UrbanWar, first of all, welcome. I hope you enjoy.

The United States is the only country that cares about Human Rights. The UN obviously doesn't care because they let Cuba, Sudan & North Korea join the Human Rights Committee.

Oh Please - what utter rubbish - and unless you hadn't noticed the UN INCLUDES the United States!!!

He has a point, what responsible organization would appoint those countries to a Human Rights council. Why don't you respond to what he is implying, instead of immediately slapping it down?

CP

Then I guess the US is guilty, huh? After all, we trained the terrorists that struck on 9/11. Let's go take out Florida and Arizona, shall we? And we likely have the largest number of terrorist cells of any country.

Guess we support terrorism.

How some people draw a line from the CIA training and supplying SOME Mujahadeen in the 1980's to being directly responsible for the Al-Qeada cell that planned and attacked on 9/11, with absolutely NO factual backup is astounding.

Either way the US will be vilified by somebody for intervening in the gulf or not intervening in Rwanda, or fast enough in Liberia. Can't make everybody in the world happy....why try at all?

We had NO IDEA they were training in the U.S. until the day after 9/11

No, see, we don't keep them here on purpose Cephus, in fact, that would be unthinkably stupid. Why would you think that our own gov't would harbor terrorism?

CP

Cephus, CP is right, our government didn't harbor terrorist. Terrorist use democracy and free enterprise to their favor, unfortunately it's one of the drawbacks of freedom and one of the issues we're trying deal with; how to preserve personal liberties while fight terrorism on the home front.

Hi there, since it is my first contribution to any debate on this website, I'll try and be as moderate as possible.

I am a French citizen. I live in Lille, Northern France. My culture is very much European! I had the chance of going to university for five years after high school. I am lucky to live very close to Belgium, to England and to the Netherlands too. My wife and I even visited Spain a few weeks ago!

My point is to say that we live in a continent with various powers and various social and political systems. This makes Europe a very interesting place to live in, because the 300 millions of us bring a lot of diversity. I am interested in the growth of the European Union as a political power eventually. And I want to be a part of it one day (but that's another story).

Anyway... I believe America shouldn't police the world. That's not what they are here for. And I wouldn't want people from a foreign country to come and 'police' mine; I would consider it in most violent terms : violation, invasion, occupation and deprivation.

A wide cooperation against terrorism is necessary. Thank God, it already exists and many terrorists groups have been arrested so far. If a spirit of cooperation and goodwill prevails between nations all over the world in this fight for a just cause, then it's fine with me. But I won't let America dictate me what to do.

The same should apply to countries that are not democracies. It is not right to impose them what we think. Beyond the political and economical interests of all parties, it would seem right to me if the police of the world was made by representatives of all nations, therefore the UN!!

IMO, I don't think that you can just say that we should completely police the world, always, and always remain as an isolationist, both are irresponsible.

CP

It's irresponsible when you don't help the world when you have the resources to do so. If we stay out of something that could effect the hold world negativly, we will be screwed and wished we had intervened.

Agreed, but when we get involved in something, just for the heck of it, it just doesn't make sense, we send our army over to a foreign country, having our soldiers getting killed, and after we leave, the people hate us, well, the heck with that, only situations that affect us should be considered, or maybe one of our allies.

CP

i would have to say america has a very large say in the world, as the country is one of the major powers in the world today, as u may have noticed i said one of the major powers, as i am british-american, i would say both countrys have as much as each other, we have the best armed forces in the world, we are unmatched when it comes war, we have never been invaded or controled by other countrys. i would say the americans and the british have the same views on life, we want to better our selfs, and anyone who wants to join us can, its not like we walking in to countrys and say they have to buy cola, or buy microsoft, or buy medical supplys from the UK, they ask for it, i would have to say the world put us where we are today, we have always given the most troops to any war in the world for the past 100yrs, we are always on the front line. as for iraq i would say it needed to be done, i mean saddam had 12yrs to wake up and he didnt and he thought it would be the same old thing again he was wrong. the US and UK didnt fail at the UN, the countrys that failed where the ones that didnt back us, and as the prime minsiter said.

" if we are wrong about iraq's WMD, then the world will forgive, but we have taken a brutal man out of power, but if we are right, and i believe we are, then the world will have failed to live up to its responsiblity"

they where his words or words to that affect.

I know that tune. It comes from the no-thanks French, whom there are about 3000+ dead soldiers buried at Normandy because we helped to save their butts from Hitler, and 50 years later, they hate us. FIne, have Hitler back.

You can't please anyone.

