I have some-= it is very fragmented to search for it, because it concerns more of each individual business deal in AK vs the entire scope of thier business in Alaska- most of the news here I have read in print here in Alaska vs seeing it posted on the net

Stuff like this:
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=3491

When Exxon merged with Mobile and bought ARCO they had to divest themselves basically all holdings in Alaska, and BP and Totalfinaelf stepped in to take over. You must understand that even small school children have a pretty good handle on how allot of the AK oil industry works, because it effects so many lives. It is understood that if you want an oil company job, you go to BP or Totalfinaelf, and Totalfinaelf is the one trying to be the big dog, so they are doing the most hiring.

Wait a minute. American military personnel signed up to PROTECT AMERICA, not the "American Way of Life". The military does not exist to force American Ideals™ on the rest of the world, whether they want them or not.

Seems to me what's being established, is what I, myself believe, being the world police [i.e. complete neo-conservatism] is irresponsible and dangerous, but also, complete isolationism [i.e. complete paleoconservatism] is just as irresponsible and dangerous, what we need is something in the middle.

So in conclusion: = BAD
=BAD

CP

Here is the oath I took when I enlisted:
I solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I will Obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and Uniform Code of Military Justice, so help me God.

I don't see anything in that that says we are required to to travel halfway around the world to settle every dispute between two countries, or even between two factions in the same country, just because we carry the "big stick".

After all, the first part of that quote from Teddy Roosevelt, was to "walk softly", not go barging in like a bull in a china shop. Unfortunately, that's exactly the way we have been acting lately.

If we are invited to help stop the fighting, going in with guns blazing should be the absolute last option, not the first. Even then, I would hope that other countries in the region should be taking a more active role before we become involved. After all, it's their little piece of the world that's being threatened, not ours.

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948), 'Satyagraha Leaflet No. 13,' May 3, 1919

Thank yah NiteGuy,

I thought it may have read something like that. whew!

The fact that France has interests in Alaska does not change the fact it had interests in Iraq.

My short response to the question posed is no we should not be the policeman of the world. However, I would qualify this answer with the thoughts below :

When a recognized international body not unlike N.A.T.O and/or the U.N. come to a collective conclusion that military intervention in any given country is warranted then I think that yes the United States should take a leading role in intervening in a military fashion.

By the same token however I do not support U.S. military action on any level that is not supported in the manner I describe above. In other words I don't think we should be using military action under the guise of global policeman in an arbitrary fashion. The United States is without dispute the strongest military power on the globe. This fact alone does not entitle us to impose our will on other nations who pose no immediate threat to the United States.

It appears that we like to use the premise that we are protecting *U.S. interests* when entering into questionable military operations. I find the premise is vague at best and fail to understand why some seem to think such a mindset grants us cart blanche permission/authority to mobilize our military on foreign soil.

Being the world's largest superpower certainly dictates that we intervene in other countries militarily when necessary. I suppose my gripe is how such determinations are made and on what authority we feel we have the right to impose our will on weaker nations in order to serve our own best interests.

It says also that you will obey the orders of the President of the United States, your Commander in Chief. That means no complaining, and's, if's or buts if he tells you to get on a plane to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea or where ever.

Besides, what's the point of building a massive military machine when you will never use it? I didn't see the UN intervening in the mass genocide in Kosovo or offering troops in the skrimish in Liberia, they told us to handle it or we went over their heads and went in.

Whatever happens in one part of the world will likely sooner or later spill into ours, so why wait until that happens?

If you are to protect your country from threats, what if i see the current leadership as a threat?

If i said i would not go to war, do you think i could apply for political asylum as a political prisoner?

If we are to police the world, that means police the world, not attack for economic interests like in Iraq, or attack to spread what we think is peace or the right way to live, that my friend is crusades.

Not true... He can complain as much as he wants. He cannot publicly disparage the commanding officers (provided he is still in the military), or violate the chain of command and refuse if he's told to go. I think he's right-on.

