There's a lot of sentiment lately over scaling back America's role outside of our own borders. The position of "global beacon of democracy," "the world's only remaining superpower," etc., etc., comes with what some consider to be a duty to therest of the world that includes being the world's police in the most extreme cases of state sponsored terror. Some accept tgat we have that as part of who we are. Others think only if and when we get a consensus and cooperation from most other governments albeit with our leadership. Others still take the position that its not our concern when atrocities occur outside of the United States. Nature hates a vacuum however and if we turn our backs on the role of global peacekeepers I wonder is the isolationists has considered that and if so do they have a preference on how the world community should respond to atrocities.
my opinion :
we cover the Americas, China deals with Asia, and Saudi Arabia handles the Middle East. we maintain our alliance with Israel.
if we're to be global cop, there needs to be a global tax to pay for it. even if there were, though, i still wouldn't support it.
also, any police action needs to be met with wartime tax rates at home. we can't afford to put another one on the credit card, and also, shared sacrifice. all tax brackets should go up significantly until the mission is complete.
There's a lot of sentiment lately over scaling back America's role outside of our own borders. The position of "global beacon of democracy," "the world's only remaining superpower," etc., etc., comes with what some consider to be a duty to therest of the world that includes being the world's police in the most extreme cases of state sponsored terror. Some accept tgat we have that as part of who we are. Others think only if and when we get a consensus and cooperation from most other governments albeit with our leadership. Others still take the position that its not our concern when atrocities occur outside of the United States. Nature hates a vacuum however and if we turn our backs on the role of global peacekeepers I wonder is the isolationists has considered that and if so do they have a preference on how the world community should respond to atrocities.
None of the above. We should act when our own vital national interests are at stake, and otherwise let the rest of the world take care of itself.
**** with us, we'll smash you to dust; leave us alone, we'll return the favor.
The problem with any nation being (acting as?) world police requires two missing things: world law and a world court.
While we can, indeed, "feel good" by trying to use our military might tp help those elsewhere in the world, we must first carefully examine and determine just what exactly defines when, where and how that is to be done. While things are "very bad" in Syria, and I do not doubt that they are, they were far worse in places like the Congo (formerly Zaire) yet we did not respond with our military might.
IMHO, in matters concerning U.S. foreign policy, and especially the use of the U.S. military might, it is best to maintain a "just us" system based on our legitimate self defense than to attempt to invent and then implement some bizarre unilateral world justice system based upon the personal wishes of our current president and their political pull in congress.
Another basic question is why should the single most powerful nation (currently the U.S.) become the defacto king (dictator?) of the world?
In a list of the worst recent (last 100 years?) acts of genocide just where would you rank Assad/Syria?
History of the Conflict
Genocide And War Crimes - Never Again | The World's Most Wanted Man | FRONTLINE | PBS
What Is Genocide? — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts
The worst genocides of the 20th and 21st Century
Nobody can police the world and this country has gone broke trying, the loss of blood and treasure we have suffered is just not acceptable.
Our foreign and military posture is not the source of our financial and fiscal woes.
Excuse me, but where is the "NO ONE" option? In my opinion NO ONE has the right to be the "world's policeman." Since OTHER is a B/S choice, and none of the rest qualify, I did not vote.
P.S. It is not "isolationist" to respect the sovereignty of other nations and demand they respect OUR sovereignty. We can make our own alliances and deal with our own interests without outside interference.
I've always been puzzled by this standard. "We should not intervene in Y because X is worse." Because invariably the question you have to be asked is "Alright, well do you support intervening in X?" Usually the answer is a solid no. We do not live in a theoretical world and a million and one variables stand in the way of an intervention coming about. Would I personally support greater US involvement in the Congo? Yes I would. But that is an implausible objective at present. Syria is not and the fact that people are suffering in Goma or Kivu does not diminish the suffering of people suffering in Idlib or Hama.
