Should the United States Police the World?

[Warhammer]

Obviously, this question is fueled by the Syria situation. However, this isn't solely a thread about Syria nor do I want it to become one. This is simply about the role of the United States in the world. All posters, whether you call the United States home or not, are encouraged to offer any input. And before we view the negative connotation of the term "police," look at the bigger picture. What is really meant is involvement in the contemporary world. And not just things like the invasion the impending Syria situation, tyrannical regimes, or the Iraq War. I'm also talking about foreign aid (food and financial assistance). All that is under the same umbrella here. I wanted the question to be as absolute as possible because as history has dictated, there is no middle ground in terms of being involved in world affairs.

- Does "with great power comes great responsibility" hold true? (Sorry, I couldn't resist)
- Is there a moral obligation on the world stage to help another country in need?
- If the United States has the power, should it help a country that doesn't?
- Does the United States have too much power in the world?
- How much help is it really to arm rebels and does it ultimately hand money and weapons to another regime?
- Does the United States need to handle it's own domestic problems before getting even involved in another country's problems?
- Apathy?
- Damned if they do, damn if they don't?

Hell, those are only a small fraction of sample questions many people on both sides have. But the true question is this.

Should the United States Police the World?

 

[Schlosser85]

No. That's incredibly arrogant, and not economically feasible in the financial situation we're in.

 

[American_Hobo]

No. We are wasting too much money because of it.

Besides, I don't see China doing anything about it.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

No.

If they wish to help countries in dissaray, they must ask if they can help and respect the answer of the foreign country in question.

 

[mikey1974]

definitely not! we've been doing it for 60 some years,and...the American public is just weary of it! not to mention the financial toll it costs. instead of concentrating on Syria,or Iraq,or Libya,or whatever,how about working on economic growth,job creation,cutting down on welfare dependency, rebuilding highway/bridge infrastructures,border security,out of control student loans,and healthcare reform that really works.

 

[Feenix]

No. What gives them the right?

Edit: I voted from my phone and messed it up. I meant to say no.

 

[jonathancrane]

No.

We've already lost a lot of lives and money trying to do that.

 

[Victarion]

There's nothing wrong with having power, in the sense of holding it in reserve. I say no, we shouldn't police the world. Handing over money to a new regime without questioning how it will affect the people is, at best, short sighted stupidity.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

No.

In the case of Syria, it's not my fault the rebels/terrorists game plan for winning sucked. I didn't support the Libyan or Iraq campaigns either.

But there are certain cases where military action is or may be appropriate to get the bad guys that have attacked or are threatening to attack the U.S. and its closest allies, such as in Afghanistan and North Korea. But this is defense, not global policeman gibberish. It should be last resort and done in a sort of regret and not glee.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Depends on the situation, and whether or not anyone else will do anything.

Rwanda, Darfur, etc, the whole world (including the US) sat by and did nothing. Every now and then a little police action is a good thing.

The Iraq War was a load of BS. If it was humanitarian, we would have gone in when Saddam gassed a quarter of a million people.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No.

If they wish to help countries in dissaray, they must ask if they can help and respect the answer of the foreign country in question.

Okay, so they should ask Assad if they can stop him from murdering his people before they step in?

 

[warhorse78]

No. We can't even police ourselves, what gives us the right to tell other countries what they should or shouldn't do? If there are individuals that are passionate about the plight of innocence abroad, then they should volunteer/donate to the peace core.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No. We can't even police ourselves, what gives us the right to tell other countries what they should or shouldn't do? If there are individuals that are passionate about the plight of innocence abroad, then they should volunteer/donate to the peace core.

Human decency? Common sense? Learning from past mistakes?

 

[RustyCage]

When it comes to chemical weapons and the US, this is all I have to say:

http://rt.com/news/us-chemical-weapons-portnaya-152/

As for double standards with -other- countries...

[YT]_VFMnfFEJVQ[/YT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#Israel-Lebanon_conflict_.282006.29

 

[RustyCage]

- Does "with great power comes great responsibility" hold true?

Yes.

- Is there a moral obligation on the world stage to help another country in need?

Only if it can be proven that the need is legitimate and there are no ulterior motives, and only if we're asked for it - and the askers must be proven to be legitimate as well.

The whole story needs to be fully investigated and understood by all before a decision is made.

Basically, stop the knee-jerk control freak stuff.

- If the United States has the power, should it help a country that doesn't?

So long as the country demonstrates inflexible goodness and true peace-seeking under the utmost scrutiny, and other nations recognize this too, I see no reason not to (apart from our domestic problems tripping us up).