There are some compelling reasons to wait, as referenced by numerous posters, much more eloquent than I, on threads throughout this forum. Even "humanitarian" measures must be made with great care. There is a difference between a peacemaker and a peacekeeper. Peacemakers tend to make a lot of enemies. If the only reason to build a massive military force is to use it whimsically, we should spend the money elsewhere. Our good people in uniform deserve better.

GoAmerica, you are not quite correct. Look at the oath again. Before anything else, it says you will protect the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. What if the war is clearly illegal? Wouldn't that then mean that the enemy is domestic?

Also, the Uniform Code of military justice has provisions against following illegal orders. Remember My Lai? Blindly following orders is not an excuse against criminal acts.

The point of having a massive military machine, is that other countries will think twice about starting a war with us. It's not so that we can go in whenever and where ever we want, just because we can. As a matter of fact, there were plenty of other troops in Kosovo, at the start, courtesy of NATO. Our troops went in as part of a multinational force, we didn't go it alone.

Why wait? Because everybody else, sooner or later, has to learn that we can't bail them out of every scrap. That's not our job. Our job is to protect our borders and our citizens. We can't effectively do that, if half (or more) of our troops are scattered to the four winds, sticking our nose into every skirmish, whether they want us there or not.

I also think it's time we take ou troops COMPLETELY out of SA, and Germany. Any country who doesn't deserve our protection shouldn't have it. Japan, I have to think about. But this is another thread entirely. I guess...

i think there is one somewhere

goamerica - that is unconstructive. Care to elaborate? Otherwise, you're just wasting our time with your one-liners.

This is an interesting question--ones of those that seeks to clarify one's political ideals. I believe it is implied from the question, and also from many of the responses, that the intent of the question is really 'Should we use our military might to enforce our views on the world'. However, it shouldn't be forgotten that the whole New World Order thing is, in its essence, a liberal philosophy, while isolationism is a more traditional conservative view. This creates a bit of a philosophical dilemma for those adhering to both points of view. There have been numerous times that I have heard those that complain when the US takes a direct involvement in foreign affairs (Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, Liberia) are the very same ones who complain when we don't (Bosnia before our intervention, numerous places in Africa, etc). On the same token, many of those most staunchly in support of our recent actions are the very same who feel that we should pull out of many areas and retreat from a global role. So, which is it--should we help those around the world who are in need, or shouldn't we? Iraq is a perfect example of this. The list of crimes that the government there committed against its people is long and ghastly. They violated every single principle of human rights that any reasonable person would set. Clearly, nothing short of military intervention would stop this (anyone objecting to this statement needs to review their facts, IMHO). Yet, all those who normally stand up for compassion and the rights of the oppressed are vehemently opposed to our removing the cause of these ghastly acts. This is the New World Order dilemma in a microcosm. In my personal opinion, many of those currently opposed to our involvement would be the very same ones who would be on board if the actions were being taken by a different administration, or who also complain vociferously during those times when the US chooses not to become involved.

Hobbes, you hit the nail on the head. How much worse than the Baathist Party, in terms of inhumane treatment of Iraqis, could there be? Not much. Yet all the screams from the "supposed humanitarian Liberals" out there AGAINST war with Saddam was the shrillest ever.

I would think that those given to the higher ideals of "use of US military for humanitarian use only" " crowd would jump for joy or at the very least think it a ok idea to unseat this monster of brutal. Would I be wrong? Very curiously, nothing was heard. In fact, Human Shields, naive as they were, were determined to thwart an Iraqi Liberation. But that's another story.

So, what I have decided is this. The "For Humanitarian purposes only" folks actually have conditions on military for humanitarian purposes and it goes like this....

US Military use for National/Defense Interests(which is the PURPOSE of our US military) when coupled WITH a Humanitarian liberation for the oppressed and brutalized people is a clear "NO-NO." clearly the war with Iraq was an example of "killing two birds with one stone." And clearly the Iraqis WERE liberated. But Clearly the Anti-war-riers were NOT pleased.

military use for liberation ONLY is a "YES-YES."

All this hypocrisy makes me wonder... were they REALLY concerned with the Iraqis freedom at all? Or was it something else entirely.

