Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Should the USA police the world?
America's Debate > Archive > Policy Debate Archive > [A] Foreign Policy
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Google
ConservPat
Well?

CP us.gif
Google
wcrockets
Isolationism is a very poor way to protect the USA's national interests. Sure Switzerland got away with it but you know, if the Axis powers had won the last war they would have got around to Switzerland too sooner or later (probably sooner).
Abs like Jesus
Not serving as policeman for the world does not mean the only alternative is to lean toward isolationism. We haven't been granted authority over the many other nations in this world to seek to lay down law over whoever we see fit, as a policeman might be expected to do. Trying to serve as international policeman and seeking to tell others how it is with our particular legal views would likely -- and indeed already is in some places -- be viewed as infringing on the sovereignity of foreign nations.
GoAmerica
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 10 2003, 01:44 PM)
Well?

CP  us.gif

Yes

Other nations around the world with a decent army surely won't do it. The United States is the only country that cares about the condition of the world.
Abs like Jesus
Of course... that's why the French and British have been dealing with deplorable conditions in Africa for the last few years while we've engaged in a military conflict against the overwhelming opposition of the international community! Because we care and nobody else does. rolleyes.gif
wcrockets
Right because the USA does it for them. So their leaders have the best of both worlds. They can sit back and let us do it for them (which privately they appreciate), and then publicly denounce us for doing it all the while selling themselves to their masses as a good nationalistic leader and whipping them up to be loyal patriots and followers. An added benefit is that attention is removed from serious domestic problems within the country.

Did anyone really believe Putin wasn't doing exactly this when he announced that Iran had no intention of ever seeking nuclear weapons. That fits the pattern perfectly.
Abs like Jesus
The USA does what for who? What leaders of what nations might you be referring to? It sounds like you're just throwing a lot of speculation around here.
GoAmerica
Clinton went out on a limb by invading Kosovo. Not for U.S. interests, but for the interests of those dying from Serb forces & those who have died from Serb forces.

The United States doesn't just police those who we can say are for our interests, but for the interests of those being slaughtered
wcrockets
Not at all. them=leaders of foreign countries.

Specifically what leaders would depend on a specific situation, however there is a pattern as I already mentioned of them and us for the reasons I have already mentioned. Did you read them?

The example I chose would be Iran's nuclear weapons program and Putin's flat denial that the Iran government was seeking nor would seek nuclear weapons. And this on the heels of us discovering that Iran advisors had visited North Korea attempting to learn how to hide weapon's programs. Putin had been losing popularity in the months leading up to his [silly] statement. Putin got a boost from that statement at home and internationaly. Russia and France share more common views than the USA and Russia (Are you able to extrapolate my meaning?)

But deep down Mr. Putin knows his history VERY well. The Tarter invasions of old (try reading "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy) and their historical emenity is never far from his KGB mind. I'm sure privately that Mr. Putin would really prefer Iran NOT have a nuclear program but with a populace whipped up nationalistically (to try and take criticism away from domestic problems), Putin the politician had to say what he did or there would be political fall out both domestically and internationally.

Etc..
Abs like Jesus
You cite one example of one country (Russia) and you expect that to qualify as "a pattern"? Where I come from a pattern requires recurrences, not just a single occurance.
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jul 10 2003 @ 04:21 PM)
Clinton went out on a limb by invading Kosovo. Not for U.S. interests, but for the interests of those dying from Serb forces & those who have died from Serb forces.

I believe Kosovo was a NATO operation, involving a small contingent of U.S. forces combined with other international soldiers of countries included in NATO. We weren't simply acting as a policeman but working under an alliance agreed upon by various international participants.
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jul 10 2003 @ 04:21 PM)
The United States doesn't just police those who we can say are for our interests, but for the interests of those being slaughtered

Before this statement you said that we were the only ones who cared about the condition of the world. You might take note of my response to that and the fact that Britain and France -- as merely two examples -- have already aided nations in "police" related activities for the sake of those being slaughtered. In my opinion they have routinely handled such tasks significantly better than we have by being more considerate of local inhabitants during and after times of conflict.
Google
ConservPat
IMO, I think that considering that we do have the most modern, and most powerful military in the world, wouldn't we make the best policemen of the world. Although other countries do help in international issues, they do not do enough of it, so if the US didn't police the world, a good portion of it would remain unattended to.

