Honest question (and I'm not looking to agree/disagree with your stance, just curious about it): to what extent is the U.S. supposed to be the "policeman of the world"?

Tough question. I think I'll reply in two parts. One part rationalization and one part pure opinion. It will be lengthy, but I don't think there is a simple answer.

Rationalization:
Rationally, due to the schoolyard politics reality of international affairs - the US can't police the world. They can in effect only police amongst small to medium nations which are not close strategic partners with themselves or other any of the other powerful nations of the world. They can also act as a "silent big brother" to their own allies, which gets protection simply by knowing one of the "bullies" of the schoolyard.

Opinions:
In regards to the regions they can police, they will have to do a much better job than they have done in the last 20 years.

1. The understanding of the demography and culture in which they intervene must be near complete. As an example; The recent US policies has now caused a shift in many middle-eastern conflicts from being geo-political to becoming ethno-religius, which makes them less predictable, more difficult to resolve and they will much more readily move across borders (people carry ethno-religious conflicts with them to a much greater degree than geo-political ones). I personally think this was a huge mistake, and I honestly don't think this consequence was properly considered.

2. Also the casus belli must be fairly close to beyond reproach. Meaning that the US's course of action must largely be seen as legitimate. The US having used doubtful casus for military engagements have led to a great decline in trust towards western civilization in general and likely been a contributing cause to rise in anti-western sentiment worldwide.

3. Prolonged warfare should also be avoided. It simply can't survive the media image in this day and age.

4. The US should also recognize the International Criminal Court, which they have stopped doing. This is extremely unfortunate, as it means the US is actively stopping international prosecution of its own war criminals. Couple this with insane immunity from prosecution offered to PMCs, and it is looking an awful lot like the US is saying that "the rules only apply to everyone else".




So, to the base question.... with all this in mind, do we need a US policeman? Yes... I think many of us do. Especially because of the rise in nuclear threats. But only if the US improve the conduct in which they perform this role.... because if the current direction continue in two more decades, I think the US will have become a liability for its allies and a contributing factor to the decline of democracy worldwide.

Really appreciate your insight/candor. You've referred to your nation a couple times, but I'm newish around here... which nation is that?

I think (perhaps errantly) that there is a growing sentiment among Americans that we should revert back towards a more isolationist/noninterventionist foreign policy. Not an extreme change, but an agreement that currently we are involved in too many places constantly, and with questionable motives in some cases. Currently, it seems that we are slow to aid in countries that won't yield an immediate benefit to us.

I guess I should stop putting words in America's mouth, and simply state my own opinions. I feel that if we are to police the world, it should be to promote liberty/equality in areas where there is extreme offense (think: Darfur), but only intervene once we have a decent grasp of the surrounding culture (i.e. don't force democracy on a theocratic culture), and once we have a decent exit plan.

(Tangent...) I've got similar internal debates between (Christian beliefs and government) and (western standards of morality and third world countries). In both cases, the group claiming the higher moral ground wishes to establish their supreme morality on those who are unfamiliar/disagree with those stances. I've got several Christian friends whom I respect that believe we should use the government to enforce Christian morality, and several other Christian friends who strongly disagree. I'm surrounded by a similar disagreement on whether the US should be the policeman of the (third) world. (Sorry for the tangent.)

(Yes, the last paragraph was a thinly veiled attempt to justify this thread existing in RGT )

I was talking about the US killing their own citizens who have a right to due process. Those citizens do not lose that right only by being outside of US jurisdiction.

I just think when we say something like, "We have to get the enemy" is really actually so gray that it doesn't have any substance.

To define 'we', or 'our side' you start to ask is it Americans? Is it allies of the American military? Is it everyone in America or just citizens? If you change to Canadian citizenship are you no longer apart of the 'we'. Do you have to be anti al-Qaeda? Is it just the administration and or military that reps the good side etc.?

Same for 'the enemy'. Is it just al Qaeda? Is it their children? Is it people who prepare dinner for al Qaeda members? Is it only militant terrorist groups? What if someone disagrees with the killing of al Qaeda, but they are American, are they 'the enemy? What if an American soldier doesn't agree with killing foreigners anymore?