In this new world, there are threats of a different kind nowadays. But in this new world, there is no more genocide & communism but there is terrorism and most of it is focused on the United States for many reasons

We need to be a policeman to stop terrorists from becoming a great threat to our way of life. That means we need to do whatever in the International arena to counter them. If we need to take out a government in Pakistan or Iran to stop it, then so be it. We can't sit in our homes and wait for terrorists to attack us again. When they do attack us again, it may not be with planes this time, but with dirty nukes or chemcial/biological weapons in our water, food and subways during rush hour.

Frankly, I find the whole premise of this thread a tad off the mark - at least if we're speaking in terms of the present. The actions of or current administration have nothing at all to do with "policing" the world - we are acting as international vigilantes. There's a significant difference here: one is legal, the other is not. Were we actually policing, well, it could be quite a different story...

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

SoCaliente: Nice straw man - mind if I take a whack at him? I don't believe anyone here is opposing warfare unless it is geared toward "humanitarian liberation". This notion was brought into this thread quite late - and humanitarianism itself was first introduced to the discussion by someone named SoCaliente_1 (who, I didn't get the impression, was exactly what you'd call a "supposed humanitarian Liberal", screaming or otherwise).

Your neat little "no-no/yes-yes" formula is otherwise pretty flawed anyway, however self-serving it may have been. Most people who have opposed the Iraqi campaign - liberal and conservative - have done so because it had nothing in the least to do with national defense (which, as you quite rightly point out, should be "the PURPOSE of our US military"). The whole notion of "liberation" did not figure prominently in our war effort until after the end of major combat was announced and it was discovered that Iraq wasn't exactly crawling with weapons of mass destruction. Then the war mongers and their supporters - not screaming liberals (or even relatively soft-spoken ones, like myself) - started going, like, "Oh - well, this wasn't about WMDs, anyway - it was about, um... well... about... uh, liberation - that's it, liberation!" Fortunately for the Iraqi people, they were coincidentally liberated from a rather sadistic despot - but that was unrelated to why we were there in the first place.

Waging war which has nothing to do with either defense or liberation should be a "NO-NO" by anyone's definition. It would appear, however, that it's not.

I whole-heartedly agree with your final sentiment: "All this hypocrisy makes me wonder... were they REALLY concerned with the Iraqis freedom at all? Or was it something else entirely?" I would obviously be speaking of the Bush administration and its supporters - and, of course, it was about something else.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

goamerica: This isn't a new world - it's just that, as of September 11, 2001, the US joined the rest of the world. On that day, Americans - some Americans - finally realized what it's like to live in the rest of the world, finally realized that terrorism is a little bit more than entertainment on the nightly news or in the latest Schwartzenegger flick, finally realized that there are other people on the planet - people who may actually have opinions and beliefs somewhat different to our own, finally realized that the actions of our government elsewhere around the globe can have consequences - consequences which may even affect their own lives. Welcome to the rest of the world, GA!

And what are you saying? No more genocide? You might wanna try being a Tutsi or a Timorese, a Kurd or a Congolese. You might find that, were you one of these people, your parents, your siblings, your children may well be dead. And no more communism?? Ever hear of a place called China? You must have - it's rather large. Or what about Cuba? That one even appears on some maps of America. And terrorism? You write as though that were something new! As though our actions for decades haven't been fostering hatred of our country and as though Americans themselves had never before been targets - and as though we, ourselves, hadn't been supporting an encouraging terror throughout the world, when it suited our financial ends - which, of course, is part of what fostered all that hatred in the first place.

You remind me a bit of Shakespeare's Miranda, raised on a desert island with only her father for company, who - on seeing other human beings for the first time - exclaimed: "O, brave new world, that has such people in it!" Of course, it was not a new world at all. She had simply never encountered it before.

You could be right, though, that this same old world could maybe use a bit of policing. But police tend, as a rule, not to go about executing people as a means of prevention.

