Posted by Ragone

France would likely turn down our help or surrender, thusly making this a moot point

first off, your comments are, i dont know how else to say it but immature in thought and just completely elementary, SEVERAL countries gave us "i told you so's" and ya know what, they DIDDD and they have EVERY right to stand by their original thoughts, cuz we screwed ourselves in this war by focusing on sweet revenge we now have Americans dying daily, and they're not even dying in Afghanistan ..
2nd of all, I dont see us becoming the world's policemen because I think we already have for some reason in our normal "higher than thou" attitudes we have the need to make every other country like ours and make sure they're all "safe" when it's really none of our business..right now "our" kids arent out there soo maybe thats why a lot of people here might not have a problem with it, but like you say one day it will be. I was working at our city's vital stats office for a while and I was having these recruiters come in for these, and as old as it makes me feel, KID'S birth certificates because they were shipping em out like mad.. just turned 17 and 18 yr old kids, and im sorry but im about 99.9 percent sure they dont know what they're REALLY getting themselves into, because WE still dont know what we're really doing over there, it's all pretty sad...so yeah i see it's already happened, and no i dont like it.. but we cant do crap about it..
I dooo see that we as a country, are damned if we do and damned if we dont though, as shown recently by the whining about how little we gave in money to the tsunami fund..but we always have been. We doo need to stop sticking our noses into every other other country though, if a country as a whole doesnt want our help then we dont need to be interjecting. Anddd we didnt go into this to go after Saddam in the first place, I cant beleive people still dont acnowledge that as for terrorism, why dont we worry about the terrorists that reside in our country as it is and the lack of military we currently have here...i wish ever single thing could be put to a vote ]

[Loren]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Yea, friend was a bad choice of words.. cause i'd hardly call US and france friends..

And as far as the mugging goes, i'd have to weigh my own personal safety above a strangers ( i got people who depend on me.. its not a selfish view by any means, at least i don't think it is)

yeah umm that's selfish.. I have people who depend on me too, but Id rather they know I tried to help someone and wasnt an ass and did the RIGHT thing not just stand there watching someone being mugged or killed:|
hmm that doesnt somehow make my thoughts on America not intruding in other countries hypocritical does it DAMMNIT

[clintl]

No one nation has a legitimate right to be the world's policeman without the consent of an overwhelming majority of the rest of the world's nations.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

So your in agreement with my 'status quo' theory: That because the U.S. has the largest military and has been using our kids to fight for 'world peace' that makes it the best plan of action for the future?

Now, see, I didn't say that. What I said is that when you have an international community with members from all over the economic spectrum, it almost has to run on that Communistic principle.

Why? A small nation isn't going to join the UN unless there's a tangible benefit for them above and beyond what they could accomplish on their own, and they assuredly cannot contribute on the same scale that the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, et. al. can.

I don't say that it's right or wrong for international relations to operate that way, only that they invariably head down that path once you have rich and poor in cooperation with one another.

To address your other point, the United States, for what it's worth, does not have the largest military. I think the North Koreans and Chinese might argue that point (and hell, the Israelis may as well). It might be more apt to say that we have is the best-trained, best-equipped military. That sounds like splitting hairs, but it really isn't.

[Ragone]

