Should the United States Police the World?

[Schlosser85]

Was America wrong for ending the Holocaust?

If Hitler never invaded another country should we have allowed his ”final solution”?

Sometimes we need to police the world or we become just as bad as the evil dictators.

To paraphrase, ”evil succeeds when good men do nothing”.

We did allow it for years. We didn't join WWII to end the Holocaust we joined the war because we were attacked by Japan. We didn't even declare war on Germany until Germany declared war on us.

 

[Schlosser85]

How did we make the holocaust worse?

Dropping the atomic bomb, as terrible as it was, was an end game with far fewer victims than the Holocaust which could've kept going on much longer to include many more millions of non-Aryans.

....the atomic bomb had nothing to do with ending the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was being perpetrated by Nazi Germany, which had surrendered months before we dropped the atomic bomb on JAPAN.

Don't talk about history if you don't know it.

 

[Schlosser85]

Don't forget that U.S nuked to Japanese civilian cities in response to a bombing of a single harbor

And this is not accurate either.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not in response to Pearl Harbor, they were years afterward and to force a Japanese surrender, not revenge for Pearl as you make it out to be.

 

[Feenix]

There's a point were skepticism becomes cynicism and that cynicism poisons the soul.

You can say all wars have zero benefit to anyone but politicians and war profiteers but don't even try to pass that off as some kind of clever insight. It's only half of equation. Military intervention sometimes helps people too. Ask a South Korean. Ask a Holocaust survivor.

If I only protect you from a deadly attack for advantage, glory and fame does that make that protection any less necessary???

I don't want us to occupy Syria. I don't even want use to ensure victory for the rebels. I want us to send a message that if you gas women and children there will be some form of repercussion.

We're not talking about protection. We're talking about a military strike (surely one that will kill innocent people, regardless of how "calculated" the strike may be). So, you want the US to kill innocent people to send the message that you can't kill innocent people? What? There can be no single strike in Syria. I don't believe for a second that it would only happen the one time and then the US would just sit back and go "there, all better."

Just so you know, the US wasn't exactly gearing up to go to war in WWII until the Japanese struck Pearl Harbour. Then all bets were off. They were perfectly happy to sit back and let Europe deal with it.

The Holocaust was quite black and white. It was easy to see who the bad guys were. This situation is totally different. The rebels are just as bad, if not worse than Assad. The US' military strike would be against the government (since the US has been arming and supporting the rebels). Do you really think that's the best course of action? Especially because we don't know for sure who used the chemical weapons.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

....the atomic bomb had nothing to do with ending the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was being perpetrated by Nazi Germany, which had surrendered months before we dropped the atomic bomb on JAPAN.

Don't talk about history if you don't know it.

I know the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the holocaust.

I'm saying, if you want to compare the reach of the two atrocities (atomic bombs versus the Holocaust) the atomic bombs were to conclude the war where as the holocaust could've continued until countless more victims were killed.

One was to conclude the conflict and the other was an ongoing process that required intervention.

 

[Alex_Spider]

Messiah i get your honest intentions about saving all those innocent syrians that are butchered by Assad. But you have to realize, maybe there are "honorable" wars that start with good intentions, but all they will lead to is countless civilian casualties, occupation, raping little girls and exploitation of the lands wealth and resources.

Do you honestly believe that the US military establishment has learned from the mistakes of the past and they can lead an "honor" war this time? The world simply doesn't trust the US government. And that can not change easily.

And I will go as far as to say, how do we know that Assad is not a "tool" that serves the US government interests to generate another profitable war, by taking the taxpayer's money and throw them into buying new armament and such.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

We're not talking about protection. We're talking about a military strike (surely one that will kill innocent people, regardless of how "calculated" the strike may be). So, you want the US to kill innocent people to send the message that you can't kill innocent people? What? There can be no single strike in Syria. I don't believe for a second that it would only happen the one time and then the US would just sit back and go "there, all better."

Just so you know, the US wasn't exactly gearing up to go to war in WWII until the Japanese struck Pearl Harbour. Then all bets were off. They were perfectly happy to sit back and let Europe deal with it.

The Holocaust was quite black and white. It was easy to see who the bad guys were. This situation is totally different. The rebels are just as bad, if not worse than Assad. The US' military strike would be against the government (since the US has been arming and supporting the rebels). Do you really think that's the best course of action? Especially because we don't know for sure who used the chemical weapons.