CP us.gif
Paladin Elspeth
http://www.fateswarning.com/fwboard/messag...ages/80386.html

QUOTE
: In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.

: For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.

Don't we need to be more fiscally responsible? C'mon, you pro-military conservatives, who's supposed to pay for this policing of the world?

Can we depend upon our benevolent masters, the major corporations, to raise the wages of their workers to help pay the higher taxes that being the world's police officer will inevitably require? No.

Perhaps the churches will see it in their hearts to fund military operations in the name of charity and compassion toward other nations? This while many say that the tax exemptions on religious institutions should be eliminated? I think not.

So who is going to end up paying for the dubious privilege of the US maintaining its world policeman status? Look in the mirror. Then look at your children, and grandchildren...

No. I think we should take care of our own problems, and then maybe we all will be a little better off to intervene in areas outside of our borders. And I'm a liberal.

As my parents used to say, charity begins at home.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ConservPat
PE, I think money is less important than security, can we really put a price tag on international safety? I can't.

CP us.gif
Platypus
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 10 2003, 06:56 PM)
I think that considering that we do have the most modern, and most powerful military in the world, wouldn't we make the best policemen of the world.

Is power the only, or even most important, attribute of a good policeman?
Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE
PE, I think money is less important than security, can we really put a price tag on international safety? I can't.


Then Pat, all I've got to say is that you're not fiscally conservative, not strictly speaking. Are you a neo-Conservative?

I think it should be the burden of the world community to police its own. (And it makes me wonder if I'm truly a liberal when I sound like Pat Buchanan!) huh.gif

The world existed before there was a United States of America. The British, Spanish, and your pals the French were dukeing it out before we were a gleam in John Hancock's eye. That's one reason Europe views the United States as an upstart, trying to tell them what to do!

So okay, let them figure things out, while we do what we can to save the domestic economy, improve education, have a more equitable health care system, and take measures to protect the environment.

Then the E.U./UN/whatever can come running to us and say, "Gee, you were right, and if you can fix (fill in the blank) situation we'll stop calling you Imperialist warmongers and start giving you some respect." (Edited to add: But don't hold your breath!)

How does that sound?
London2LA
"Policing" implies enforcing a set of agreed upon laws. That suggests International law & a body to decide what that is, and that suggests the UN which this administration abhors, except when it rubberstamp's their agenda. Alternately, do we just decide that everyone on earth should abide by american law, despite them having no representation in the bodies that make those laws?. Anything other than working through the UN & helping enforce it's decisions is not policing, it is simply forcing countries to conform to US foreign policy.

Tony
nileriver
well, when something like a world war can be diverted then i would say yes, but who is to say when you should step in and if it is needed. Since we have so much power could it be looked on as good to stop something like we did in bosnia, who is to say. We say iraq was going to become something down the road, or that they were a massive danger now, is that true, some will say yes and no, i personally think no on that one, why, because we crueshed them like we did before in a flash, and to add to that we are at fault for alot of how iraq came to be, even if you dont want to see it like that, so in that light what are we being the police of. Its one thing to apply police as a word to it, but law usually means justice or its a fiar trial type of thing, in the world of politics and personal agendas, i think that would be hard to come around at best. Once again i would look to the u.n to be this, but the u.n is not very important anymore. To say it in a different way, america works for its intersests, for the most part, is that a true police force for the world, to me it sounds like a crusade or jihad on un american ways of thinking and life, but i could just be in a bad mood now biggrin.gif

a real police officer protects a crack addicted person, you do not let that person die or pick what crimes will benefit you to be involved in. excl.gif
ConservPat
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 10 2003, 09:09 PM)
QUOTE
PE, I think money is less important than security, can we really put a price tag on international safety? I can't.


Then Pat, all I've got to say is that you're not fiscally conservative, not strictly speaking. Are you a neo-Conservative?

I think it should be the burden of the world community to police its own. (And it makes me wonder if I'm truly a liberal when I sound like Pat Buchanan!) huh.gif

The world existed before there was a United States of America. The British, Spanish, and your pals the French were dukeing it out before we were a gleam in John Hancock's eye. That's one reason Europe views the United States as an upstart, trying to tell them what to do!