Originally Posted by Loren

first off, your comments are, i dont know how else to say it but immature in thought and just completely elementary, SEVERAL countries gave us "i told you so's" and ya know what, they DIDDD and they have EVERY right to stand by their original thoughts, cuz we screwed ourselves in this war by focusing on sweet revenge we now have Americans dying daily, and they're not even dying in Afghanistan ..
2nd of all, I dont see us becoming the world's policemen because I think we already have for some reason in our normal "higher than thou" attitudes we have the need to make every other country like ours and make sure they're all "safe" when it's really none of our business..right now "our" kids arent out there soo maybe thats why a lot of people here might not have a problem with it, but like you say one day it will be. I was working at our city's vital stats office for a while and I was having these recruiters come in for these, and as old as it makes me feel, KID'S birth certificates because they were shipping em out like mad.. just turned 17 and 18 yr old kids, and im sorry but im about 99.9 percent sure they dont know what they're REALLY getting themselves into, because WE still dont know what we're really doing over there, it's all pretty sad...so yeah i see it's already happened, and no i dont like it.. but we cant do crap about it..
I dooo see that we as a country, are damned if we do and damned if we dont though, as shown recently by the whining about how little we gave in money to the tsunami fund..but we always have been. We doo need to stop sticking our noses into every other other country though, if a country as a whole doesnt want our help then we dont need to be interjecting. Anddd we didnt go into this to go after Saddam in the first place, I cant beleive people still dont acnowledge that as for terrorism, why dont we worry about the terrorists that reside in our country as it is and the lack of military we currently have here...i wish ever single thing could be put to a vote

For one thing, that was a firmly tongue in cheek standard fofc response to anything french related.. but thats besides the point..

If every single thing was put to a vote as you put it.. we'd never get anything done.. would we have to vote on whether something was needed to be voted on? or vote on whether voting on something being needed to be voted on was needed? Hell, i just confused myself.

Point being the more red tape you add, the less that gets done.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Now, see, I didn't say that. What I said is that when you have an international community with members from all over the economic spectrum, it almost has to run on that Communistic principle.

Why? A small nation isn't going to join the UN unless there's a tangible benefit for them above and beyond what they could accomplish on their own, and they assuredly cannot contribute on the same scale that the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, et. al. can.

I don't say that it's right or wrong for international relations to operate that way, only that they invariably head down that path once you have rich and poor in cooperation with one another.

To address your other point, the United States, for what it's worth, does not have the largest military. I think the North Koreans and Chinese might argue that point (and hell, the Israelis may as well). It might be more apt to say that we have is the best-trained, best-equipped military. That sounds like splitting hairs, but it really isn't.

How about just the 'most expensive' military, and the only one that seems to be getting used on a pretty regular basis. And it ain't for defending our borders either.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Loren

i wish ever single thing could be put to a vote

No, you don't. For one thing, the majority of the electorate is uninformed, and will vote based either upon how it impacts them personally, or, lacking a personal impact, based on what they believe from the mouths of their elected officials.

Now, combine that with an active and powerful lobbying interest, and do you still think it would be a good idea to let your average citizen cast a vote on every matter of domestic and state, and national importance? Is an average citizen of California qualified to pass judgment on what events should take place in Rhode Island?

[Loren]

[quote=Ragone] Hell, i just confused myself.QUOTE]

let's not vote for you
sorrry I guess I dont fit in, I have nothing against the French

and nooo we wouldnt vote on what would get voted on, that's kindve a little kid thought as well.. but MAJOR issues, yess..and things arent getting done NOW as it is..

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

How about just the 'most expensive' military, and the only one that seems to be getting used on a pretty regular basis. And it ain't for defending our borders either.

Most of developed Europe places a higher priority on social services than we do. Such priorities necessarily reduce the amount available for defense spending.

Russia hasn't been in shape financially to match our spending on defense since the Cold War.

Japan is enjoined under the terms of their surrender in World War II from fielding a military deployable abroad, and I believe Germany may be as well.

China has a military, but they're also incredibly introverted on the world stage. Their military gaze is focused pretty squarely on a handful of territories within their sphere of influence - Taiwan, Tibet, and so forth. Breakaway territories which they consider to be a part of sovereign China, in other words.

The Koreas are still technically at war with one another, despite a 30+ year cease fire. Neither nation is much inclined to let their guard down, I shouldn't think. Nor Israel, for that matter, surrounded as they are by nations that would love nothing more than to eradicate them from the map.

That doesn't leave a whole lot of nations with the requisite defense spending or the national priorities to merit fielding a military that can be deployed abroad under such scenarios. If the world looks to us for action on that level, it's pretty much by default.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Loren

let's not vote for you
sorrry I guess I dont fit in, I have nothing against the French

and nooo we wouldnt vote on what would get voted on, that's kindve a little kid thought as well.. but MAJOR issues, yess..and things arent getting done NOW as it is..

