Should the United States Police the World?

[Kelly]

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.

The problem is.... after the Cold War, governments like that in Syria, many of the "stans", several countries of Africa now have weapons that can very easily help in committing genocide. Once a country even uses the word "genocide" in their comments about this or that around the world, they have effectively put themselves in the middle of a conflict and have given other countries a way out. We saw this in Rwanda, and the Darfur region of Sudan. France and Belgium very much hands on in Rwanda and were able to totally pull out and China's influence in Sudan put us in direct confrontation with them considering they were arming the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed.

Anytime you can bring together a coalition ala "Desert Storm" then you are able to systematically hit your mandate head on and get the hell out. With a genocide that is not the case. As horrible as it is, we intervene in one, we will be called to intervene in all and in essence be doing it alone without a coalition. How many of those do you think we can handle?

None of the above is to say that I don't think we should intervene in genocides....but it is far harder than many think.

 

[Goonie]

Nope

Help the allies to a point

But if its a conflict between countries going on that hate us let those idiots kill each other

 

[hopeless]

No, there really is a need for a neutral peacekeeping group, so far even NATO doesn't fit the bill and the US have enough problems of their own to sort out rather than have them deliberately distracted to suit the agenda of those supposed to know better.

 

[Matt]

I'm going to take a somewhat unpopular position and say yes, we should. Not only should we, we have a moral imperative to do so.

Consider this, we have power. Unmatched power. For all of Russia and China's tough talk, they cannot scratch the surface of the USA's power. China may have a million man army, but they also have military technology and weaponry that is at least 20 years behind the United States and a far more fragile government. Russia is a mess from an economic perspective and would collapse under its own weight if it truly attempted to challenge the US in a military conflict.

My point is that the the United States is the only super power. With that comes obligation. People are suffering and dying. Look at what happened in Syria. How can we look at ourselves in the mirror if we could have stopped it and did nothing? Those with power have a moral imperative to use it for the greater good.

I am not calling for full scale military intervention or anything along those lines. But we have the power to stop a lot of this. And we do nothing. That is wrong. Those who can do something, yet sit idly by and watch are just as culpable as those ordering the attacks.

And its easy to hide behind a line such as "it has to be done through NATO or some other coalition." That is the new "I was just following orders." The reality is NATO and the UN are impotent and will forever be filled with obstructionist countries pushing their own agenda. To hide behind their impotency as a way to justify doing nothing to prevent atrocities is a disingenuous punt of the ball designed to avoid moral culpability.

At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves this. Could any of you look this little girl in the eyes and say "sorry we didn't help you, but you were born in a different part of the world than us so your suffering isn't our problem"? If the answer is yes, I question your honesty (as I think you are probably just sticking out your chest and blowing smoke). If your answer is an honest yes, I question your humanity. If the answer is no, then why the hell aren't we doing more to help?

 

[Thundarr]

No. The American military exists for one purpose and one purpose only. To defend America from threats, both foreign and domestic.

All American military bases in foreign countries should be closed down and all military personnel should return to US soil.

If any foreign power were to set up a military base on US soil with a garrison of soldiers, the American people would be screaming "Invasion!" and insist on the President bombing them into the Stone Age. So why should it be any different when the US sends American troops to foreign countries, even their allies?

 

[The Endless]

The US can't even police itself atm.

 

[Matt]

No. The American military exists for one purpose and one purpose only. To defend America from threats, both foreign and domestic.

All American military bases in foreign countries should be closed down and all military personnel should return to US soil.

If any foreign power were to set up a military base on US soil with a garrison of soldiers, the American people would be screaming "Invasion!" and insist on the President bombing them into the Stone Age. So why should it be any different when the US sends American troops to foreign countries, even their allies?

False equivalency: we don't have foreign bases on US soil because our government did not consent to it. Thus it would be an invasion if a foreign military set up a base on our soil. Conversely, our bases in places like Germany, Japan, and South Korea are there because their government signed treaties authorizing them to be there (largely because it provides additional protection to said countries). We are their guests in a mutually beneficial arrangement that both governments have bargained for, not their invaders.

 

[terry78]

Even with a nice guy like Obama at the helm people still said we should stay out of ****. Granted there are things we do need to be involved in since we have a vested interest and a moral code to assist allies, but it's a weird situation. Sometimes we get chewed out for sticking our nose in, sometimes we get chewed out for staying out of it.