That's rather unconstructive and quite off topic, goamerica.

I'm inclined to agree with Conservpat. Why go where we are not wanted? We have a country of our own to take care of, and allies to help when they need us. The Superman act can't last forever. Is it in our Constitution to be the expender of lives, materials and money everywhere there is a problem? There was a world before there was a United States.

i might get told off for this but as the "euro" has come in, i just think its a way of birlin/germany/france trying to get more control over europe.

he french army didnt go to iraq, from what i have heard, they disliked the idea, but when the french wanted to go to the congo, they said

"we will only go if we get british help"

i do think we should help only nations that want our help, but we must also protect our selfs from another 9/11. one thing is for sure, i dont want to see a "united states of europe"

People always say that the USA tries to police the world and I want to ask these people: how this is a bad thing? I mean, they have overthrown both the Taliban and Saddam Hussien's regimes which is a big favour for every country in the world. All of the people who are against the USA policing the world seem to think that it is ok when the UN does it but not the USA. I would like to point out that the USA does a far better job of it then the UN. For example, the UN gave Saddam 17 different "last chances" but they never actually did what they said they would do. The USA however gave Saddam 1 last chance and when he blew it, they did exactly what they said they would do: remove him from power. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, every time the UN approves a war, it is always the USA doing like 95% of the fighting. So I ask: what is wrong with the USA policing the world when they are actually doing a good job at it?

We've already had the question posed for us at the beginning of this topic, andyjojo. Also, policing is not the same as engaging in multiple conflicts throughout the globe. We went to war in Afghanistan, and have control of less than half the country despite running out the Taliban. And since the end of major combat in Afghanistan they have rapidly reclaimed their position as the world leader in heroin production.

In Kosovo it has appeared there was not any ethnic cleansing occuring. Combat there not only saw careless actions on behalf of NATO but also led to widespread persecution of Serbians in the region. While often cited as a UN failure, many often times omit the interference the UN presence has been forced to deal with from NATO and independent nations seeking to benefit from the war ravaged country.

Iraq certainly hasn't shaped up to be any jewel for us yet. Some areas have now been without electricity or running water for close to five months, our soldiers have been accused of torture, and much of the region is still without adequate law enforcement of any kind. And, of course, there is also the continued guerilla and terrorist attacks happening at the hands of militants and foreign nationals slipping across the border.

You say, andyjojo, "every time the UN approves a war, it is always the USA doing like 95% of the fighting." There is a difference between approving a war and ordering a war. It isn't as though Kofi is ordering military strikes and then using America as its pitbull. We choose to go to war and then seek UN approval so as to limit any international criticism. I would stress limit as we have made it clear it makes no real difference whether we get the approval or not. Since they are our wars, it's only reasonable that we accept 95% of the workload.

For all those last chances you criticize the UN for giving to Iraq, there are the 30 or more last chances we have handed to Israel. We're more than happy to complain about other countries threatening to use their veto while silently hoping nobody brings up the number of times the United States has implemented it herself. There is also the fact that United States intelligence agencies interfered with UN inspections in Iraq during the 1990's. Some of Iraq's refusal to cooperate stems from our own past habits of undermining the United Nations.

Where in the world might we possibly be considered as a good international police force? Certainly not in Central or South America, where we have contributed to government death squads that threaten the local citizenry. It certainly isn't Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq.

In addition to all this, we seem only to intervene when there are American interests to be served. While European peacekeepers have been active for months in war ravaged Liberia, how long was it before any of our elected officials commented or considered taking action? While rushing to intimidate other nations and engage in controversial wars, you don't see us rushing to help those in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

But we shouldn't because it really isn't our problem. As horrible as it may be for the millions being slaughtered in the Congo, we should not order our men and women -- who joined the army to defend their country -- to die in defense of another. That is the role of an international body of force. We are not a world police force now, and we should not seek to be. The United Nations is the proper authority on such actions and should be allowed to do so without the hassle of member states (including America) choosing when and how they abide by the UN guidelines agreed to.

Things take time. The Opium is almost their only sourced of income. Are we to deny them income?



Kosovo is not a failure. It is fine in parts of it.




Tell the terrorists not to sabotage the equipment then.



Put troops on the borders of Syria and Iran. If they don't like it, tough.

goamerica - it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to debate a series of one liners; I know you know this. Be constructive.

So because of something that happened half a century ago, France should blindly follow America into every campaign, or at least keep quiet about it if they disagree?

if france wanted to disagree, they should have been more open with there veto, and not saying " we will veto anything that means war" wasnt that and end to the whole UN thing? the french, russians and china wouldnt have agreed to anything that ment war because all togeather they are owed about 21billion from iraq.