So okay, let them figure things out, while we do what we can to save the domestic economy, improve education, have a more equitable health care system, and take measures to protect the environment.

Then the E.U./UN/whatever can come running to us and say, "Gee, you were right, and if you can fix (fill in the blank) situation we'll stop calling you Imperialist warmongers and start giving you some respect." (Edited to add: But don't hold your breath!)

How does that sound?

Yes, I am Neo-Conservative. During the time that the USA didn't exist, there were a lot less things to worry about [i.e. global terrorism, ect]. But now that these modern dangers have arisen somebody needs to stop them. And a good portion of the world can't help themselves, someone needs to help them.

CP us.gif
Oliver
>should the USA police the world?
certainly not in the way it is currently doing so.

A very simplified version of current affairs...

1. People hate the US,
2. The US is attacked by these people,
3. The US attacks and overthrows the government in the country where these people originated,
4. This causes more hatred directed at the US,
5. Repeat...

This seems a little counter-productive to me.
ConservPat
QUOTE(Oliver @ Jul 17 2003, 04:38 PM)
>should the USA police the world?
certainly not in the way it is currently doing so.

A very simplified version of current affairs...

1. People hate the US,
2. The US is attacked by these people,
3. The US attacks and overthrows the government in the country where these people originated,
4. This causes more hatred directed at the US,
5. Repeat...

This seems a little counter-productive to me.

People will hate the USA no matter what, unfortunately. If we can stop terrorists from attacking us, steps 2-5 won't happen. If we don't do anything people will still attack us.

CP us.gif
Oliver
(sorry about the lateness of my reply, BTW)
QUOTE
People will hate the USA no matter what, unfortunately. If we can stop terrorists from attacking us, steps 2-5 won't happen. If we don't do anything people will still attack us.

Some people will hate the US just because it is the richest and most powerful country in the world, that is inevitable. But it would probably surprise most Americans to learn that most people who hate the US, do so because of what Washington does abroad.

Numerous surveys (the most notable conducted by the Department of Defense in 1997) have concluded that there is a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and terrorism targeting the US.

The September 11 attacks killed about 3000 civilians. In 2001/2 when the US attacked Afghanistan, around 4000 civilians were killed (not including those who died later of their injuries) and how many of these were responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Probably no more than a handful. In my opinion, it is not surprising why so many people in this part of the world hate the US because of irresponsible actions such as this.
Dontreadonme
Since there seems to be a varying number from a multitude of sources...can you tell us where you got your data for 4,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan?
kimpossible
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 17 2003, 07:21 PM)

People will hate the USA no matter what, unfortunately.  If we can stop terrorists from attacking us, steps 2-5 won't happen.  If we don't do anything people will still attack us.

CP  us.gif

Do you honestly think that attacking countries "pre-emptively" (one of those countries having no ties to any terrorist organization) will stop terrorism? Because my logic dictates that attacking someone for a percieved threat will make that person a little more hostile towards you. And didnt the CIA even release a report saying that this will RAISE the number of terrorist attacks?

No one is advocating we "do nothing", but why dont we change our forgien policy a little bit, instead of killing US, Brisith, French, and Canadian troops?

Does anyone know if we had these terrorist problems during the 80s? All the stuff that Ive noted happened AFTER the first Gulf War (specifically ocncerning the US, since we obviously didnt care about the terrorist problems of other countries until post 9-11), when we installed military bases in Saudi Arabia, which the people were totally against.

But to answer the question, NO America shouldnt be the world police, as no one really wants us to be.
Dontreadonme
QUOTE
Does anyone know if we had these terrorist problems during the 80s?

We didn't have too many problems with Islamic extremists in the 80's compared to today.

We had problems with Libya (Berlin disco bombing 1986), but Operation El Dorado Canyon put a stop to that.
We lost 241 Marines in the Marine Barracks bombing, and another 17 Americans in the embassy bombing in Beirut.
Anti-American sentiment grew even before the gulf war, due to expanding American economic interest in the region.
QUOTE
specifically ocncerning the US, since we obviously didnt care about the terrorist problems of other countries until post 9-11


Mostly we assisted our european allies in dealing with the Red Brigade, Bader-Meinhof Gang, but we had a vested interest in doing so, since several US bases were targeted and hit by terrorist groups in the 80's.
I remember owning a T-shirt sold on base when I was stationed in Germany during that time....said something about 'Terrorism Tour '83-'88(?), Surviving in Europe'.
This of course was before the influx of internet and 24 hour news channels.