 

[Marvolo]

No. The American military exists for one purpose and one purpose only. To defend America from threats, both foreign and domestic.

All American military bases in foreign countries should be closed down and all military personnel should return to US soil.

If any foreign power were to set up a military base on US soil with a garrison of soldiers, the American people would be screaming "Invasion!" and insist on the President bombing them into the Stone Age. So why should it be any different when the US sends American troops to foreign countries, even their allies?

To add to what Matt said, the U.S. doesn't exist in a vacuum. Our economy is effected by the rest of the world and it's political situation. Think of it like the butterfly effect. This is unavoidable. Also, our foreign bases bring American corporations and businesses to foreign countries. When we set up bases in cities and towns American businesses, food and retail, set up shop in those towns and on those bases. If we shut down our foreign bases a number of American businesses are going to take a hit.

We protect America by helping our allies, and trying to keep things from destabilizing too much and by making sure Russia, China, or NK don't do anything too stupid. If the world destabilizes or its political situation gets too hot that directly effects the safety of America. Also we don't fight our wars alone nor can we do everything on our own. Every country needs some sort of help and America needs to give help.

Isolationism has always been a foolish idea. It's like sitting in your bedroom while the rest of the house burns down around you or falls into disrepair. Plus, we only have to look at the 1930s and 1940s to see what US isolationist policies can do to the world.

That isn't to say that we should stick our nose in all foreign affairs. Trying to micromanage the world is as foolish as isolationism. There is a sensible middleground.

 

[Robert_Anthony]

We SHOULD NOT BE the world's policeman. We do not do nation building and yet global elites like Soros want nation building. Just ask Ron Paul former GOP Congressman from TX at his Liberty Report podcasts or videos on YouTube.

 

[AvengerPA]

I think that we have been World Policeman since 1945. I think that we must police it lest it descend into war and chaos.

 

[MaceB]

I don't think we should police the world. But that doesn't mean we don't participate. We MUST participate and engage in world affairs. It's important to be a moral and ethical leader for the rest of the world - to serve as the standard. And that means that sometimes, we might take sides and help where we can as we think we should. That doesn't mean that we bomb our way out of every crisis or that we make unilateral decisions.

We don't need to be on top, but we do need to be in the mix.

 

[The Endless]

I'm going to take a somewhat unpopular position and say yes, we should. Not only should we, we have a moral imperative to do so.

Consider this, we have power. Unmatched power. For all of Russia and China's tough talk, they cannot scratch the surface of the USA's power. China may have a million man army, but they also have military technology and weaponry that is at least 20 years behind the United States and a far more fragile government. Russia is a mess from an economic perspective and would collapse under its own weight if it truly attempted to challenge the US in a military conflict.

My point is that the the United States is the only super power. With that comes obligation. People are suffering and dying. Look at what happened in Syria. How can we look at ourselves in the mirror if we could have stopped it and did nothing? Those with power have a moral imperative to use it for the greater good.

I am not calling for full scale military intervention or anything along those lines. But we have the power to stop a lot of this. And we do nothing. That is wrong. Those who can do something, yet sit idly by and watch are just as culpable as those ordering the attacks.

And its easy to hide behind a line such as "it has to be done through NATO or some other coalition." That is the new "I was just following orders." The reality is NATO and the UN are impotent and will forever be filled with obstructionist countries pushing their own agenda. To hide behind their impotency as a way to justify doing nothing to prevent atrocities is a disingenuous punt of the ball designed to avoid moral culpability.

At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves this. Could any of you look this little girl in the eyes and say "sorry we didn't help you, but you were born in a different part of the world than us so your suffering isn't our problem"? If the answer is yes, I question your honesty (as I think you are probably just sticking out your chest and blowing smoke). If your answer is an honest yes, I question your humanity. If the answer is no, then why the hell aren't we doing more to help?

The US has the military might indeed. But does it know how to use It? Does it have the moral high ground? Is the US not corrupt to it's very core?

When you consider the CIA and MOSSAD created these so called terrorist groups we are all now fighting, how can you say "how can we look ourselves in the mirror if we do nothing!"