You think they would if everybody had a vote? Let's say it's even just on the final bills, rather than a vote on whether bills should come up for a vote.

Take a look at the legal battles waged during the last two Presidential elections, and at the allegations of voter fraud. You don't think we'd see more of the same if the electorate had an increased say in what happens? If anything, I'd bet we see an increase in preventative litigation under such a scenario.

[Loren]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Is an average citizen of California qualified to pass judgment on what events should take place in Rhode Island?

I'm holding back my "men" comment here....on issues that concern the ENTIRE country, yess i doo still think things should be voted on, we personally CAN have a say in what happens in our cities, counties and states, soo why couldnt we have one when it comes to our nation as a whole....your comment from above though, i think could be changed to relate to this thread though, California = the US, Rhode Island=Everyone else....

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Most of developed Europe places a higher priority on social services than we do. Such priorities necessarily reduce the amount available for defense spending.

Russia hasn't been in shape financially to match our spending on defense since the Cold War.

Japan is enjoined under the terms of their surrender in World War II from fielding a military deployable abroad, and I believe Germany may be as well.

China has a military, but they're also incredibly introverted on the world stage. Their military gaze is focused pretty squarely on a handful of territories within their sphere of influence - Taiwan, Tibet, and so forth. Breakaway territories which they consider to be a part of sovereign China, in other words.

The Koreas are still technically at war with one another, despite a 30+ year cease fire. Neither nation is much inclined to let their guard down, I shouldn't think. Nor Israel, for that matter, surrounded as they are by nations that would love nothing more than to eradicate them from the map.

That doesn't leave a whole lot of nations with the requisite defense spending or the national priorities to merit fielding a military that can be deployed abroad under such scenarios. If the world looks to us for action on that level, it's pretty much by default.

Are you explaining this or advocating it? Because I understand everybody else has a 'good excuse' for not sending off their own kids to war, but I can promise you here and now mine ain't going either (unless our own borders get invaded, and speaking of which shouldn't that be exactly where our own military should be right now anyways?)

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Loren

I'm holding back my "men" comment here....on issues that concern the ENTIRE country, yess i doo still think things should be voted on, we personally CAN have a say in what happens in our cities, counties and states, soo why couldnt we have one when it comes to our nation as a whole....your comment from above though, i think could be changed to relate to this thread though, California = the US, Rhode Island=Everyone else....

I would argue that we do have our say in things that affect the entire country. That's what Congress is for, and a citizen, or a group of citizens, may go to court to challenge decisions that they believe to be illegal or otherwise not in the best interests of the nation at large. A direct democracy becomes a reflection of the social values at any given time, and I'm not sure that's the proper route.

You could hold referendums, certainly, but if you make those referendums binding, then you remove the legislative and executive branches from the equation, leaving perhaps only the judicial branch of the government as a safeguard of civil rights for those in the minority.

For that matter, I have not advocated unilateral action in this thread (whether or not I would do so is a matter for another thread, I think), so I'm not sure your California = US/Rhode Island = rest of the world comparison is terribly apt.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Are you explaining this or advocating it? Because I understand everybody else has a 'good excuse' for not sending off their own kids to war, but I can promise you here and now mine ain't going either (unless our own borders get invaded, and speaking of which shouldn't that be exactly where our own military should be right now anyways?)

More explaining than anything else, I think. What it boils down to is "you say tomato, I say tomahtoe." Either we're the world's policeman because we're the nation with the resources and priorities to be such, or we're the nation that sits on the sidelines and intervenes only when asked - which would be more often than you might think, because, as previously stated, we're one of the few nations of the world in a position to act.

Thomas Jefferson once said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Which is another way of saying, I suppose, "if not us, who?"