I don't believe we should be the world's police. We are stretched too thin as it is. There are some causes worth getting involved in, but the rest we should leave to the belligerents.
pheeler
I think the reason we can not be the world's policeman is that we could not possibly act in a way that would not serve our own interests. As of now we are corrupt cops. As DTOM said, anti-American sentiment has grown because of our economic investment in the Middle East, so how can we serve as police there when everyone knows and believes we are likely to protect our financial investments first and foremost? If anyone should police the world its the UN, but obviously they don't have the power or the desire to do so.
Cephus
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 10 2003, 11:34 PM)
PE, I think money is less important than security, can we really put a price tag on international safety? I can't.

Which international safety are we supposedly talking about? We've been nowhere that can threaten us, it's a little silly to say we're out worried about our own safety.

Rather, the US has been running around the world for years now, declaring that other countries need to change their governments to suit us. Sorry, but "Might Makes Right" is a childish policy. We have no business telling any other government that they need to do what we tell them to or we'll bomb them out of existence.
GoAmerica
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 27 2003, 01:46 PM)
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 10 2003, 11:34 PM)
PE, I think money is less important than security, can we really put a price tag on international safety? I can't.

Which international safety are we supposedly talking about? We've been nowhere that can threaten us, it's a little silly to say we're out worried about our own safety.

Afghanistan is one of those that is a place where we are being threatened? I think it is. 2 worlds: Taliban and Al-Queda.

Liberia is a security risk because the mounting violence there can be a haven for terrorist groups if it is not dealt with.


the United States needs to be the World's Policeman. Without our policing, where would the Kosovians be? Probably dead. Where would the Kurds be if we hadn't set up No-Fly Zones without UN approval? Probably slaughtered to extinction.

We police the war not to act as world dominationists like Hitler. We police the world to make it more peaceful for our children's children & for the children of the present. Not just for our children too. For children in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else we have been.
ConservPat
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Jul 26 2003, 02:52 PM)
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 17 2003, 07:21 PM)

People will hate the USA no matter what, unfortunately.  If we can stop terrorists from attacking us, steps 2-5 won't happen.  If we don't do anything people will still attack us.

CP  us.gif

Do you honestly think that attacking countries "pre-emptively" (one of those countries having no ties to any terrorist organization) will stop terrorism? Because my logic dictates that attacking someone for a percieved threat will make that person a little more hostile towards you. And didnt the CIA even release a report saying that this will RAISE the number of terrorist attacks?

No one is advocating we "do nothing", but why dont we change our forgien policy a little bit, instead of killing US, Brisith, French, and Canadian troops?

Does anyone know if we had these terrorist problems during the 80s? All the stuff that Ive noted happened AFTER the first Gulf War (specifically ocncerning the US, since we obviously didnt care about the terrorist problems of other countries until post 9-11), when we installed military bases in Saudi Arabia, which the people were totally against.

But to answer the question, NO America shouldnt be the world police, as no one really wants us to be.

That's why we attack countries who have terrrorist links. If we do, we take out terrrorists, which, of course, is a good thing.

CP us.gif
Alan Wood
Isn't this just one more 'poor old america, nobody understands us' posts?.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
I am very much afraid that america has already proved itself big on power but small on diplomacy..........and credibility.
A juvenile with a big stick.