First off, this isn't a debate about France, vetoes and Iraq. We already have a few other topics in which we can discuss that at length.

goamerica, the people of Afghanistan are not reaping any income off the production of heroin. It isn't as though they kiss their wives goodbye and truck off for an 8-5 shift at the opium plant. The heroin production is by the warlords in the Afghan badlands.

Our contingent of soldiers has been unable to stop this. Then again, it was also the United States that supported these warlords during the offensive in Afghanistan to begin with. As I said, it is not any kind of success for us in the sense of us policing the world. Sure, we bombed them with a lot of success, but the acme of skill is not destruction.

Kosovo wasn't any of our business and if parts of it are fine, it's because the UN has managed to bring some good despite continued interference from outside sources. NATO still stands accused of war crimes, Serbs are still persecuted daily and I believe their natural resources are also being auctioned off as well.

In regards to Iraq, if we're supposed to be a police force, it is the job of our soldiers to stop the terrorists. When last I checked, goamerica, police don't typically ask criminals to quit doing criminal acts with any success. They would be out of a job if that were the case.

We are not the world police, nor are we equipped to be. Our soldiers don't join to die for Iraq, Kosovo or scattered regions in Central and South America. They join to defend and possibly die for their country. They're only charge is the United States of America.

this is about Foreign Policy, and france doesnt know how to use Foreign Policy with the statment i said.

for the being a world police force, why dont the US and UK pull our troops out of everywhere, cut funding for everyone that isnt american or british and let the world take care of its self. we dont pay taxes for people in africa to have aids medicaltion, we dont pay our taxes for other countrys to live of food we send them. we dont pay out taxes for people from other countrys to come here and live for free, and do nothing and have us taxs payers feed there 9kids, everyone seems to hate our nations but they like taking the money from us, god forbid we stop everying a pull everyone back, and take care of our selfs, oh wait people would hate us even more then and call us un-caring.

i think we should change our Foreign Policy and keep our money, and let the rest of the world suffer because they dont like us.

We had business in Kosovo. There was mass genocide going on just like in Rawanda and nothing was being done about it.

We can't just sit back and watch thousands get slaughtered by Serbs and expect it to get better by its self

Well we must also consider the power that some companies of various advanced nations. When a group of people cannot even defend themselves against those such as the practice with african diamond minds we are not really just sticking to ourselves. Europe has a lot of influence on the history of africa and the middle east, india and so forth. One could go as far to say a lot of the troubles there are due to western influence. Then again their is no solid meaning to any world police force, most nations just use it as a chance to grab power in the name of being good. Power in this world has been the same since rome, how you get its change its name an methods a little, that is all. I do have dreams of joining a selective police force though.

There was not mass genocide occurring in Kosovo.

Genocide in Kosovo?
May 1999 Greek Court ruling
Sept. 7 2001, Court rules no genocide

It is a shame that sometimes people die at the hands of malicious leaders. That's life though. We can't afford to send troops all around to world to every country whose leader mistreats his or her citizens.

The Congo is a mess, but we haven't rushed to help them. Instead we set our eyes on Iraq. Some have tried to justify the war on the basis of a humanitarian venture, but clearly those in Iraq were not faced with the same horrors as those in the Congo (different link).

While there is no doubt Iraqis lived in fear of torture or death at the hands of Saddam loyalists, the Congo is ripe with allegations of starvation, rape, forcing children to fight, executions and cannibalism.

Many of our trading partners and declared allies are notorious for the violation of human rights. We run around shouting freedom from oppression while simultaneously shaking the hands of some of the most repressive leaders in the world. We show preferential treatment, not a characteristic most police forces look for in a recruit.

We ourselves are admittedly guilty of violating human rights over at least the last couple of years, if not longer. Police brutality anyone?

The men and women who serve our country are good people. Some had few or no better alternatives in their life but the military. Others joined to defend their country. Sending them around the world to die for another country is a disservice to them, no matter how noble it may sound on paper.

Beyond this there is the fact that we have enough trouble abiding by rules ourselves. Even if we did we habitually look the other way when one of our allies commits the very same acts we'll go to war with another for. Every day a soldier died, happy to help the people of Iraq, is another day we allowed four or more to get away violating their own citizens.

We've proven to be hypocritical, dishonest, unwilling and incapable. We have no place attempting to portray ourselves as the world police, and we should quit sending our troops around the world under the guise of such.

so i guess those mass graves are fake that the UN found

UN Finds mass grave







I think the French went into Congo




So? Doesn't mean we don't condem them every now and then.




