• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

Who should has the job of World Police?

  • America is the world's remaining superpower. It's our job.

    Votes: 8 21.1%
  • Let Russia become the new world police

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • China as the most people so it should be their job

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Regional associations deal with regional matters; the Arab League, NAFTA, NATO.

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • The UN with its own standing military, of which America also subjected to.

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 17 44.7%

  • Total voters
    38
What is the strategic value of a "limitted military action" in Syria?
Keeping Syria in a box so that its civil war doesn't cross the borders. We are also sending a message on chemical weapons, they are a no no. Slaughter is okay of course, as long as the oil still flows.
 
All good reasons to decline the job, and not let anyone else do it either.

yep. if we're going to nation build, we need to do it domestically. the fact that we keep doing this over and over again with the same results is frustrating.
 
Our foreign and military posture is not the source of our financial and fiscal woes.

It's an enormous portion of it. The US military and Intel budgets are nearly a trillion annually. Iraq alone cost over a trillion. Adding a trillion a year plus ongoing interest to the debt certainly isn't fixing our debt problem. Ignoring the exorbitant cost of our oversized military isn't making an honest assessment of the source of our fiscal woes.

if we're to be global cop, there needs to be a global tax to pay for it.

Further, if the law of the world is set by the US President and the US Congress, then everyone on Earth should have a vote in US elections. Otherwise, we're just a massive global oligarchy posing as a democracy.
 
The real reason that no action was taken in the congo would be a good start.

Because the American people were uninterested, because the Government had its attentions focused elsewhere, we had been 'burned' in Somalia only a scant few years before, the idea of moral interventionism had not fully taken root yet (it was only a few years after Rwanda), the unwillingness to suborn troops to a UN mission or conversely to lead one ourselves, the absorption of US focus on Iraq (Desert Fox), and afterwards 9/11 and the War on Terror. Also when it comes to Africa we've largely left it in the hands of our European allies (Operation Turqoise, Mali, Chad, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Senegal, CAR, etc). You could probably list a thousand other variables.

As I said before I'd gladly like to do more in the Congo, I think the Congo is actually where the most good for Africa can be accomplished (and by extension the planet). However that is not going to happen. But it is not an argument for ignoring the opportunity to do good and flex US influence in Syria.
 
Proves Obama has cajones. That's of the utmost importance.
That matters as well. If you promise a spanking then you'd better deliver one, and I'm sure that we will.
 
It's an enormous portion of it. The US military and Intel budgets are nearly a trillion annually. Iraq alone cost over a trillion. Adding a trillion a year plus ongoing interest to the debt certainly isn't fixing our debt problem. Ignoring the exorbitant cost of our oversized military isn't making an honest assessment of the source of our fiscal woes.



Further, if the law of the world is set by the US President and the US Congress, then everyone on Earth should have a vote in US elections. Otherwise, we're just a massive global oligarchy posing as a democracy.

I should have elaborated on what I meant. For all of it's cost military expenditure is actually rather manageable. Ships can be mothballed, aircraft grounded, soldiers furloughed, look at the relative ease with which we've cut defense spending in the past 20 years (after the end of the Cold War and the recent defense cuts). Not only is it a relatively smaller part of the debt and deficit pie than our other problems, its more easily trimmed. The bigger problem is liabilities that we have little ability to curb and threaten severe future problems. When you look at our future fiscal situation it isn't defense that looms large.
 
I'll agree that the dollar cost incurred by our military exploits are far outweighed by entitlements and debt but what about all the lives we have most and all the men that have come home blown all to Hell? Not only that but half the time when we play world cop we do more harm than good. IMO if we are not directly threatened we should stay out of it.

Human cost is terrible, but certainly we can agree that is a separate cost. As terrible as casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan are I think it would be difficult to argue they have lead to our bankruptcy and demise as you seemed to be indicating earlier.
 
What is the strategic value of a "limitted military action" in Syria?

Tip the scales and make it easier for Assad to be ousted or at a minimum discourage future use of chemical munitions. On the other end, actually blow up the buying housing Assad.
 
Keeping Syria in a box so that its civil war doesn't cross the borders. We are also sending a message on chemical weapons, they are a no no. Slaughter is okay of course, as long as the oil still flows.