Regards........Alan
CruisingRam
I have travelled a great deal of the world, excluding africa and portions of the middle east, and recently got back from russia, last december. First, Russians don't understand Russia, so I don't suggest attempting to follow the meanderings of Putin LOL- if you think he runs Russia you REALLY don't know Russia, especially if you don't also know what an Oligarch is and thier definition. Until this gulf war, one of the main reasons certain groups hate us is our very popularity among thier own populations! We are corrupting thier culture with ours and ad nauseam. I travelled "low"- usually as a backpacker until I had a family. Hating the US was not a majority opinion anywhere I travelled, and even those that outwardly made remarks usually aimed them towards certain policies, not to us as a nation. I think Iraq has changed that, and we are seen as out of control bullies that resembles a very dangerous out of control adolecent. There was obviously no need to rush to attack Iraq. Thier Army had no way to threaten us, WMD if not around, were certainly not available enough to harm us militarily, and yes, Saddam was a horrible madman in his part of the world, in a group of other madmen. Ariel Sharon has his own massacre and is in fact a war criminal as well, but we have not made to remove him from power. Saudi Arabia executes thousands per year in thier strict islamic code for "crimes", including the practise of "honor killing" of females. Are we going to attack Saudi Arabia anytime soon, especially considering that they had more to do with 9/11 than any country on the planet?

When you decide to become the worlds policeman, you have to enforce justice evenly, and we are nowhere near able to do that. If we arrested Ariel Sharon, King Fahd and a large group of other world leaders immediately, we might have some credibility, but we don't, so being the worlds policeman we can not only NOT afford financially, we are not ready to take on the whole task, so we are plain not up for the job!
ConservPat
QUOTE(Alan Wood @ Jul 28 2003, 02:42 AM)
Isn't this just one more 'poor old america, nobody understands us' posts?.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
I am very much afraid that america has already proved itself big on power but small on diplomacy..........and credibility.
A juvenile with a big stick.

Regards........Alan

No, not at all. It's a "this is why we are doing what we're doing" post.

CP us.gif
kimpossible
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 27 2003, 06:33 PM)
That's why we attack countries who have terrrorist links.  If we do, we take out terrrorists, which, of course, is a good thing.

CP  us.gif

From what Ive read, the links with terrorism and Iraq were totally unfounded. Has something come up that I dont know about?

And as DTOM has pointed out, we had alot of terrorist problems in the 80s, which I completley spaced (I was just a kid at that time, so forgive me for not knowing all the details just yet). And I thought the reason for all that was because...Oh didnt we supported the opposition to a democratically elected government (Nicaraugra comes to mind, Iran, etc.) Seems we just sort of create an atmosphere of terrorism whatever we do, so MAYBE we should stop intervening when we arent wanted.
ConservPat
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Jul 28 2003, 10:42 AM)
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 27 2003, 06:33 PM)
That's why we attack countries who have terrrorist links.  If we do, we take out terrrorists, which, of course, is a good thing.

CP  us.gif

From what Ive read, the links with terrorism and Iraq were totally unfounded. Has something come up that I dont know about?

And as DTOM has pointed out, we had alot of terrorist problems in the 80s, which I completley spaced (I was just a kid at that time, so forgive me for not knowing all the details just yet). And I thought the reason for all that was because...Oh didnt we supported the opposition to a democratically elected government (Nicaraugra comes to mind, Iran, etc.) Seems we just sort of create an atmosphere of terrorism whatever we do, so MAYBE we should stop intervening when we arent wanted.

The war in Iraq isn't over yet, you can't judge it until it's over. Let's take a gander at the last war we fought, Afghanistan, against terrorism. We are constantly undergoing covert ops against terrorists, if we keep fighting terrorism we will be a safer country.

CP us.gif
kimpossible
But, the war was declared over...Is it or isnt it? Silly me for thinking when the President made the declaration, that it really means its over. Just another thing I cant trust him on then?

And we would be a safer country if we stopped pushing ourselves into every other countries business. There is nothing like toppling a democratically elected regime for fear of communists that will stop terrorist acts. And I think someone else made the very good point, that the US can not be objective in this issue, therefore it shouldnt be the World Police so to speak.
Dontreadonme
QUOTE
But, the war was declared over...Is it or isnt it?

Bush declared the end of major combat operations. Vastly different than the end of hostilities. Of course, lately Dems have trotted out this misquote to advance their viewpoint, unfortunately many in the media have not bothered to correct this.
QUOTE
There is nothing like toppling a democratically elected regime for fear of communists that will stop terrorist acts.

I may not be thinking clearly today, but has there been a democratically elected government that we have toppled in the last decade or so?
ConservPat
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Jul 28 2003, 11:58 AM)
But, the war was declared over...Is it or isnt it? Silly me for thinking when the President made the declaration, that it really means its over. Just another thing I cant trust him on then?