By all means wertz... be personal *yawn*. I'll pass thankyah

hmmm, war with Iraq. Obviously by your statement, "Most people who have opposed the Iraqi campaign - liberal and conservative - have done so because it had nothing in the least to do with national defense", would be another thread now wouldn't it? To discuss it's entire validity would be subjective naturally as you saw no reason to be there either as a basis for National Interest/Defence, OR as a Humanitarian effort, yet I do. So your statement would be both a moot point as to the gist of the thread itself. secondly and just as mooty, the mere Wertz declaration that "it had nothing in the least to do with national defense," does not make it so does it?

Humanitarianism, on the other hand would fit quite nicely in with the topic of the thread. America, as "world police," would run to the Military aid of countries where people were being murdered on a wholesale basis, IF, America were to be..."world police."

I've not called anyone in particular out as being non-caring about the fate of Iraqis under the Baathists as you seemed to wrongly think. I don't need to. I have witnessed endless media footage and read endless publications to have reached said conclusion. The protesting Liberals themselves have shown the country, both loudly and very clearly that THEY were against the very war that WOULD have liberated the Iraqi people. Suffice it to say, who cared as the Iraqis have been liberated.

Perhaps if Clinton would have done so, years prior, it wouldn't have seemed so wrong? Perhaps...

This is one of the single most disturbing comments I've seen posted on AD. What would leave you to believe that there is no genocide anymore; and that the only nation under threat is the United States. (Despite a decline in terrorist attacks on US interests [[not including inside occupied Iraq]] in the past few years.) Have the massacres of Rwanda, the Congo, Bosnia, and East Timor completely lost their relevance because a few thousand Americans died two years ago?

Wertz and Joe: I guess i worded that wrong. Sorry. Genocide isn't as widespread as it used to be like communism. In other words, there is a different global problem then there was in the past like in Kosovo or Bosnia or Congo or communism

Personal?? I'm not sure exactly how the identification of a fallacious argument can be construed as being personal - unless you are, literally, married to your arguments.


Okay - you may find fair, coherent debate boring. I suspect that at least some here do not.

I merely pointed out that you were using a "straw man" tactic. While you are clearly capable of using this logical fallacy, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term itself. It means "attacking an exaggerated or caricatured [or, in your case, non-existent] version of your opponent's position". Not one person who has contributed to this thread has said anything like "the military should be used for humanitarian purposes only". Not one, SoCal. Yet you present your argument as though this were the position being espoused by everyone who feels we should not be policing the planet. You devote three paragraphs to shooting down this phantom opposition.

See, the way this debate thing usually works is someone will post an opinion, then someone else will respond to that opinion. Others may respond to either position, supporting or criticizing positions which are being debated. What one usually does not do is invent specious arguments on behalf of a presumed oppostion and proceed to attack those arguments which no one is putting forward. Nothing personal, SoCal - for all I know, you may be one of the most delightful human beings in the world - but I find the straw man tactic to be unfair, dishonest, and unconstructive.


Not necessarily. It was a direct response to a point which you raised in this thread. While I didn't see your original statement as being entirely off topic, I'll concede to your clearly better judgement - and ask you to stop posting inappropriate statements, the addressing of which would require the opening of new threads.


I see. So it's fine for you to express your opinion on defense vs. humanitarian effort, but not for anyone else? Okay - I'm beginning to get the range of your debating style.


Um, no, it doesn't. Again, let me acquaint you with how this works: when people post to these threads, it is generally assumed that they are expressing opinions - and it is generally presumed that those opinions are their own. If, on the other hand, they are citing reported facts or statistics to back up those opinions, foundation should be provided. In the absence of such attribution, I thought that the fact that my statements were expressions my own opinion was abundantly clear, even without an explanatory preface. Indeed, we have an entire thread here devoted to whether or not every sentence which expresses an opinion need include the phrase "in my opinion". It can be found here. While the overall conclusion seemed to be that its usage was sometimes good for clarity, when expressing a clear opinion it could be seen to weaken ones argument, there was still a fair range of opinion. I'll try to remember that you are on the more authoritarian end of the spectrum in this regard.