Nonsense, it crossed into Turkey long ago. This is about oil and Israel/Iran. The only nation to have ever used nukes on another nation, is now supporting a military coup in Egypt, is supporting the worlds largest heroin producer and that zaps folks using drones in many foreign nations (that it is not at war with) is hardly in a position to talk about rules of "honest warfare" and taking the high moral ground. ;)
 
That matters as well. If you promise a spanking then you'd better deliver one, and I'm sure that we will.
Would that we could just erase Obama's remarks. Some lessons are learned the hard way, though. Most of us share the revulsion at events over there, but the president's remarks put us in a box. Had we taken action a good while back, this might have been avoided.
 
Tip the scales and make it easier for Assad to be ousted or at a minimum discourage future use of chemical munitions. On the other end, actually blow up the buying housing Assad.

So assinating foreign head's of state is technically wrong but helping others to do so (think Libya) is cool.? Is it OK if China and Russia do this too, since they are "superpowers" as well?
 
Other implies a nation you did not list. NO ONE indicates a clear statement that no nation has the right to compel other nations to comply with whatever ideology the policeman feels like enforcing.

Good points and not what I meant to imply.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather not see America in this situation but I'm just being realistic in my opinion, with respect to our economy needing the maximum level of stability in the Middle East with the most friends due to the importance oil has over our way of life. If North Korea or the Congo killed 1300 of their own citizens with chemical bombs I'd be willing to be our involvement would be limited to voting for a UN resolution condemning the tyrants. Why? North Korea and the Congo don't have any oil nor are they in the neighborhood with other countries that have oil where instability could spread. This is what we have when we let one commodity own our economic viability and refuse to support getting other options to the place of viability.
 
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.

Good afternoon, Goshin. :2wave:

:agree: History proves that with all the great civilizations that have come and gone...Egypt and Rome being examples. They bankrupted themselves waging wars, and look at where they are today. :shock: They remain great tourist destinations, but that is only so we can view the magnificence they once were, as shown by the pyramids, cathedrals, and aqueducts they built which we can see today. Sad... :peace:
 
So assinating foreign head's of state is technically wrong but helping others to do so (think Libya) is cool.? Is it OK if China and Russia do this too, since they are "superpowers" as well?

No but again being realistic. I think there has been a history of America "coincidentally" dropping bombs near heads of state. If Assad is "accidentally" hit, I can't imagine that not resulting in an end to the bloodshed. In fact, I'm pretty much expecting Assad to either be killed in the US attack or his location damaged just enough to cause injury and be takes into custody by the opposition. Just watch.
 
No but again being realistic. I think there has been a history of America "coincidentally" dropping bombs near heads of state. If Assad is "accidentally" hit, I can't imagine that not resulting in an end to the bloodshed. In fact, I'm pretty much expecting Assad to either be killed in the US attack or his location damaged just enough to cause injury and be takes into custody by the opposition. Just watch.

Ending bloodshed in the middle east and Africa is mission impossible.
 
Good points and not what I meant to imply.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather not see America in this situation but I'm just being realistic in my opinion, with respect to our economy needing the maximum level of stability in the Middle East with the most friends due to the importance oil has over our way of life. If North Korea or the Congo killed 1300 of their own citizens with chemical bombs I'd be willing to be our involvement would be limited to voting for a UN resolution condemning the tyrants. Why? North Korea and the Congo don't have any oil nor are they in the neighborhood with other countries that have oil where instability could spread. This is what we have when we let one commodity own our economic viability and refuse to support getting other options to the place of viability.

Good afternoon, Sméagol. :2wave:

Didn't Clinton pass on Rwanda? I remember the pictures showing starving dying children, but I guess that's life. Maybe if oil is discovered in Rwanda, their importance to us will change? "Think of the children" doesn't always apply, does it? :bs:
 
1. It isn't a false dilemma because I was responding to a particular poster who made a statement for which my reply was entirely applicable.

I read the post you responded to before I made my comment about yours. You did create a false dilemma when you stated "Congo implausible, Syria plausible." Why not the Congo if Syria? What makes Syrian intervention more plausible? Neither situation justifies military intervention, however you just assert one has greater actual value than the other for whatever reasons.

2. I find non-interventionism to be fool hardy and morally distasteful.

Where do I advocate pure "non-interventionism?" I am willing to intervene militarily when one of our allies is attacked or threatened. That does not mean I support military intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation any more than I would allow another country to intervene militarily in OUR internal affairs.

I have yet to hear a proper justification for your idea that "What’s good for the goose is NOT good for the gander" when it comes to intervention. The argument always seems to be “we are strongest and hold the moral right, therefore we can intervene.” Yet unless you would be willing to allow a more powerful nation to intervene militarily in American internal affairs in support of their ideology, you are preaching hypocrisy.

