Should the United States Police the World?

[SV Fan]

C'mon.

Bush had 8 years to avoid the housing bubble.

You could probably point to 30+ years of holding a blind eye to the morgage industry at fault, it just so happened on Bush's watch that it collapsed.

Is he guilty of doing nothing, yes but he isn't guilty of being the be all and end all of why it happened.

 

[Czar Colossus]

If he did, he would not have done something as simple to remedy as playing a round of golf after making the decision to bomb Syria. Which he did within minutes of that decision being declared. Then because of the outcry of our citizenry he decides to go to congress, changing within a few days the "strongly worded" speech of a few days before, a "strongly worded" speech that was over a year after another "strongly worded" speech with a "red line" attached, that he later says was not given by him. Then after his Secretary of State makes a comment that an adversary that has already made him look bad over another loosely lead issue, again makes him appear less the leader.

So, though golf is not a big deal, though people change their minds all the time....perception does not follow the rules. They are simply the truth that people take from what they see.

Perception is people's truth, whether he meant for any of it to come across as it did, though he "I'm truly positive in believing" that he takes the situation quite seriously, I have no doubt....the simple act of playing golf, changes the "perception". It may not be his feelings on the issue, but his "feelings", and because of sooooo many speeches and little action, his speeches no longer guide people's perception, stupid little things do, and that is a problem of leadership and lack of understanding of perception.

The same went with Bush and simply flying over New Orleans, rather than landing and walking the area within days of the hurricane Katrina. The facts were, the Federal government, under law has to wait for the Governor of said state to ask for help. The Governor of Louisiana did not ask for help in a timely manner therefore THE PERCEPTION was the Federal Government (Bush) did not care. Once the aid was sent, it was not effectively and efficiently given to those in need, again at the fault of the governor and mayor of said city. THE PERCEPTION, that the Federal Government (Bush) did not care. Then when he flies over, rather than landing (and it is a know FACT, that he has always hated the interruption in needed help when he comes on the scene. It is a total SHUT DOWN of those areas while he walks through them, he has always hated doing that....BUT THE PERCEPTION WAS he did not care. Not the facts, the perception was people's truth.

Obama has a problem with this as well...hence why his aids made it very clear to him that he needed to get on the ground in New Jersey, immediately after Sandy, even though it totally shut down for a time the work that was being done. Again, perception spoke loudly, and we saw it in the media very well.

Very very well said Kelly. I am a parent and a teacher and I am constantly driving the point home to my children and students that "perception is reality". We only have what is presented to us. The media controls that. They report how and what suits their agenda. Unfortunately we have no real unbiased media; we have to sift through the B.S. and judge for ourselves. That's why we must not be afraid to question everything. I don't care if you lean left or right, don't be blinded by ideology. What I do believe is that the best people for leadership positions either can't get or don't want the job.

 

[Feenix]

My prediction will be, Russia will take the weapons, we will think we will never see the weapons again, they will not be destroyed in any way......and there is always the possibility we will see them again, and Obama will do absolutely nothing in his remaining years to find out what happened to them, and our next President, Republican or Democrat will not either, in fact no one will until they turn up again, and then they will blame Bush....lmao

This is not a new thing at all. Of course the weapons won't be destroyed, when have they ever? This is how the world works. Some arms dealer will get their hands on the weapons and then maybe (probably) we'll see another chemical attack somewhere else in the world in the future. No one is policing the world, because politics can't be policed. It's like an amped up soap opera where lives hang in the mix.

 

[Alex_Spider]

This is not a new thing at all. Of course the weapons won't be destroyed, when have they ever? This is how the world works. Some arms dealer will get their hands on the weapons and then maybe (probably) we'll see another chemical attack somewhere else in the world in the future. No one is policing the world, because politics can't be policed. It's like an amped up soap opera where lives hang in the mix.

Sad but very true.