I did notice that in the entire posting to which I was responding - ALL of which was opinion - with little to no foundation - that such a disclaimer was not used once. Apart from again applying a double standard, SoCaliente, your "mere Wertz declaration" is unequivocally "being personal". It was unnecessary, gratuitous, and (coming from you) hypocritical - in my opinion. So much for "I'll pass thankyah", eh?


I can't vouch for where you come from, but for many of us the function of the police is approximately defined as "to serve and protect". In my opinion, "to protect" is roughly synonymous with "to defend". Neither "to serve" nor "to protect" strikes me as having much to do with "to provide humanitarian relief" - though you would not be the first conservative I've encountered who has had a peculiar and highly personal relationship with the English language.

Discussing defense in the context of this thread is perfectly and entirely appropriate in my opinion. Discussing humanitarian aid should perhaps be consigned to a thread on whether or not the US should be missionaries to the world rather than police. But, hey - unlike you, I'm not feeling particularly judgemental this afternoon. Discuss whatever you like if you feel you can relate it to the thread.


I have no idea what you're going on about here. Whatever thoughts you're trying to put in my head clearly don't fit. Maybe you should stick to generalizing about entire classes of people - like "protesting Liberals" - rather than individuals. You'll be less open to correction - in my opinion.

As a matter of fact, what I was saying about your posting was that our alleged "policing" of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with "liberation" until after the fact. Those protesting the Iraqi campaign were, in my opinion, largely doing so because they felt that - for the advertised reasons (which excluded "humanitarian purposes") - it was unjustified, unnecessary, and illegal. All of which, in my opinion, it was.

If the Bush administration had ever attempted to make a case for the Iraqi campaign on humanitarian grounds, he might have got more support for his war from those shrill people-who-disagree-with-SoCal. But that, in my opinion, is not what this "policing effort" was about.

I also pointed out that the hypocrisy which you mentioned in relation to our conquest - later "liberation" - of Iraq was that of those on the right, in my opinion. Those who, when confronted by the total absence of WMDs, decided that the Iraqi campaign had, in fact, been a "war of liberation" instead an act of international aggression - which even they didn't believe. In my opinion.


I suspect that, if Clinton had taken action against Iraq (assuming he could ever have got the attention of a sex-obsessed Congress), it may actually have been for humanitarian purposes, but - ! Now, look whay you've done, SoCaliente - you're drawing me into yet another off-topic tangent! I'd better stop here or you'll use your next reply to issue another admonishment.

(See, I'm catching on! )

wertz, this holier than thou attitude of yours is quite repugnant. that being said don't hold your breath waiting for a response from me.

you may comment on any and all my posts. In fact knock yourself out just don't expect a response for you have been put on ignore until you grow up.

peaceout

Wertz & SoCal - don't turn this debate into a personal spat. If you would like to discuss Debating Tactics we have a thread for that.

Otherwise, let's get back to the debate:

A resounding NO

No nation should be a self appointed ruler of all. There should be a world poilce, and perhaps the UN needs to evolve and become a more forceful association and form a military side, which the American army can serve.

It is not Americas place to force American ideas of liberty, democracy and capitalism on others. All nations should be free to choose how they govern themselves. You need only glance at all American military intervetions over the last 100 years to see a plethora of blunders and hypocritical statements - opposing dictatorships because democracy should be in every country, yet oppressing the democratically elected Socialist president of Chile and installing Pinochet as dictator? America may be the largest military force, but it has done so by being anything but impartial. We need an impartial council, which should also be democraticlly elected by ALL UN member states, to operate a world police. Anything else is knocking on the door of totalitarianism.

Robin,

It's not that I disagree with your answer, but I think you're leaving out a big part of the picture. There's really only one reason for us to be in such a role, and that's because no one else seems to be doing it. So, the real question is: What is worse, allowing inhumane governments commit great crimes, or have the US force them to stop. The answer to this one isn't so cut-and-dried. The UN would be the obvious choice, but I think it has shown itself to not be up to the task.

Then the UN should be bolstered until it is up to the task. It seems a bit hypocritical for this country and others to undermine the UN, under fund the UN and then complain it is not up to the task. One agency I would like to see up and running is the ICC, the international Crime Commission, sponsored by the UN. Here we are talking about the international rule of law. Like Milosevitch the Hussein's of the world can be indicted as war criminals and either captured or isolated and delegitimized to the point where their power is marginal.