And we would be a safer country if we stopped pushing ourselves into every other countries business. There is nothing like toppling a democratically elected regime for fear of communists that will stop terrorist acts. And I think someone else made the very good point, that the US can not be objective in this issue, therefore it shouldnt be the World Police so to speak.

We will be hated no matter what, kim, the whole object is that we stop these people from killing Americans.

CP us.gif
Paladin Elspeth
I'd be willing to bet you that the next time we undertake a major "policing" action such as that of Iraq (and I'm not counting Liberia), it will be in a country that is a major producer of oil. Coincidence?
kimpossible
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 28 2003, 11:03 AM)
QUOTE
But, the war was declared over...Is it or isnt it?

Bush declared the end of major combat operations. Vastly different than the end of hostilities. Of course, lately Dems have trotted out this misquote to advance their viewpoint, unfortunately many in the media have not bothered to correct this.
QUOTE
There is nothing like toppling a democratically elected regime for fear of communists that will stop terrorist acts.

I may not be thinking clearly today, but has there been a democratically elected government that we have toppled in the last decade or so?

Fair enough, we havent toppled any democracies in recent time. As for the misquote...Well since its a misquote, then theres really not muc to say. Sorry I misinterpreted what was said.

QUOTE
We will be hated no matter what, kim, the whole object is that we stop these people from killing Americans.


This is not true. Nobody hates Australia, and they can travel safely abroad (even though they have had some revent shady forgien policies), nor do people hate a plethora of other countries, mostly because they have not shoved their politics in the face of lesser countries. I dont hear about how people hate Canada, Italy, Iceland, Sweden, Brazil etc. because, well... They dont have military bases all over the world, they arent intervening where they arent wanted, and they arent invading countries and starting wars. I know the idea that not being hated may seem like a forgien concept to you, but it is actually possible.
Dontreadonme
QUOTE
I dont hear about how people hate Canada, Italy, Iceland, Sweden, Brazil etc. because, well... They dont have military bases all over the world, they arent intervening where they arent wanted, and they arent invading countries and starting wars.


On the flipside of that, I also don't hear the world community clamoring for these countries to intervene in Liberia. Seems to me.....danged if we do, danged if we don't.
Billy Jean
QUOTE
I'd be willing to bet you that the next time we undertake a major "policing" action such as that of Iraq (and I'm not counting Liberia), it will be in a country that is a major producer of oil. Coincidence?


Iran? Producing a nuclear arsenal and has Oil. saudi Arabia? Still secret about it's involvement in 9\11, the majority of the high jackers are Saudi citizens. Wow, they have Oil too. whistling.gif

QUOTE
On the flipside of that, I also don't hear the world community clamoring for these countries to intervene in Liberia. Seems to me.....danged if we do, danged if we don't.


That's because over the last 50 years we've put ourself in that situation. Instead of SHARING our military knowledge with our allies, we hogged it all and kept it a secret to remain a "superpower". America is the one that's bragging about being the worlds only superpower. If you call something that for so long, it stick and now the world expects us to act like it all the time. And when we don't do what the UN wants they say we're picking and choosing instead of being a team player. And they're right! We flaunt our superiority and demean our allies. They know they don't have the resources, industries and military that we have, because they haven't had too. They've relied on us the last 50 years and we've liked that! Now that we don't want to play by their rules we get upset because they won't go along with we want! We CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
GoAmerica
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 28 2003, 12:03 PM)
I'd be willing to bet you that the next time we undertake a major "policing" action such as that of Iraq (and I'm not counting Liberia), it will be in a country that is a major producer of oil. Coincidence?

It is a major coincidence that the countries we have attacked since 9/11 are oil producing countries. It's a coincidence that the countries has a terrorist network (afghanistan and it's pipeline) and has a nutty dictator with 20 years worth of human rights violations under his belt (iraq)
ConservPat
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 28 2003, 01:03 PM)
I'd be willing to bet you that the next time we undertake a major "policing" action such as that of Iraq (and I'm not counting Liberia), it will be in a country that is a major producer of oil. Coincidence?