 

[Rocanrol]

All this discussion about "looking weak", it's just the same competition of who have the bigger dick. Stick, my bad :P

 

[Alex_Spider]

All this discussion about "looking weak", it's just the same competition of who have the bigger dick. Stick, my bad :P

lol. Spot ont:

 

[Spider-Who?]

Right, it's a civil war. Most of us didn't want him to do anything in Syria's civil war! The red line was embarrassing, but it's ultimately not that big of a deal.

Eh, I'm not sure if it's not a big deal. When the leader of a country such as the US says "don't do this, or I'll end you", and then skirms under global pressure when "it" DOES happen, it becomes a big deal, especially when enemy states can use that inaction and the subsequent global hubbub to their advantage.

I think that Obama was trying to do the right thing with his red line comments, but this (both domestic and foreign) belief that the US is the global purveyor of decency is waning. This situation proves it. The US needs to back off and the UN needs a massive retooling; it's a useless organization at this point.

I think he's cautious, not weak.

"Weak" is definitely the word of the month, but I would not call him cautious. This is passing responsibility off, plan and simple. He knows that he can't authorize a strike without congress approval and maintain good standing in the US and abroad. So, he "decided" to do the "right" thing by giving it up for congressional vote, and when they vote "no", he can later use that against them (repubs) if/when things in Syria get worse.

If anyone looks ridiculous, it's Putin. He's a huge hypocrite and power monger who silences, imprisons and kills people who dare to dissent.

I'm no fan of Putin, but I wonder about the accuracy of that statement. Yes, he IS a hypocrite (among other things), but he was the one who said "Hey, let's try out this peaceful resolution." Fact of the matter is, Kerry offered the idea, and within the same breath, dismissed it as being ludicrous; it was almost a sarcastic idea. That's NOT how you handle foreign affairs, especially when lives are on the line.

Yes, I think pretty much everyone can see through Putin and know what his game is, but still, the simple fact is that he's the one who took Kerry's sarcastic, dismissive proposition and said "You know what, this could actually work if we tried it". His ulterior motives or hypocrisy don't really change that fact.

 

[Kelly]

This is not a new thing at all. Of course the weapons won't be destroyed, when have they ever? This is how the world works. Some arms dealer will get their hands on the weapons and then maybe (probably) we'll see another chemical attack somewhere else in the world in the future. No one is policing the world, because politics can't be policed. It's like an amped up soap opera where lives hang in the mix.

Actually I'm going by Russia's history in the Aral Sea. In the middle of the Aral Sea was an Anthrax factory. After the Soviet Union fell they left that Anthrax to whoever wanted it. You can now WALK to this factory in the middle of the Aral Sea because of the evaporation of this sea. They don't really care, therefore I'm doubtful they care about these weapons either. Hey, I guess they could store them in that old Anthrax Factory.

BTW, now that Anthrax is in the hands of two countries that we really know very little about...hmmmm.

 

[Cosmic]

Eh, I'm not sure if it's not a big deal. When the leader of a country such as the US says "don't do this, or I'll end you", and then skirms under global pressure when "it" DOES happen, it becomes a big deal, especially when enemy states can use that inaction and the subsequent global hubbub to their advantage.

I think that Obama was trying to do the right thing with his red line comments, but this (both domestic and foreign) belief that the US is the global purveyor of decency is waning. This situation proves it. The US needs to back off and the UN needs a massive retooling; it's a useless organization at this point.

The world needs policing. But it should be a multilateral effort. If the US role as the world's police chief gets permanently scaled down as a result of all this, then I'll see that as a positive change.

"Weak" is definitely the word of the month, but I would not call him cautious. This is passing responsibility off, plan and simple. He knows that he can't authorize a strike without congress approval and maintain good standing in the US and abroad. So, he "decided" to do the "right" thing by giving it up for congressional vote, and when they vote "no", he can later use that against them (repubs) if/when things in Syria get worse.

I'm not going to deny that there's a partisan political element in this. But that's all part of the game. This is hardball, and it gets nasty sometimes. If you can't handle it, then you need to step aside.

