You are shot at and wounded. What do you do? Shoot back if armed? Run away if you can? Call the Police? We are an armed nation and we must protect ourselves. To run away invites further aggression and wounding. We are the world police and we must do our duty. If others are bothered by this role then they should step forward and participate in the enforcement.
If you do not like the status quo, you might call a Frenchman.

...and what are we debating here?

Teddy Roosevelt would be so proud of this statement. We are not the world's policeman. We need to look after our interests in the world, but we also need to be on good behavior. The world allows us our unchecked military advantage because they believe we will not go overboard with this power. Protecting ourselves does not necessarily mean toppling government we do not like because they could prove to be a threat.

If we want to deserve the powers of a police officer we need to act justly. We do not call the police to come kill burglars and rapists, we call to bring them to justice.

Does the US have a right to act as the world's policeman?

My answer would be no

A policeman is appointed by a government apparatus which is representative of the people whom he is asked to protect.

A policeman is responsible to an organisational framework and a network of policies and procedures which limit and define his role and the actions which he may or may not take.

The US as policeman, however, operates under no such agrred constraints and has been given no world mandate to undertake the role.

Being the only major superpower & the only country that cares about World security & others, i think the U.S. does have a right to act like a policeman

Why be the only world's superpower & not be the policeman??

So you are saying that might equals right?

Am I interpreting your post correctly?

Well, if you left your house wide open and you ticked off some neighborhood gang, the gang come in and takes your gun and shoots you--well, what do you do?

1) Lock the doors

2) Get rid of the gun

3) Find out why the neighborhood gang has it out for you

4) Fix the situation

Or you could get a bunch of bombs and blow the bajeezies out of the neighborhood (actually, a different one where the gang went shopping), then replace the gang leader of *that* neighborhood.

We seem to like that last alternative.

I would answer that by saying that with great power comes great responsibility.

Were the US to become isolationist, the world would instantly become a much more dangerous place. Instantly.

Do you agree?

I agree that an isolationst USA would be dangerous, but I would also argue it is also dangerous to have a USA which involves itself in international affairs out of self interest rather than because of the responsibility which you say comes with power.

Would you agree with that?

We can't be the world's policeman. We can't invade every African country and install a new government so they have a stable economy. We can't invade North Korea because one million people would die. Even America isn't rich enough to fix the entire world. America can't fight wars that aren't very important to the national interest.

Every nation acts out of self-interest. Every one. That is what a government is for.

We deter aggression around the world when it is in our self-interest.

The African example is a good one. Why aren't we more involved there? Quite simply, because the last time we tried to help out (Somalia) the peacekeepers we sent were attacked. So we pulled out.

I agree that even though the US is powerful, we cannot solve every problem, resolve every conflict, feed every person.

Of course, I also believe that acts of charity (especially outside the US) should be done by private individuals or governments who are directly involved, not by the US government.

This is a horribly false statement. The U.S. is perhaps the only country that feels that a war can enhance World security. There is a large difference and you are doing a disservice to all of the nations that have fought and died, and continued to aid in the burgeoning global community.

It depends on who the country is

If it is the U.S, than it's okay but if it's someone like iraq, then no it's not cool


amlord Posted on Mar 12 2003, 10:48 AM



I agree. The World's superpower going into isolation would be all the would be Hitlers cue to come out of the woodwork & start to terrorize the world, knowing the US would say: "Now stop that...it isn't nice"

MIKE

The United States acts in its self interest. Policing the world can be justified in terms of our own safety. We cannot and will not interfere in the policies and practices of all nations but we will when to do otherwise threatens our safety. In American Policing this is called selective enforcement. We will act and prioritize were our safety is most threatened. Iraq, terrorists and North Korea are on the top of the list.

There is danger to us in policing the world and we should understand the limits of our influence. Is that not reason enough to speak to this topic?

Closed.

The original poster never specified what we want to debate.

Why should we have to read 13 posts to find out what should have been included in the very first post?

It may be restarted with a specific, debatable question.

Please let me remind everyone:



Mike