This is really about the whole issue of how power is to be projected world wide to deal with crimes against humanity. The rule of law, under an international agency, backed by the nations of the world seems to be the best way to go. No single nation can take on that task.

Its not that I think America shouldnt be the military police, its just that I don't think it should be under its own authority. If you compare with the regular police, if they got together and decided they didn't like what the government and judges were saying and then went on doing what they thought was right, we would live in a very dangerous country.

By the same token, nations must follow the lead of the UN. Rejecting democratic decisions because you don't agree is seriously undermining the UNs authority and is counter productive. The recent war for example, some nations wanted war, some didn't. In the end it was decided not to take military action. But yet Britain, America, Australia and others who condoned it went ahead and broke the law. This isn't the behaviour of 'police', its the behaviour of irresponsible vigilantes, and we can see the knock on effects it has had. The UN isn't taken as seriously, and now other nations are in the same state of mind thinking they can just do what they want, as we saw Israel attack Syria yesterday. Whether you think it was justified or not, it was breaking international law.

If the UN is ever to become the authority I think most want it to be, we cannot take matters into our own hands. So certainly, the American military should act as the police, but not under their own authority. If the UN appears not to be up to the task, this isn't helping matters. And as both Britain and America are permanent security council members, why don't they push for a military wing of the UN to be created rather than keep us living in the dark ages of the 20th century.

The United States wants to remain pre-eminent in the world. The idea of the UN having authority over the United States military is unacceptable to the minds of many Americans. They are distrustful of the motives of many of its members.

A one-world government is something many Americans fear a great deal, having been brought up with Biblical prophecies of the Antichrist. They would rather send our forces around the world to effect outcomes that are acceptable to us. The problem is, if we continue like this, not only will we incur the animosity of virtually every nation, we will bankrupt ourselves as well.

No, I am not in favor of the US policing the world. I think that a nation's sovereignty means it is responsible for solving the problems within its own borders, and that it can appeal to the UN if the problems are too large to handle.

We underfund the UN because it is hypocritical. Seriously, consider this: Wouldn't you if you were booted off the Human Rights Commission and replaced by Sudan?!


P.E.:



That's why we go to where we go. We go to countries where they can't defend themselves. Kuwait for example along with Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. They couldn't defend themselves. Also, we go to Kosovo, where there are unarmed civilians being slaughtered

So essentially its picking sides? Because I don't remember any counter attack against the Kosovans who, immediately after their liberation, slaughtered Serbs. It isn't about spreading democracy neither, as why then would both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia be considered allies, when both have been accused of human rights violations. Saudi Arabi even had more clear ties with Al Qaeda than Iraq ever did, which makes matters even stranger.

Defending people who can't defend themselves? What about the oppressed peoples of Zimbabwe? Or Indonesia? It all seems very selective.

The thing is, intervening is always going to give a nation a bad name, especially if it does of its own accord. From an objective point of view it seems very little to do with good will. There will be repucussions.

Don't get me wrong, its good that America wants to invest billions in 'helping' other nations, essentially making their own citizens pay for it, or even worse adding it to a tab for Americas kids to pick up. But it has to be accepted that the majority of the world will not welcome a self proclaimed world police.

It alway seems that when somebody wants to undermine the role of the UN they always bring up some representative from the Sudan or Libya being on some commission and so what? Therefore America should be policeman of the world? The human rights commission has no operational policing function. Of course the UN is hypocritical as is any political body that has to accomodate conflicting interests. Try the US government.

If somebody wants to trot out another international solution i'd be happy to look at it. The principle is serious international matters need to be handled internationally just simply BECAUSE so many different political groups are represented. It's lack of a perceived narrow interest gives it a legitimacy that no single country has. I do understand that UN peace keeping forces aren't as professionally up to speed as many national troops and that problem needs to be addressed. Let me also again mention the ICC approach which could provide an avenue for confronting human rights abuses internationally while minimizing bloodshed.