Our military is intended for our national defense, but a reactive defense isn't necessarily better than a proactive one. France and England chose to react to Germany's actions in 1939, rather than proactively short-circuit the Teutonic rearming - as they had every right to do under the Treaty of Versailles. Four years of possibly unnecessary horror and bloodshed followed.

Sometimes, you sit back and let the fight come to you, but that's not always the best course of action.

[Klinglerware]

I buy the argument that direct democracy will probably result in a tyranny of the majority. The founders set up our country with the assumption that many cannot really be trusted to make policy decisions--and they set up safeguards accordingly (like the Bill of Rights to protect ourselves from ourselves, for example). Elitist, yes, but with our generally uninformed electorate, it is sadly true to some extent...

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I buy the argument that direct democracy will probably result in a tyranny of the majority. The founders set up our country with the assumption that many cannot really be trusted to make policy decisions--and they set up safeguards accordingly (like the Bill of Rights to protect ourselves from ourselves, for example). Elitist, yes, but with our generally uninformed electorate, it is sadly true to some extent...

To a large extent. People make decisions based on self-interest. It's the essence of survival. The thing is, though, that they take the self-interest principle from local decisions that influence mainly themselves, and apply it to everybody.

The 1860s South, for example, believed that the maintenance of slavery was in their self-interest, and secession followed. You can make the argument that it was also about the ability of states to determine their own fate, but that was the core issue that was driving the "states rights" bandwagon to begin with.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

More explaining than anything else, I think. What it boils down to is "you say tomato, I say tomahtoe." Either we're the world's policeman because we're the nation with the resources and priorities to be such, or we're the nation that sits on the sidelines and intervenes only when asked - which would be more often than you might think, because, as previously stated, we're one of the few nations of the world in a position to act.

Thomas Jefferson once said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Which is another way of saying, I suppose, "if not us, who?"

Our military is intended for our national defense, but a reactive defense isn't necessarily better than a proactive one. France and England chose to react to Germany's actions in 1939, rather than proactively short-circuit the Teutonic rearming - as they had every right to do under the Treaty of Versailles. Four years of possibly unnecessary horror and bloodshed followed.

Sometimes, you sit back and let the fight come to you, but that's not always the best course of action.

Well, that's all fine and dandy. But right now its an all volunteer military so you can argue those going to fight knew what they might be getting into when they joined. The question will soon become, given the severe manpower shortages that are starting to appear in the military, are we willing to send those to fight who have no choice?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I buy the argument that direct democracy will probably result in a tyranny of the majority. The founders set up our country with the assumption that many cannot really be trusted to make policy decisions--and they set up safeguards accordingly (like the Bill of Rights to protect ourselves from ourselves, for example). Elitist, yes, but with our generally uninformed electorate, it is sadly true to some extent...

That is why, those who study it for themselves understand we live in a republic, while those who are content to have others tell them what to believe (like the mainstream media) will tell you we live in a democracy.

[Neon_Chaos]

Question: Should America be the world's policeman?

Answer: No. Why should America try to be an intrusive force?

Reality: Yes. Noone else is going to do it, and it's not like anyone in the fucking world can stop America anyway.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

"It is well that war is so terrible, or else we should grow to love it too much." - Robert E. Lee.

"War is hell." - General William Tecumseh Sherman

Nobody said the defense of liberty is an easy thing. However, it seems to me that somebody who enjoys the rights and privileges of citizenry in a free nation should be willing to assume the inherent responsibilities that accompany those rights and privileges. Sometimes, that means you take your gun and go off to fight the good fight. There are nations that make military service compulsory - the Koreas and Israel would be examples of such. Those people don't have any choice either.

What our democracy relies on is the ability and willingness of its citizens to realize that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." We could change the laws to make military service compulsory, as it is in other nations, and avoid the debate about manpower shortages, but would those who entered a conflict under that scenario have a proper appreciation for what it is they're fighting to defend?

In this day and age? No.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, that's all fine and dandy. But right now its an all volunteer military so you can argue those going to fight knew what they might be getting into when they joined. The question will soon become, given the severe manpower shortages that are starting to appear in the military, are we willing to send those to fight who have no choice?