I'm glad that Russia finally stepped up to the table. I think they bear some responsibility in this, considering Assad is their friend and business partner, and has been using their tanks and heavy weapons to annihilate unarmed men, women and children without restraint. So, I don't think they deserve any great praise for doing what they're supposed to be doing if they want to be respected as a world leader. I love Russia, I just dislike the current government.

 

[Alex_Spider]

Found this hilarious.

[YT]H8SycdU3QDk[/YT]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H8SycdU3QDk

Source:
http://www.trueactivist.com/10-signs-the-global-elite-are-losing-control/

 

[Alex_Spider]

Any one seen this?

[YT]TO7-GBRx1xM&feature[/YT]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO7-GBRx1xM&feature=player_embedded#at=4184

Interesting points at 1:06:15

WHY WE FIGHT, the new film by Eugene Jarecki which won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival, is an unflinching look at the anatomy of the American war machine, weaving unforgettable personal stories with commentary by a "who's who" of military and beltway insiders. Featuring John McCain, William Kristol, Chalmers Johnson, Gore Vidal, Richard Perle and others, WHY WE FIGHT launches a bipartisan inquiry into the workings of the military industrial complex and the rise of the American Empire.

 

[Spider-Who?]

The world needs policing. But it should be a multilateral effort. If the US role as the world's police chief gets permanently scaled down as a result of all this, then I'll see that as a positive change.



I'm not going to deny that there's a partisan political element in this. But that's all part of the game. This is hardball, and it gets nasty sometimes. If you can't handle it, then you need to step aside.

I'm glad that Russia finally stepped up to the table. I think they bear some responsibility in this, considering Assad is their friend and business partner, and has been using their tanks and heavy weapons to annihilate unarmed men, women and children without restraint. So, I don't think they deserve any great praise for doing what they're supposed to be doing if they want to be respected as a world leader. I love Russia, I just dislike the current government.

I don’t disagree with anything but the bold. Yes, it is “all part of the game”, but it’s a dishonest part of an absurdly self-serving game where the end result is never to legitimately improve the country, but to lie and twist truths to serve your own (or your parties) desires. The mentality you state that “if you can’t handle it, get out of the way” is the exact mentality guilty politicians feed off of – if citizens accept this abuse of power and public perception, then true political improvements will never happen; it’s a mentality that ALLOWS this type of destructive behavior.

 

[Cosmic]

On the contrary, true political improvements DO happen over time, in spite of partisan politics. It's entirely possible for someone to serve the greater good while at the same time, looking to gain political advantage for themselves and/or their friends. People do it all the time.

 

[Warhammer]

So should the US leave the Middle East entirely (specifically ISIS) alone or should they continue to be involved and/or get more involved?

 

[SV Fan]

So should the US leave the Middle East entirely (specifically ISIS) alone or should they continue to be involved and/or get more involved?

I think they shouldn't be front and center fighting anybody in the Middle East, they should try get the rest of the world involved diplomatically to make things better there. War should be for defense only

In terms of Isis, people in the middle east have to revolt against them and fight them, the US can't go there and be the world police because it will only bite us in the butt. Once again the US can stand in the back with a bunch of other countries helping the people who are fighting Isis on the ground.

I think you get alot of potential resentment when you go and occupy foreign countries from people who might be more open to your message if you weren't in their area causing damage and killing people(by mistake)

 

[Warhammer]

What would be the pros and cons of taking more of a support role vs being fully isolationist? To ISIS, wouldn't the former be just as bad as being on the front line?

 

[SV Fan]

What would be the pros and cons of taking more of a support role vs being fully isolationist? To ISIS, wouldn't the former be just as bad as being on the front line?

Isolationists is cheaper(think of all the extra cash it frees for the budget). You probably will make less enemies in the Middle East but on the negative side you probably will get friends of America upset that you are basically doing nothing and that can have problems in other areas. There is also the potential if you do nothing that some might look at the US doesn't care and that can turn off some in the middle east.