We have to properly identify between the victim and the oppressor either way - and sometimes, there is no victim... both sides can be bad. In Syria's case, we're not being anywhere close to wary enough of this.

- Does the United States have too much power in the world?

Nothing wrong with carrying a big stick, so long as you tread softly with it.

- How much help is it really to arm rebels and does it ultimately hand money and weapons to another regime?

Entirely circumstantial.

- Does the United States need to handle it's own domestic problems before getting even involved in another country's problems?

In most cases, yes.

- Apathy?

Caution and wisdom; never apathy.

- Damned if they do, damn if they don't?

Sometimes...

 

[ThePhantasm]

I think this poll question is framed in a rather loaded and negative way. Obviously the U.S. is not a government over the rest of the world with the authority to police it. The real question, however, is what constitutes a "just war," and that is far trickier to flesh out.

 

[RustyCage]

Some number of people do believe that the US is responsible for being world police, Phantasm. Such minds exist in our high offices as well, which I think makes the question legitimate.

That said, I totally agree with you on what you consider to be the real heart of the matter.

 

[Warhammer]

I think this poll question is framed in a rather loaded and negative way. Obviously the U.S. is not a government over the rest of the world with the authority to police it. The real question, however, is what constitutes a "just war," and that is far trickier to flesh out.

I disagree. Perhaps you view the word "police" in a negative way. Maybe not. My post had a neutral stance and isn't a loaded question at all. The essence was involvement whether that is giving food to a third world country or overthrowing a tyrannical regime.

 

[Feenix]

Thundercrack is off base. Assad is a more stable leader than the rebels ever could be and there is not definitive proof that Assad was the one who carried out the chemical attacks. The people in those regions will not "accept" democracy in the sense that we do. They don't think that way. Stability is key.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think this mindset stems from World War II. If America hadn't gotten involved, fascists, and communists would have carved up the rest of the world. America showed up on a white horse, and saved the day, at least for liberal democracies (even turning a few fascist states into liberal democracies in the process).

So, ever since, the free world has expected America to handle everything. And America, God love her, having a bit of an ego, gladly took on the mantle.

The situation has evolved a bit since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but America's allies still depend on it doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to these sort of things.

 

[Immortalfire]

If other countries want to rumble and blow themselves to hell, I say let em. Only if it becomes a direct problem for us, do we need to take action.

Otherwise, let the Syrias and the Burmas and whoever else fight each other to into oblivion for all I care.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I disagree. Perhaps you view the word "police" in a negative way. Maybe not. My post had a neutral stance and isn't a loaded question at all. The essence was involvement whether that is giving food to a third world country or overthrowing a tyrannical regime.

Sorry, I suppose I'm not that familiar with this area of American politics. Whenever I've heard the question posed "should the U.S. police the world" it has always been cast in a negative light. I've never heard the phrase "police the world" used positively as descriptor for someone's position... "foreign aid," sure, "intervention," yes, but "police?" Police is more suggestive of the imposition of an authoritative governmental law over a group. But such laws could only exist on a global scale under a world government, and there is no such thing. At best there is the obligation towards treaties, agreements, summits, etc.

 

[ThePhantasm]

By the way, it is the connection of the term "police" to "law" that forms that critique in my mind... I have nothing against police officers on principle, and am actually grateful for their work (not the corrupt ones, of course, but corruption is present in many vocations).

 

[Feenix]

I think this mindset stems from World War II. If America hadn't gotten involved, fascists, and communists would have carved up the rest of the world. America showed up on a white horse, and saved the day, at least for liberal democracies (even turning a few fascist states into liberal democracies in the process).

So, ever since, the free world has expected America to handle everything. And America, God love her, having a bit of an ego, gladly took on the mantle.

The situation has evolved a bit since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but America's allies still depend on it doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to these sort of things.

America only got involved in WWII because of Pearl Harbour. They would have never gotten involved otherwise. The "white horse" analogy is ridiculous. Hitler screwed up and sent his troops into Russia and tried to fight a two front war. Didn't work. And his troops starved and froze during the harsh, cold winter.

I doubt anyone expects the US to "save the day" in Syria when the international community is AGAINST action.

 

[chamber-music]

Many people in the U.S and overseas don't like the idea of anyone state acting as policeman of the world.

If anything the actions from this ideology tends to damage the U.S ad their allies image in many parts of the world.

Foreign intervention should be based on what is practical and what would genuinely help or resolve the situation in that region/nation.