I agree there is alot more gray area regarding which side is the good guys, Assad or the rebels.

But if Assad did use chemical weapons I think we should hit him where it hurts and weaken him somewhat militarily.

It sends the message, "if I want to win a conflict I can never use chemical weapons". In the future, anyone who considers using a chemical attack will have to consider it will end up weakening their military position.

It's not about ensuring victory for either side but rather drawing a line that can never be crossed with the whole world watching.

Ultimately it must be clear to everyone that using chemical weapons is not worth it.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Messiah i get your honest intentions about saving all those innocent syrians that are butchered by Assad. But you have to realize, maybe there are "honorable" wars that start with good intentions, but all they will lead to is countless civilian casualties, occupation, raping little girls and exploitation of the lands wealth and resources.

Do you honestly believe that the US military establishment has learned from the mistakes of the past and they can lead an "honor" war this time? The world simply doesn't trust the US government. And that can not change easily.

And I will go as far as to say, how do we know that Assad is not a "tool" that serves the US government interests to generate another profitable war, by taking the taxpayer's money and throw them into buying new armament and such.

I understand the skepticism. Lately the USA has a terrible track record with abusing military power. But that doesn't make every future military strike automatically nefarious.

We must judge every war effort case by case.

I'm glad there's a discussion and the possibility of war is once again being taken seriously. But we must look at the price of allowing evil deeds go unpunished.

Again, I just want enough air strikes to weaken Assad noticeably and discourage the future use of chemical weapons by anyone.

I don't support occupancy, nation building or even the arming of rebels.

 

[Alex_Spider]

I understand the skepticism. Lately the USA has a terrible track record with abusing military power. But that doesn't make every future military strike automatically nefarious.

We must judge every war effort case by case.

I'm glad there's a discussion and the possibility of war is once again being taken seriously. But we must look at the price of allowing evil deeds go unpunished.

Again, I just want enough air strikes to weaken Assad noticeably and discourage the future use of chemical weapons by anyone.

I don't support occupancy, nation building or even the arming of rebels.

But that's the thing. You cannot maintain control or have any say as to the outcome of a war. War is just a crazy arena. Once you step into, logic gets thrown out of the window. And as for Hitler, I can think of a logical reason as to why the Allies felt the need to stop him. Not necessarily because they were the "good guys". But maybe because they didn't want another country to become the world superpower and take their reigns.

 

[Thundercrack85]

And I am asking. In what degree did the invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq improved the lives of the total population? By bringing them Coke and credit card loans? Not to mention the thousands of innocent civilian casualties and the negative light in which the US has been in the past few years. And what about the holocaust that is taking place in Darfur? Far more people have died there than in Syria.

In fairness, Iraq was not a happy place under Saddam. People seem to be forgetting the, the totalitarianism, the death squads and the genocide. It's too soon to say if it ended up improving the Iraqi's lot.

In Afghanistan, it's a different story. When the Taliban were in charge, half the country was living in slavery for all intents and purposes. So they were making real progress. Many (particularly women) would say it's better off now.

Though in both cases the invasions had nothing to do with helping people - that was just a byproduct.

 

[Destructus86]

My theory in why we are so quick to jump into wars is simple...our military budget is gigantic. It's bloated. And the only way they justify that budget is during war times. But when peace time comes it's extremely difficult to keep such a large budget going. They we get into wars as much as we can whenever we can find any reason (or make one up) to and use that as a way of making sure we can keep the military budget where it's at.

 

[Alex_Spider]

My theory in why we are so quick to jump into wars is simple...our military budget is gigantic. It's bloated. And the only way they justify that budget is during war times. But when peace time comes it's extremely difficult to keep such a large budget going. They we get into wars as much as we can whenever we can find any reason (or make one up) to and use that as a way of making sure we can keep the military budget where it's at.

Yeah, that is a logical explanation. And sadly war is one of the most profitable industries, that benefits only the mega corporations and the rich families that orchestrate them. To them is just business as usual. To us, is dead civilians and soldiers.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

And this is not accurate either.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not in response to Pearl Harbor, they were years afterward and to force a Japanese surrender, not revenge for Pearl as you make it out to be.