I don't think we have enemies in this world, just people who aren't intelligent enough to sustain peace. I think using the word enemy in these senses is silly and horrible. When a man is violent towards me, I'm not justified in doing violence back, thats 4year old logic (this is not directed at Tame D). And we a man is violent towards me its not because hes evil, its because hes a product of this violent world.

I should mention that the US citizen part doesn't really affect me much. What is egregious about it is that it violates a very long standing sacrament of the privaleged nature of US citizens (or of citizens of other countries to their respective countries) such that the willingness to violate that is a pretty big step. But I don't personally care about this privaleged nature. As in, it doesn't matter to me if a US or no US civilian is killed, both are equally valued in my mind. I support the DREAM act, I don't need the president to be a US born citizen, Obama could have been a Kenyan and that would have been fine. And when we assassinate people in other countries, there should be more oversite and accountability than exists now. The US citizen bit is thus something of a hook, in the sense that it gets people outraged because it is American in specific, where I would hope they would be outraged invariant of the Americanness.

See this stuff is beyond obvious tho, like at what point is it the pot calling the kettle black? That was the very beginning, prob even before the creation of America, and well before Jesus time.

I'm not sure why we compare numbers to 9/11 and Pakistan/drone attacks, is there a certain ratio that justifies killing? Certainly we don't believe people across the world should die because a building collapsed and killed people.

Certainly we don't think our militaries are in Afghanistan because of 9/11. That doesn't make any logical sense.

We should note however when looking for a tangible reason we disrupt so many lives, is that Afghanistan and Pakistan hold all the REAL ancient archaeological evidence to mans past. Our oldest knowledge originates in the 'enemies' land.

That is, we are older than 3 to 5 thousand years, and keeping in mind our way of culture has a way of destroying crucial information about our origin
Perhaps you are just waking up to this notion, but i think it is obvious to all of us and doesn't need to be said. I think its the assumption that needs to be brought to the table in any such discussion. We are ruled and not free

This is a conflicting statement, and I believe the conflict in the statement will always mirror the conflict in the outer world.

As an American you represent and are responsible for the fooling around in the middle east.

I don't think its openly if you have to state first that you love America. Yes the troops follow orders because they love America.

I SERIOUSLY question this, and not sure which world you are talking about.

Is your country free? Are you free? Are you sure you know what freedom is, because you were taught it by the same people who are fooling around in the middle east. I would like to contend, and we've had a thread on it already, that your country cannot be free until ALL countries are free. That means if you wage war on another country, then you yourselves are not free. Thinking your country can be free when others are not is a lie.


Certainly what we are told the theory is. But truthfully its theoretically impossible to fight for ones freedom, freedom comes when we are ALL free, so any fighting defeats the cause.


Then you should say you don't support the troops.
Its clearly contradictory.

Err, no.

EDIT: Please elaborate. Because, as is, it is so patently false on its face that I really have no idea what you're thinking in order to make such a claim.

It was founded on slavery and suppression, we are barely able to say we have changed this in any way.
But its certainly just a sense, you are not free in hardly any ways, the economy is toast and at the higher levels of entrepreneurship you smash into corruption, and there is little equality.

This is true of all countries though right?

But you only listed the good things, and most of them are only good on the surface.

Thats just a religious belief though. When we see that ignorance is the problem when it comes to things like foreign policy, then we can see that every citizen is at fault. But more importantly we cannot separate foreign policy from America.

What we need to understand is systems especially economic ones, are fundamentally broken from there very creation.

I'd love to see Americans, and all nationality stop rooting for an imaginary "America" with imaginary borders, and start seeing the world as it is which is a whole. When we begin to see that national pride is just glorified tribalism, we might be able to see that our national pride is what causes war, not disagreements between two nations.

I don't think this is a valid question. I think its western religion to believe that our culture is better and should therefore be imposed on others. There should never be any policing of this kind.
Democracy is a religion as well, every major country in the democratic world is protesting and question their democratic process, and each country has great reason to do so. In Canada our elections were blatantly fixed, and its talked about on the news everyday.