"It is well that war is so terrible, or else we should grow to love it too much." - Robert E. Lee.

"War is hell." - General William Tecumseh Sherman

Nobody said the defense of liberty is an easy thing. However, it seems to me that somebody who enjoys the rights and privileges of citizenry in a free nation should be willing to assume the inherent responsibilities that accompany those rights and privileges. Sometimes, that means you take your gun and go off to fight the good fight. There are nations that make military service compulsory - the Koreas and Israel would be examples of such. Those people don't have any choice either.

What our democracy relies on is the ability and willingness of its citizens to realize that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." We could change the laws to make military service compulsory, as it is in other nations, and avoid the debate about manpower shortages, but would those who entered a conflict under that scenario have a proper appreciation for what it is they're fighting to defend?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

"It is well that war is so terrible, or else we should grow to love it too much." - Robert E. Lee.

"War is hell." - General William Tecumseh Sherman

Nobody said the defense of liberty is an easy thing. However, it seems to me that somebody who enjoys the rights and privileges of citizenry in a free nation should be willing to assume the inherent responsibilities that accompany those rights and privileges. Sometimes, that means you take your gun and go off to fight the good fight. There are nations that make military service compulsory - the Koreas and Israel would be examples of such. Those people don't have any choice either.

What our democracy relies on is the ability and willingness of its citizens to realize that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." We could change the laws to make military service compulsory, as it is in other nations, and avoid the debate about manpower shortages, but would those who entered a conflict under that scenario have a proper appreciation for what it is they're fighting to defend?

Again, I'm not talking about defending our own borders (like Israel and Korea each have a draft to do for their own.) I'm talking about drafting kids to send them overseas to fight terrorists and terrorist countries because we either owe it to someone else in a moral sense...or even as I can't believe I'm reading from some because we just 'have the stuff to do it with, and nobody else does." Is this what you advocate and support?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Again, I'm not talking about defending our own borders (like Israel and Korea each have a draft to do for their own.) I'm talking about drafting kids to send them overseas to fight terrorists and terrorist countries because we either owe it to someone else in a moral sense...or even as I can't believe I'm reading from some because we just 'have the stuff to do it with, and nobody else does." Is this what you advocate and support?

Or, perhaps, because the proactive sacrifice now may avert a more painful sacrifice a few years down the line. As I said, had England and France taken a stand and stopped Hitler in 1939, not only would it have saved countless thousands of lives that were lost during the Allied European invasion, but about six million people put to death under the Nazi regime between 1939 and 1945 would have stood a greater shot at survival. Think about that for a moment.

It's easy to sit here now and analyze what the short-term impact of acting or not acting might be, but the long-term impact is nearly always 20/20 hindsight. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, as my grandmother might say.

From the moral perspective, though, how can we expect nations of the world to stand with us, regardless of whether their ability to stand matches ours, if we're unwilling to reciprocate?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Ragone

My biggest problem is all the money we throw at 3rd world nations. when we have people living in the us who are just as destitute/dire need

We hardly "throw" any money around at all. Foreign aid, which is a vital part of any government's foreign policy (it's necessary to pad a few pockets for the benefits of American tourists, American businessmen, American Missionaries, and other citizens abroad), is very low, especially when compared with other industrial nations. On average, we spend around 1% of our budget on foreign aid each year. That's hardly alot of money.

-Anxiety

[randal7]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, that's all fine and dandy. But right now its an all volunteer military so you can argue those going to fight knew what they might be getting into when they joined. The question will soon become, given the severe manpower shortages that are starting to appear in the military, are we willing to send those to fight who have no choice?

I think if the mission of our military came to include things like going into countries, say Rwanda, where Group A is committing genocide on Group B, kicking the crap out of Group A, and helping Group B rebuild/rise up out of their primitive conditions, you would have no shortage of people who would want to join, and who would make the military their career. Don't underestimate the desire of people to do something heroic/make a difference.