Very much true. It was done as an alternative to an invasion that would have likely killed ten times (at least) as many people as the atomic bombings did. Okinawa in June resulted in nearly 200,000 military casualties between both sides, and an additional approximately 150,000 Japanese civilians. Far more than both atomic bombings put together. And this was over invading a small island chain. It isn't hard to imagine what the casualties would be like invading Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu.

Also, even without the atomic bombings Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets that would have been bombed anyways (they were deliberately avoided so as to maximize the impact of the atomic bombs), only with hundreds of small bombs instead of one big one. As we know from the firebombings that had been going on for months, the casualties would have been just as high.

As an aside, it wasn't a purely American endeavor in the first place, but a joint effort between the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. The bombs were originally meant to be dropped on Germany, but weren't completed until after Germany was already beaten.

The only thing that would have saved those civilians were if the Japanese government surrendered unconditionally, and they were given plenty of chances to do so. Dropping those bombs saved potentially millions of lives.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

We did allow it for years. We didn't join WWII to end the Holocaust we joined the war because we were attacked by Japan. We didn't even declare war on Germany until Germany declared war on us.

Nobody even knew of the Holocaust until 1944.

Hitler's big mistake was invading other countries. WWII never would have happened if he stayed in Germany. Notice that we did squat to Franco.

Now I'm not trying to say if we knew about the Holocaust that we should have done nothing, but it is true that at the time we (ie. the west) would have done nothing had he not invaded Poland.

 

[terry78]

I think the issue is that nowadays anything America intervenes in will be viewed as simply for our own interests. Which is true to an extent in many instances, but if someone is getting the **** kicked out of them and honestly needs the assistance, what are you gonna do?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The problem is that we have a history of not making any difference and in bad cases only make things worse.

It isn't about not wanting to police the world, it is that we can't. There is too few of us and too much world.

 

[Ant-manic]

And I am asking. In what degree did the invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq improved the lives of the total population?

who can say? the Watcher isn't available to clue us in. those folks who were tortured by Saddam's kids are probably doing better.

 

[warhorse78]

But that's the thing. You cannot maintain control or have any say as to the outcome of a war. War is just a crazy arena. Once you step into, logic gets thrown out of the window. And as for Hitler, I can think of a logical reason as to why the Allies felt the need to stop him. Not necessarily because they were the "good guys". But maybe because they didn't want another country to become the world superpower and take their reigns.

This was quoted as much by our own soldiers. I remember such an incident with the Battle Mogadishu. The soldiers, generals, admirals, etc, had good intentions, had political views and humanitarian views, but they will tell you, once that first bullet goes past your head, all of that ***** goes right out the window.

 

[Feenix]

Edit.

 

[Feenix]

This sums it up nicely

 

[Thundercrack85]

Nobody even knew of the Holocaust until 1944.

Hitler's big mistake was invading other countries. WWII never would have happened if he stayed in Germany. Notice that we did squat to Franco.

Now I'm not trying to say if we knew about the Holocaust that we should have done nothing, but it is true that at the time we (ie. the west) would have done nothing had he not invaded Poland.

That's not entirely accurate. The leaders and senior military personnel had a pretty good idea about what was going on for a while, but they either didn't care, dismissed the reports (probably just didn't care, since the evidence was pretty damn irrefutable, especially by 1942) or were already waging total war.

 

[ChukNoris]

I voted yes purely because Obama said chemical weapons were the red line. It's more of a damed if you do, damed if you don't

I told myself I would never come to the politics section

 

[warhorse78]

I voted yes purely because Obama said chemical weapons were the red line. It's more of a damed if you do, damed if you don't

I told myself I would never come to the politics section

Awe, but politics is fun, it's like watching a really good soap opera. The Dallas or Dynasty kind!

 

[Frodo]

Politics is either something you like or you don't . I happen to love it , but that's just me. That said, I've seen people get far more worked up about Basketball and Football teams then I ever have with politics...

 

[Alex_Spider]

Politics is either something you like or you don't . I happen to love it , but that's just me. That said, I've seen people get far more worked up about Basketball and Football teams then I ever have with politics...

And reality shows and celebrity news also. I agree with your points but I am a guy of activism instead of politics. Politics is just endless talking and public relations. It doesn't really solve problems at the core. But combine positive action and community activism and you got something there.