3. If we only go to places that have "something we want" why did we go to Bosnia? Kosovo? Haiti? Somalia? Hell why Syria? Clearly we are not a kleptocratic leviathan or we'd surely select some better targets.

We were never IN Bosnia. NATO supported two UN resolutions regarding maritime traffic and no fly zones. Our actions were under treaty obligations and consisted of air and naval units. Kosovo was also a NATO mission, the USA is a treaty member of NATO and we honor our treaty obligations. Haiti?? That was humanitarian disaster assistance, which I advocate and support. Somalia? We initially sent troops in to help with humanitarian relief for a population facing starvation caused by drought; the troops were there to protect American relief workers. Of course they were attacked and we got stuck in the mess.

4. I disagree. I think we do have a corner on the proper form of government. I find that notion that others do not desire democracy to be more racist than claiming that Chinese or Iranian citizens are desirous of a more republican form of government.

Very noble, and very ethnocentric. In any case, if a people WANT something, they eventually get it. We don’t need to impose it on them.

5. False. Good ideas and people power do not bring down autocracies. All it would have taken to prevent the collapse of the Mubarak regime would have been a government as ruthless as the one in Tehran or Damascus. The ability to deploy violence and the willingness to do so can perpetuate these dictatorships ad nausum. The collapse of the Soviet Union was in large part brought about because of the pressures exerted by the United States and her allies across the globe, but even then the possibility that violence would have saved the regime was absolutely present. It is why a strong democratic power, the United States, is essential in bringing about a better world.

Umm, I think not. I disagree with your opinion about the fall of the U.S.S.R. entirely. I think it was the EXAMPLE of the USA that eventually led to the popular fall of that government, not any "pressures" we brought to bear militarily. The same is true of Iran under the Shah, he was ruthless but he still fell to a popular rebellion.

6. I find the Chinese and Russian system of government to be repugnant and their governments to be moreso. I am not a relativist, I do not care about the equivalence of what a Chinese authoritarian thinks vs. what I think. I'm in this to win.

It does not matter what you find, they exist in fact. The issue was, if THEY had the power and we did not, how would you feel about their interference. Apparently, you would not be happy or appreciate it. Again, it is utter hubris to think our lifestyle is automatically the best for every culture or society in the world. Still, if it is, they will come to it themselves eventually. People have to make the choice and the effort themselves. We cannot impose it from outside.
 
I read the post you responded to before I made my comment about yours. You did create a false dilemma when you stated "Congo implausible, Syria plausible." Why not the Congo if Syria? What makes Syrian intervention more plausible? Neither situation justifies military intervention, however you just assert one has greater actual value than the other for whatever reasons.



Where do I advocate pure "non-interventionism?" I am willing to intervene militarily when one of our allies is attacked or threatened. That does not mean I support military intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation any more than I would allow another country to intervene militarily in OUR internal affairs.

I have yet to hear a proper justification for your idea that "What’s good for the goose is NOT good for the gander" when it comes to intervention. The argument always seems to be “we are strongest and hold the moral right, therefore we can intervene.” Yet unless you would be willing to allow a more powerful nation to intervene militarily in American internal affairs in support of their ideology, you are preaching hypocrisy.



We were never IN Bosnia. NATO supported two UN resolutions regarding maritime traffic and no fly zones. Our actions were under treaty obligations and consisted of air and naval units. Kosovo was also a NATO mission, the USA is a treaty member of NATO and we honor our treaty obligations. Haiti?? That was humanitarian disaster assistance, which I advocate and support. Somalia? We initially sent troops in to help with humanitarian relief for a population facing starvation caused by drought; the troops were there to protect American relief workers. Of course they were attacked and we got stuck in the mess.



Very noble, and very ethnocentric. In any case, if a people WANT something, they eventually get it. We don’t need to impose it on them.



Umm, I think not. I disagree with your opinion about the fall of the U.S.S.R. entirely. I think it was the EXAMPLE of the USA that eventually led to the popular fall of that government, not any "pressures" we brought to bear militarily. The same is true of Iran under the Shah, he was ruthless but he still fell to a popular rebellion.



It does not matter what you find, they exist in fact. The issue was, if THEY had the power and we did not, how would you feel about their interference. Apparently, you would not be happy or appreciate it. Again, it is utter hubris to think our lifestyle is automatically the best for every culture or society in the world. Still, if it is, they will come to it themselves eventually. People have to make the choice and the effort themselves. We cannot impose it from outside.