So we are not perfect. What would you rather suggest we do with our enemies? Let them go so they can re-arm themselves and try to kill more troops? Let the 9/11 mastermind go without a trial and let him plot another attack for revenge? No thanks. This argument is for a whole other thread




Better than some of the worthless scum of the world that presents themselves in this world:

Venezuala: Chavez: All for democracy: Shoots political opponents and gives protesters jail sentences

France: Chirac: All for democracy: All for freedom to join the EU...except if you are for the war on Iraq and then your membership is threatened.

Mass graves indicate mass killings, not genocide. You can still kill thousands of people, be guilty of war crimes, and not be guilty of genocide. As explained in the 2001 ruling by UN-supervised Supreme Court in Yugoslavia:

Do try and keep the focus on the United States, goamerica. Neither Venezuela or the French are attempting to police the world or give such an impression. Neither of them are launching military offensives to overthrow governments in the interest of humanitarian issues while making deals with the devil in the shadows.

Whether other countries are equipped or not to serve as the world's police says nothing for whether we should. If we are equally ill equipped we should not risks the lives of our enlisted men and women to do anything of the sort.

None of our recent actions have had anything to do with serving as a beacon for the world. We have gone where American interests take us, putting the lives of our soldiers at risk essentially for strategic gains over military and economic competitors. We have never been the world's police and we should start. In addition to this, we also shouldn't attempt to hide our hypocrisy and give anyone the illusion we are.

On the surface, it does appear that way, but honestly, how can you judge what is best for the rest of the world with a different value system? Our system of morals, ethics, laws, etc. is different from these countries we're policing but that does not make them the correct set of guidelines...

Hi ray- you may want to read Abs' entire post (or his subsequent posts). This emoticon usually indicates the use of sarcasm

ABS...so why then did a General of Milocevic's army testify at the Hauge that he was ordered to kill? He lie? no. It was true. Milocevic is a killer.

No one said he wasn't. He may have killed people, but he didn't commit genocide.

[edited to fix a typo.]

Ok - let's get constructive in our debates, please.

Homicide
Suicide
Infanticide
Patricide
Matricide
Fratricide
Gendercide
Genocide

All of these are killings, goamerica, yet they are all different by circumstance. Every General or soldier from the conflict could testify to orders of killing and it not have any connection to the crime of genocide. The mass killings which took place over the course of the war are still war crimes, and Milosevic will be held to task for them. Mass killings in themselves are not genocide though.

You and others are free to continue in your position that it was necessary to engage militarily in Kosovo. Without any new revelations, though, you have no evidence to continue arguing based on claims of genocide. Thus far, the evidence and the courts have determined no such action took place.

Returning to our original topic of Should the U.S. police the world? I am an isolationist and do not like government influence. However, if we are going to police the world then we must pursue these actions on all scales. It has been my observance that the U.S. for the most part only engages in areas where it seeks stability. Stability in a certain region is need to ensure that U.S. economic problems do not occur. I like to think that the U.S. went to Iraq to help the children under the vicious rule of Saddam. One though cannot refuse that the U.S. will gain economic advantages in a stable Iraq. But by that notion, a stable middle east is better for everyones economy. When the U.S. economy hicups, the world economy suffers even more. Personally the U.N is a joke. What can be accomplished when one country such as France as the power that they can veto anything that is tried to be accomplished? But I see Iraq as a stepping stone, the U.S. in its effort to create a more stable economic world, needed a stable Iraq. This doesn't mean that the U.S. should ignore the problems of Congo, North Korea, Kosovo etc. If the U.S. and it's people support a U.S. policing the world then we have to the job properly and deal with every situation.

Being an Isolationist, I would like the world just to deal with it's own problems. But economically, a stable middle east, IE oil, Industry etc, is a benefit to all. Including the French who were quick to say no the U.S. should not go into Iraq. Lets not forget to my supporters of the French, Saddam promised France 50 billion dollars worth of Oil rights should France resist U.S. pressure to invade. However, the situation that disturbs me is the U.S. and it's allies when they do decide to police the world they do a half A** job at it. I feel that if we want to police the world then we need to do it all the way. Americans though love to see us come charging in to help, however when the body bags start coming home is when people start becoming iffy on their decision. It is a vicious and violent world we live in, but i don't think american lives are needed for the benefit of other country's. Genocide, fascism, they are all bad things, but when was it ever said U.S. help everyone out? Then again though what everyone must realize is that a lot of the time the U.S. says fine we won't have anything to do with something. But who is the first country everyone comes running to when they need help. Yup, u guessed it the good old US of A. Funny isn't it.
Concluding, I wish that humans could stop fighting and everyone could go back to the phrase "cant we all just get along?" Humans are still Neolithic man running around with more powerful spears!

