• 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

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

All good reasons to decline the job, and not let anyone else do it either.
 
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
 
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.

Democratic hegemony is very important. I believe the United States with a concert of allies should do it's best to ensure the spread of liberalism and democracy and enforce international order. I remain an avowed believer in democratic peace theory and hope for the day when at last China and Russia adopt a liberal democratic regime of government and fully join the community of nations. When that day comes the world will have become a much more cooperative and peaceful place as it already has when compared to where we were a century ago. It is in our interests to fight for this future, ensure international stability, and prevent the globe from being molded by our autocratic opponents.
 
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.

Goshin, do you accept America's economic interests are of a 'global nature'?

Paul
 
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

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.
 
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.
 
Our foreign and military posture is not the source of our financial and fiscal woes.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Ah, thus the root reason we are seemingly more interested in the Mid-East and the Mid-West. The free flow of oil and stability in the oil rich Middle East is our vital interest and has driven nearly of of our foreign policy since the end of the Cold War where even then it placed second.
 
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.

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.

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.

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 our 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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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?
 
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.

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.
 
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?

The real reason that no action was taken in the congo would be a good start.
 
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.

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.
 
if any country has to be a world power it should act like lady justice
 
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom