• Should America be the World's Policeman?
    40 replies, posted
[HD]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=176KRhEAgUs[/HD]
So it sounds like UN needs to stop being pointless in its peacekeeping role in order for the US to step down from being the world police. No single country should police the world and it should be the United Nations job to keep the influence of these nations in check.
[QUOTE=DeandreT;47804850]So it sounds like UN needs to stop being pointless in its peacekeeping role in order for the US to step down from being the world police. No single country should police the world and it should be the United Nations job to keep the influence of these nations in check.[/QUOTE] Pretty much, like it or not it's a job that someone has to do, but so far the UN is pretty much incapable of accomplishing anything and most of the US' allies and their "coalition of the willing" are content to sit back and let the US handle most of it.
So the thesis is that American commitment to world peace and security must be upheld in order to maintain "Pax Americana" and eliminate all the bad dictatorships and states in the world... ... And this thesis is made without any mention that the United States has constantly supported brutal and violent totalitarian regimes which have always resulted in violent and destabilized regions through-out the world. Thanks, "PragerUniversity" -- the channel set up by Dennis Prager who thinks America is doomed without Christianity and believe Obama is literally a sleeper agent installed by Europe.
Can we stop posting these jerkoffs? Give the power to police to the UN, there is no reason to have a singular military hegemon, and America is not one of the ones that should be, especially with its record on "peace keeping" so far and seeking its own interests over those of the global or regional well-being.
Seems like a pretty fishy video, although I do agree that the UN needs to grow some balls.
I haven't even watched the video and I'm not sure if I should I can smell it can you smell it? it's the smell of [B]bullshit[/B]
[quote]Should America be the World's Policeman?[/quote] Hell no, do you want black people to become extinct? Next question please.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47804904]So the thesis is that American commitment to world peace and security must be upheld in order to maintain "Pax Americana" and eliminate all the bad dictatorships and states in the world... ... And this thesis is made without any mention that the United States has constantly supported brutal and violent totalitarian regimes which have always resulted in violent and destabilized regions through-out the world. Thanks, "PragerUniversity" -- the channel set up by Dennis Prager who thinks America is doomed without Christianity and believe Obama is literally a sleeper agent installed by Europe.[/QUOTE] To think that some people actually believe that a brutal authoritarian dictator is better than a democratically elected socialist.
The United States is hardly a world policeman. The only time the U.S. cares is when its own economic or political interests are at risk. If the U.S. has no use in you the U.S. doesn't care If we truly cared about stopping the bad people the media would be blasting about all the bad things in the world. B. The Spheres of influence isn't well described, however the U.S. has its own Sphere of influence,and it cant be said that our mission is to "bring peace and freedom to the world". In the end the U.S. is a government ran by politicians no different from any other. Ethics, has always taken a back seat to economics are power in politics. The U.S. shouldn't be a world police,because its a government that will act in its own interests. This is really a problem with no good solution.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;47804994]Hell no, do you want black people to become extinct? Next question please.[/QUOTE] you mean [URL="http://www.doamuslims.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MuslimChildren-1.jpg"]TERRORISTS[/URL]?
[QUOTE=DeandreT;47804850]So it sounds like UN needs to stop being pointless in its peacekeeping role in order for the US to step down from being the world police. No single country should police the world and it should be the United Nations job to keep the influence of these nations in check.[/QUOTE] The UN can't police stuff because: 1. It relies on other members giving their membership willingly. If the UN said "lol we can now invade shit and do peacekeeping missions everywhere" then most countries would start withdrawing since that'd a direct challenge to their sovereignty. 2. The UN, by definition, can't take sides in things. One of the big reasons for the veto is because it forced super powers to try and negotiate to push their will instead of one side or the other just stomping over the other. [editline]25th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Another Hater;47805055]The United States is hardly a world policeman. The only time the U.S. cares is when its own economic or political interests are at risk. If the U.S. has no use in you the U.S. doesn't care If we truly cared about stopping the bad people the media would be blasting about all the bad things in the world. B. The Spheres of influence isn't well described, however the U.S. has its own Sphere of influence,and it cant be said that our mission is to "bring peace and freedom to the world". In the end the U.S. is a government ran by politicians no different from any other. Ethics, has always taken a back seat to economics are power in politics. The U.S. shouldn't be a world police,because its a government that will act in its own interests. This is really a problem with no good solution.[/QUOTE] US peace keeping is more than invasions. Many things the US does can't be linked directly to money or influence. The US is one of the single largest distributors of foreign aid, and it's not just to Western Europe and Saudi Arabia.
"No one wants to live in a world where there is no cop" I would and you wanna know why you didn't fully premise that statement. I would live in a world where there were no criminals and no police. A world of peace and harmony.
[QUOTE=Aide;47805199]"No one wants to live in a world where there is no cop" I would and you wanna know why you didn't fully premise that statement. I would live in a world where there were no criminals and no police. A world of peace and harmony.[/QUOTE] So a world without people.
A society without police is possible in the sense that the community takes an active part in the enforcement of democratically-chosen laws and regulation. Not possible in today's hyper-capitalist world though.
[QUOTE=Another Hater;47805055]The United States is hardly a world policeman. The only time the U.S. cares is when its own economic or political interests are at risk.[/QUOTE] However, [I]Americans[/I] do care even when its not in their economic or political interests. In general they're some of the most charitable and well intentioned people. They just get manipulated. [video=youtube;pR4cgeJJPqg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4cgeJJPqg[/video]
He... he does realize that using Rwanda as a reason why the United States should be the global police is incredibly stupid right? I mean he's just being a manipulative douche, he's not honestly that moronic, right? You know who else didn't help Rwanda? THE FUCKING UNITED STATES! We were bound morally (and I believe legally but I can't find what treaty or law specifically binds us) to respond to reports of genocide with demonstrable action. The Clinton Administration knew of the Rwandan genocide, they had proof, but officials speaking with the public were told to use the term "acts of genocide" instead of simply "genocide" since if they did use the term "genocide" they would be acknowledging their knowledge to the public. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/10/world/officials-told-to-avoid-calling-rwanda-killings-genocide.html]THIS IS WELL DOCUMENTED[/url] Fuck this guy.