1. I answered that and I'm very confused how you'd overlook that. It was a specific question and I gave a specific answer over several posts.

2. I'm not a relativist. I believe we are right, that liberalism and democracy are the superior model for global governance and that democratic peace theory is true. I do not care whether or not a Chinese or Russian autocrat feels differently because they are my enemy.

3. I'm not sure where you are getting your information. We were extremely involved in Bosnia and Operation Deny Flight and Deliberate Force were led by the United States. After the Dayton Accords we provided thousands of troops for IFOR. Likewise in Kosovo we intervened and deployed thousands of troops after we drove Serbian troops back. I could go on but all of the examples I cited are examples where US military force was applied for a particular humanitarian end. That they were cloaked in a NATO mission that we agitated for seems irrelevant. Unless your standard for a non-ethnocentric intervention is having a bunch of American and European allies voting in Brussels.

4. I think calling it ethnocentric is more racist than actually being a proponent of it. Liberty is not an American value, it is one commonly shared by mankind. Likewise democracy is not uniquely American, it is something desired by most all humans on this planet. There are inflections, cultural adjustments, and the like but the clarion call is clear.

5. I do not think it was the example of the US that led to the collapse of the USSR, this is romanticism. Of course our existence is essential in posing an alternative model to people across the globe but it is not enough. What if Gorbachev had sent troops into Poland instead of leaving the Polish Communist Party to its fate? What if the troops that were dispatched to the Baltic States never left? As for the Shah what if the Iranian military had not deserted? Then the crowds would have been butchered, the prisons filled, and again autocracy would have won the day. There are a million and one scenarios where force is applied and freedom is snuffed out. It was not destiny that the Soviet Union found its grave in 1991 else how has North Korea endured? Being a symbol is important, but so is being a force capable of containing and confronting these enemies. Popular will sometimes triumphs, sometimes it is crushed with overwhelming force. Being a symbol doesn't stop that from happening.

6. I understand that but the essential point is that I don't care. Of course I wouldn't appreciate it. I'm sure those alive during the Cold War didn't appreciate the efforts of the Soviet Union to spread it's influence and form of government. But that's the point. You are not a passive player in the world, and I've picked my side. What do I think of fascistic thugs like Assad? Like Kim Jong Un? I'm uninterested in their political or ethical perspectives--I want them to perish.

People do have to pick for themselves, but they need help doing so. The people of North Korea will never overthrow their slaveocracy from below. The people of Kurdistan would never have escaped the clutches of Saddam without the United States. The people of Kosovo would never have extricated themselves from the grips of Milosevic. The people of Libya from Gaddafi, and the list goes on and on.

Hope and people power can only topple a regime when the regime allows itself to be toppled and force is no longer an option. When it doesn't the blood flows in the streets and liberty dies.
 
Where would the US be right now without intervention?
 
We ought to consider.....as a species.....the fact that technology has brought us closer to one another.

A hundred years ago, it would have taken a month and a small fortune for Joe Sixpack to take a little vaca to China. Now....less than a day and less than a months wages.

Fifty years ago, if I wanted to communicate with my friend Marwan in Lebanon.....I was writing a letter and waiting three weeks to hear back. Now, we talk live...with video.

Thirty years from now........?

We are all inhabiting this earth. We might consider tossing our #1 foam fingers.....in favor of a more thoughtful approach.

Yeah....I know.....all the brown skin is scary! But we must make progress.
 
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.

Unfortunately, "rights" don't have a single thing to do with it one way or the other.

The simple fact of the matter is that someone is always going to be on top, and that this nation is always going to have the ability, and very likely the inclination, to exercise that power over others to some degree or another.

Thankfully for the rest of the world, the US happens to be a rather subdued hegemon on the whole (at least in comparison to past global leaders like the Roman Empire, Spaniards, or USSR). However, we cannot really say for sure whether a world dominated by the Chinese or Russians would be similar in this regard.

All things being equal, I'd simply rather not take the risk. :shrug:

We should attempt to remain the "sole" global superpower for as long as we are able.
 
Last edited:
Good afternoon, Sméagol. :2wave:

Didn't Clinton pass on Rwanda? I remember the pictures showing starving dying children, but I guess that's life. Maybe if oil is discovered in Rwanda, their importance to us will change? "Think of the children" doesn't always apply, does it? :bs:

Bingo. Add the Sudan, North Korea, the Congo. No oil in the region = no vital intest.
 
Back
Top Bottom