What? Where did you see that Tiki? I hope you can prove what you're talking about.

I have heard about saddam using his oil as power of course to coerce other nations to be anti-American. I am also pretty sure that something like 50 billion in oil to defend against the u.s would be on the news at a constant rate well into next year I am not doubting that saddam would not make that kind of an offer though.

Well goamerica that is exactly what we did minimum in with AL- quaeda (Osama) we still have not caught him and he is in Pakistan. Even worse last month they had a Terrorist summit, so who knows what they are planning for us. While we are occupied in Iraq. Then there is N. Korea and Iran which are more of a threat to us then Iraq was. Yes Saddam was an evil dictator but hmm we don't have him either .

And one of the things Bush jr. said was he was going to stop the Policing the World mentality. What we went into liberia when are troops are already stretched thin.

Heres a few links with some interesting info
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/editorial/50026.php
http://www.m27coalition.org/talkingpoints.html Here is alittle quote from this link that seems so true.

A bit on France's interests from The Wall Street Journal?

Thus the huge Majnoun and Nahr Umr fields were reserved for TotalFinaElf, partly owned by the French government. Not even Jacques Chirac can pretend that such concessions weren't France's reward for acquiescing in Iraq's diligent strategy to escape sanctions and resume its pursuit of exotic weapons.

The drama of recent weeks was a visible coda to the drama of the past 12 years, in which the U.S. and Britain were alone in trying to make Saddam obey the U.N. resolutions and peace terms his regime agreed to. All the while Saddam was encouraged to hold out by countries that made it clear that they would readily support a waiving of sanctions and anything else Saddam wanted in return for oil contracts and other financial benefits (end of quote)

Saddam was getting a mixed message. France, Russia and others were also ignoring UN sanctions. The US and Britain aren't the only countries with blood on their hands.

The UN should police the world. Fat chance of that ever happening with countries, like France and the US, having veto power. Too many competing interests.

Thanks for taking the time to find the link for me Thomas. Unfortunately, I haven't found any text specifically mentioning what you said afterwards.

What I agree with is the huge debt the Iraqi state owes us. But I don't think it's a reason that held us from helping the US in the first place. As a matter of fact, it would have been wiser to actually go in Iraq with the US if we had wanted to make sure our interests there were secured (and that the next government would pay us). Does it make sense?

Finally, I agree with you that the UN should police the world. But we're not grown up yet enough.

TotalfinaElf and BP owns all Alaskan oil, but we are not kicking france out of Alaska- the french have a far larger investment here in Alaska than Iraq- it is propaganda from the GW machine.

Thanks for the backup CR

Are we asked to and many times EXPECTED to police the world? yes.

Should we? No.

I was against sending troops to Kosovo, Somalia and now I'm not thrilled at the prospect of our men and women dying for someone else's mistakes in Liberia. That is NOT what they signed up for.

Not one American soldier, in my opinion, should be used and killed to die for anything other than our National Defence.

hmmm, am I turning into a Libertarian?

CR, if you have concrete information on France owning all of Alaskan oil, please share.

Then what did they sign up for? To protect the American way of life and also to help others. A way they can protect America's way of life is to die to prevent something from threatening that way of life



So you would rather turn a blind eye to millions being killed in Kosovo because you are worried that they might get killed for doing some right in the world? That's pathetic.

I fail to see how that's pathetic. Am I wrong in thinking that when an 18 year old signs on the dotted line at his recruiters office that he will serve and protect the US of America that that also included dying for everyone on the planet.

Luckily, we just bombed the hell out of that area and didn't use ground troops. But did we DO any good? How many civilians were killed in the "humanitarian" effort? Did it garner any good press for us with the Muslim community? no.

Let me ask you this and this may seem harsh but what Muslim country OR people would ever help defend America?

If I had a child, in the military I would NOT be willing to sacrifice him/her for anything other than the defence of THIS country or National Interests.

If you thinks that is pathetic, that's too bad.

SoCaliente_1,
Please avoid posting twice in a row, use the edit feature if it's less than twlve hours since you posted.

agh! I'm really sorry. I'm still trying to get the hang of all these features. I didn't even know that happened. I'll be more carefull.