I believe actual educational videos don't have more than 1 instance of a cartoony ski-masked men hypothetically growing in the US.
The claim to the question of if the United States should be the global policeman cannot be divorced from claims to its efficacy as a "world policeman" - afterall, from 1940 till the cold war the United States enjoyed a status as a great power, and immedietly following the cold war enjoyed its status as a global hegemon. If we are going to critique the U.N. for failing, then let us not be so quick to not leverage similar criticisms to the United States. 500,000 people slaughtered in Rwanda. And what exactly was the United States, oh benevolent hegemon, doing while they were getting slaughtered? Oh right, nothing. A world where Russia gets to do what it wants to neighbors? What about a world where the United States intervenes to prop up dictators (Honduras, Nicaragua, Grenada, Chile, just to name a few) or murder civilians using its own laws to determine what constitutes lawful combatants (as in Iraq and Afghanistan, just to name a few). Its not a coincide that after the USA leaves Iraq ISIS comes in? Yeah well no shit sherlock. Thats what happens when you destroy a government, decimate a military, and leave a population starving and willing to accept basically any authority figure which can provide them governance. This video. Fuck this thing.
wait is it true that alot of people this /my generation don't know jack shit about the cold war
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;47805748]wait is it true that alot of people this /my generation don't know jack shit about the cold war[/QUOTE] Alot of people from the cold war generations don't know jack shit about the cold war.
Just expecting a video like "Should the rich be tax exempt? Click here to find out why the answer is yes!" "Ten reasons why America is a Christian nation!" "Do disabled people REALLY need that welfare?"
But nobody wants to acknowledge that ISIS was indirectly funded by the USA when we gave tons of supplies to rebels fighting Assad's regime who eventually joined ISIS.
[video=youtube;IhnUgAaea4M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M[/video] Dude was talking and talking and that's all I could hear.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47805224]A society without police is possible in the sense that the community takes an active part in the enforcement of democratically-chosen laws and regulation. Not possible in today's hyper-capitalist world though.[/QUOTE] Its not possible ever in a large scale or large population system. In smaller communities, its possible but you also run the risk of isolationist policies, fear of the outside and those not like people in the community which can lead to things such as violence against specific targets. The Salem Witch Trials is a textbook example of how policing by the community can go horrifically wrong.
[QUOTE=Aide;47805199]"No one wants to live in a world where there is no cop" I would and you wanna know why you didn't fully premise that statement. I would live in a world where there were no criminals and no police. A world of peace and harmony.[/QUOTE] what, like sweden?
We're necessary evil.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47805224]A society without police is possible in the sense that the community takes an active part in the enforcement of democratically-chosen laws and regulation. Not possible in today's hyper-capitalist world though.[/QUOTE] What capitalism has to do with it? It's human nature, we're not ants. Plus imagine how much money will it take to democratically install laws and regulations, and it will have to be direct democracy too. This kind of society will be very weak in terms of economy, effectively unstable. That's the same idea as with anarchy - yeah sure, it's probably [b]possible[/b], but the society will have to degrade to stone-age to be able to sustain itself. On topic, that's why I don't really believe in a strong UN. Countries are not all created equal, so to speak, and because of that bigger ones, most economically powerful, will simply not allow to create a system that would regulate and keep [b]themselves[/b] in check. So yeah, let's imagine that tomorrow UN completely changes, all the needed regulation is installed, SC membership is based on democratic vote etc. etc. And then, say, US breaks the rules. Or China. And what good will all those laws and regulations do effectively? Precisely fuck all because no one will be able to enforce them due to economic interdependency/lack of influence; military means are... not feasible. Unless we'll be able to develop some kind of patently new system, the current state of affairs is probably the best one there is, all the rest seem either idealistic/unrealistic or outright terrible. The future seems pretty bleak.
As dandy as an idea of one nations military being a effective world police force it doesn't really also factor in the human cost; does said nation really want to be loosing it's own men and women when a War breaks out on foreign soil? or the morale of the service men and women on the ground will be and how that will effect their fighting and peacekeeping duties when they are fighting for a weak willed cause thousands of miles from home? You can argue about if the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars were justified all day but you can't deny it has hurt a lot of people both civilians and servicemen alike and shaped a world that is not any better for it. The Afghan & Iraq War's may be nothing but something on the news to many people but it has subtly changed how we all live today. It's been clear from poles, studies, interviews with both civilians and veteran service men and women that American's don't want to be a World Police force, and no amount of flashy videos is going to change that, how people feel plays a lot into what they do. Also you can't just boil down WW2 happening to "Nations were to weak willed and not stern enough to prevent it!" a lot of it was due to WW1 and the economic and political damage it did.
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;47805748]wait is it true that alot of people this /my generation don't know jack shit about the cold war[/QUOTE] That's because the entirety of the Cold War was just the United States and the Soviet Union waving their dicks around and having proxy wars. Whenever the Soviet Union backed a country that wanted a communist government, the US had to barge in and act like they owned everything. I'm not saying that communist governments are what's best for countries (especially developing countries), but the US government is bordering on Imperialism. We have military bases almost everywhere, and it's pretty obvious that a lot of countries [I]don't really want us there.[/I] We just need to keep to ourselves just a little bit more.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.