Coupled with the the issue that democracy allows all of the unintelligent people a chance to make the wrong choice, based on timely placed media content control by the wealthiest.

I'd like to argue this as well, when America declares a battlefield it becomes one.

I am I the only one who doesn't think that this is liberty of any kind?

Of what kind? Or are you suggesting the US should never intervene into another country's affairs?

I did go into a little in another post I think, but the problem with the world is ignorance. We subscribe to false concepts of borders, nations, armys, economy, enemies and so on. The general population refuses to actually learn about the world, to learn to empathize with others and their way of living. We cannot love our country and our way of life that includes killing other people and suggest we are free from the responsibilities of the harmful effects of our ignorance.

Of course a proud American, or a proud Canadian, or any countryman, will flat out deny responsibility, thats the problem with this world, its not hard, its really simple.

You still didn't explain how a citizen of a nation is responsible for his nation's actions.

I am not suggest the fix for the world is this moment drop everything. But I am suggesting some things such as we are not free as long as America polices the world (or any country polices). I also do not think America is fair, un predjuce, peace seeking etc. I do not agree with Americas morals. But more importantly I do not agree with putting your way of life on others.

You see as a Canadian/American (I'll add my country in the mix as not to offend so much) we feel our way of life is 'good'. Its entails certain peaceful actions etc.

We feel we are able to spread this way of life and help others live this way. We fail to realize that in itself is our belief. We belief in forcing our way of life on others....its a terrible belief and a terrible way of living.

So yes murdering is bad, suppression, forced labour, strict laws against women, dictatorship etc. But none of that compares to forcing your beliefs on others, and that kind of violent act is grown in a population that believes their way of living is correct.

Its possibly to hard for you to understand because its so far from your conditioning. I'm not going to prove it with logic, I'm going to show you how believe you are not responsible for your nations actions is the REAL cause of the worlds problems.

So you will walk away from the conversation saying 'Newguy couldn't prove that, so his claim isn't valid' and I will walk away saying 'If each individual change their religion to take responsibility for their nations actions, our nations would act in such ways.'

...this seems more like an argument for anarchy than an argument against the US "policing the world". As in, any government is necessarily forcing "their way of life" onto you by the mere fact of you being born under that government.

So, we've already reached the point where you're not going to support your claims. That was quick.

Well stated.
This is what I was thinking but you communicated it better.
so I give this a hearty +1

Anarchy is a word full of pre conditioned prejudice. But I'd just like to point out when we live under government we are not free. I'll let you have a point such as thats the best we can have or do, but certainly that is not freedom. Furthermore freedom must be total not partial, partial freedom is not freedom at all. I wonder if you agree on this?

I haven't introduce a small concept that you won't like at first but you might in the future as a tool for your skepticism. Lets imagine heaven, which many aesthetic believe in some form but they don't realize. You don't believe in it but that doesn't' mean it won't be helpful to debate.

Certainly in heaven we are to be free? Or do people believe we can't be free in heaven? I dont' think that can be heaven. Is heaven anarchy? Many might say no because god rules it, but then certainly heaven is not freedom.

I deal with these things different then likely anyone you have met or dealt with.

If we show a certain group is responsible through supported claims and scientific evidence, but later realize that we can change who is responsible by changing our perspective, then WE become responsible (not the other group) regardless of scientific evidence and supported claims. It is no longer based on perspective because we have control of that perspective and can no longer responsible take the perspective that it is not our responsibility.

This becomes a simple fact that proves itself.

I don't really see this conversation going anywhere productive, so I'm going to let it drop. Sorry.

Cheers.

NewGuy,

Your posts over the last several pages come across pretty spammy. If you want to tell everyone their POV is wrong and introduce a new world order maybe you should do that in a different thread.

If you are going to disagree on so many different points you need to be willing to support what you are saying with some type of logical argument. If not, don't bother commenting in the first place.

Your point re "the enemy" being vague was a good point that was on topic.

I am not intending to be harsh but the amount of topics you are bringing up and the amount of points you are taking issue with is not a positive contribution.

How can one be responsible for America's Military actions while at the same time America's leadership does not answer to him?