On a secondary note... why is it so terrible to erect a 'unilateral' form of justice? The standards we've set are by and large liberal ones agreed upon by most of the worlds democracies if not all of them. The application of force may not be universally agreed upon, but certainly the standards of behavior are fairly uniform. It does not overly bother me that the United States in concert with her democratic allies of the moment take action when action needs to be taken. Why should I care what the authoritarian strongman in Moscow or the autocratic gang in Beijing thinks about what we do aside from the practical impact? Morally I don't care at all. We talk about the UN and the UNSC and global bodies of approval but at the end of the day how many of these interventions are only stymied by these authoritarian states? Most of them. I'm quite alright with trusting ours and our allies moral compasses (but especially ours) and forging ahead without them.
You realize how much money all these wars and police actions and things like bombing Libya have cost? Not to mention the American lives lost and horrible injuries sustained.
None of the above. We should act when our own vital national interests are at stake, and otherwise let the rest of the world take care of itself.
**** with us, we'll smash you to dust; leave us alone, we'll return the favor.
I've always been puzzled by this standard. "We should not intervene in Y because X is worse." Because invariably the question you have to be asked is "Alright, well do you support intervening in X?" Usually the answer is a solid no. We do not live in a theoretical world and a million and one variables stand in the way of an intervention coming about. Would I personally support greater US involvement in the Congo? Yes I would. But that is an implausible objective at present. Syria is not and the fact that people are suffering in Goma or Kivu does not diminish the suffering of people suffering in Idlib or Hama.
On a secondary note... why is it so terrible to erect a 'unilateral' form of justice? The standards we've set are by and large liberal ones agreed upon by most of the worlds democracies if not all of them. The application of force may not be universally agreed upon, but certainly the standards of behavior are fairly uniform. It does not overly bother me that the United States in concert with her democratic allies of the moment take action when action needs to be taken. Why should I care what the authoritarian strongman in Moscow or the autocratic gang in Beijing thinks about what we do aside from the practical impact? Morally I don't care at all. We talk about the UN and the UNSC and global bodies of approval but at the end of the day how many of these interventions are only stymied by these authoritarian states? Most of them. I'm quite alright with trusting ours and our allies moral compasses (but especially ours) and forging ahead without them.
It is far easier to say these things than to show examples of when they ever actually existed. Your standard cop out "of we can't do everything but..." is noted. So far this "massive consensus" to act in Syria exists in France and the U.S., according to Obama and a few others, but has yet to become "popular". If your idea of justice is simply to act "sometimes" or when we think nobody will (can?) object in a major way then I reject it out of hand, so no thank you.
Yes. They are still not the source of our poor fiscal house. Moreover when considering future costs and burdens their role dwindles even further in the face of entitlements and debt servicing.
It isn't a cop-out, unless you think we actually can do everything I think you'd be forced to agree: we cannot do everything. We take action where political will and strategic/humanitarian imperatives afford us the opportunity to take action. I think you've given a very disingenuous assessment of what I wrote.
As for examples, what are you looking for?
Operating from the position that a vacuum would e created and a true hates a vacuum. However, I included an "other" oion just in case there were preferences I didn't think of.
The real reason? No strategic value.The real reason that no action was taken in the congo would be a good start.
You pose a false dilemma because the issue is not which battles we pick, it's why we get involved at all. Typically our government picks based on "vital interests" which in the case of the Middle East has always been Oil and Israel, in that order. If the Congo had something we wanted, we'd be in there too. We have no "moral high ground" in such choices, it's always what provides the most return on our investment (in this case American lives and military expenditures). This has always troubled me because we inevitably make lasting enemies both overt and hidden by our obviously self-centered acts of violence.
That is a particularly ethnocentric viewpoint, and as I have explained to another member, the same attitude displayed by "superpowers" throughout all eras of history. We do not have a corner on the "proper form of government" market. Each society should be allowed to choose their own without outside interference.
If our system is so good, and naturally the most advanced, then all we need do is set a good example and let people choose to follow it. Why do you think just because we currently have the strongest military force this authorizes us to compel other societies to comply with out ideals? How would you feel if we were NOT the strongest and China and/or Russia were and THEY tried to compel US to adhere to their moral ideals or forms of government? It is hubris to think we have such a duty.
The real reason? No strategic value.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?