Dipolmacy will basically cut down some spending(not as much as isolationism though), get other countries off their butt doing things instead of expecting the US to take care of all the problems then sort of looking down on them for doing bad things. While I do think you still create some enemies in the Middle East, it's not as much as sending people on the front line, especially when you have other countries in the world have a stake in everything.

It's a basic case any option has it's share of potential negatives and sometimes it's not a case of good or bad choice, it's a choice of bad or worse.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The thing is you can't go back to 1930's isolationism. Even then, isolationism was an untenable position. The world's only gotten smaller since. Everyone's economy is interconnected. It's one thing to close bases in Germany. But as long as the world runs on oil, and a good chunk of it's in the Middle East, America will always have to somehow be involved in that region.

If ISIS just gets out of control and takes over, starts a war with Iran, which turns into all out war with Saudi Arabia, the whole world goes to hell.

 

[Venom75]

I'm always confused about this subject. On one hand,why should we get involved in every little war or dispute in countries all over the world? Most times it just gets us into trouble,even if we have the best of intentions. Sometimes I wonder why other leaders or other countries don't get involved. Why must the United States always stick our necks out?
On the other hand,to quote Uncle Ben,"With great power,comes great responsibility." We are the most powerful nation on earth and have the ability to help those who need it. It's like if you see a mugger trying to rob an old lady,or a man trying to kidnap or kill a young child. If you had the power to stop it,you would. I mean,who wouldn't??
I think that while most nations hate war(and rightly so),most will not risk anything to help another country or people. Either they are all too comfortable in their complacency or simply don't care. This is what allowed Germany and Japan to run wild in the 30's and 40's. This allowed the rise of Al Qaeda in the 90's and eventually led us to 9/11. Now we see the same thing with Isis. Sure,most countries condemn the beheadings and killing of children and burning alive human beings,but no one really wants to send troops over there to fight it.
I'm under the belief that while war must be avoided,sometimes you have no choice. Tyrants and terrorists only understand force and a show of courage and strength. FDR and GW Bush understood this very well.

 

[SV Fan]

I'm under the belief that while war must be avoided,sometimes you have no choice. Tyrants and terrorists only understand force and a show of courage and strength. FDR and GW Bush understood this very well.

Here is the problem with this logic. There is many places that could use help that the US does absolutely nothing, it only seems to get involved when it somehow has their personal interest or the personal interest of big business involved.

If the US was just a do gooder for the sake of doing good that would be acceptable, when they do good when it seems to fit an agenda then it becomes more questionable

 

[Venom75]

Here is the problem with this logic. There is many places that could use help that the US does absolutely nothing, it only seems to get involved when it somehow has their personal interest or the personal interest of big business involved.

If the US was just a do gooder for the sake of doing good that would be acceptable, when they do good when it seems to fit an agenda then it becomes more questionable

I can't deny that. I've always been old school. Believing that the US(or any nation/group) should do something because it's the right thing to do. But reality doesn't always fit that mold. Now,I'm a GW fan and I do think that his reasons for going into Iraq were pure. He really wanted to free a people and make the middle east and the world a safer place. But...I feel the opposite of Dick Cheney. He wanted oil and American influence in the world. I believe it was Hermann Goring who said that in war everyone has their own selfish interests.

 

[Taarna]

Not in a cop on the beat sense, but rather in a situational sense where a swat team is needed to stop a terrorist group.

 

[Warhammer]

Bump. This thread just became dangerously relevant again.

Was the launch on the Syrian air base a good thing or a bad thing?
Human rights were violated. Did the US have a responsibility to intervene?
Are we sticking our noses even further into a situation that we shouldn't?

 

[Schlosser85]

We're not exactly on the thickest ice when we act righteously indignant over dictators and terrorism considering we've been probably the world's biggest sponsor and propagator of both at least since post-WWII.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think we should step in if there's a mass genocide.

Which means we'd be willing to go to war and potentially nation build afterwords.