You aren't counting Liberia, why not? Liberia is a perfect example of us going after a country that doesn't have a lot of oil. It is a coincidence. More oil equals more gov't money, equals most of the times more corruption, plus the fact that the oil is in the Middle East, the terrorist capital of the world doesn't help.

CP us.gif
Cephus
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jul 27 2003, 10:42 PM)
Afghanistan is one of those that is a place where we are being threatened? I think it is. 2 worlds: Taliban and Al-Queda.


First off, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Al-Queda cell that attacked the US had anything to do with Afghanistan. In fact, it looks like it had NOTHING to do with it. With terrorist groups, they have cells all over the planet, knocking out one has no effect on the others. The fact that the 9/11 terrorists spent years in the US without detection shows how pointless bombing Afghanistan or Iraq really is. It won't stop the terrorists, it'll just make them even madder.

QUOTE
Liberia is a security risk because the mounting violence there can be a haven for terrorist groups if it is not dealt with.


You'll never stop terrorism, no matter what you do. The only thing that attacking 'havens' of terrorism will do is direct their anger at you. So if you want to go out and whack the bee hive, go head. Just stay away from me when you do it.

QUOTE
the United States needs to be the World's Policeman. Without our policing, where would the Kosovians be? Probably dead. Where would the Kurds be if we hadn't set up No-Fly Zones without UN approval?  Probably slaughtered to extinction.


There's a difference between the US being the world's policemen and using the UN to keep the peace when asked. That's what the UN supposedly exists for. Might does not make right and just because the US likes to wave its... you know... doesn't mean we have any right to do so.
Oliver
First to answer and earlier question...
QUOTE
Since there seems to be a varying number from a multitude of sources...can you tell us where you got your data for 4,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan?


I did not say *exactly* 4000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan - I said around 4000 civilians were killed in afghanistan. As you say, the precise figure is not known, and different sources report different figures - all the way from as high as 5000, down to 3500. Even if it wasn't quite 4000, there were still certainly more casualties than the 9/11 attacks - as was the point of my original argument.

* * *

And secondly, a question to any supporters of 'America for world police':

How will attacking countries seen as supporting terrorists prevent hatred (and resulting terrorist attacks) directed at America or American troops?
GoAmerica
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 29 2003, 02:29 PM)
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jul 27 2003, 10:42 PM)

Afghanistan is one of those that is a place where we are being threatened? I think it is. 2 worlds: Taliban and Al-Queda.


First off, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Al-Queda cell that attacked the US had anything to do with Afghanistan.

Excuse me? All Al-Queda members have trained in Afghanistan before the war

QUOTE
QUOTE
Liberia is a security risk because the mounting violence there can be a haven for terrorist groups if it is not dealt with.


You'll never stop terrorism, no matter what you do. The only thing that attacking 'havens' of terrorism will do is direct their anger at you. So if you want to go out and whack the bee hive, go head. Just stay away from me when you do it.


Fine. I'll take Teddy Roosevelt's Big Stick and beat the bee hive to death. The United States was attacked and we responded. Not with just a couple of cruise missiles, but with every piece of military hardware we had. If the Terrorists want to see what crap they can do to us again, then i dare them. They better remember that they possess soviet-era rifiles while our Marines have night vison goggles and enough guns on him to scare the crap out of any LA gang
Cephus
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jul 30 2003, 12:50 AM)
Excuse me?  All Al-Queda members have trained in Afghanistan before the war


Al-Queda members, or the specific people who flew the planes in the US? Because those were Saudi citizens and trained in Saudi Arabia and the US. Just because SOME MEMBERS of Al-Queda were in Afghanistan doesn't make them guilty. Guilt by association is troublesome.

QUOTE
Fine. I'll take Teddy Roosevelt's Big Stick and beat the bee hive to death. The United States was attacked and we responded. Not with just a couple of cruise missiles, but with every piece of military hardware we had. If the Terrorists want to see what crap they can do to us again, then i dare them. They better remember that they possess soviet-era rifiles while our Marines have night vison goggles and enough guns on him to scare the crap out of any LA gang


Glad you brought up Teddy Roosevelt, since he was very vocal about the presidency:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

I dare say that Mr. Roosevelt would be sickened by your statements, as should any American. A better example of bullyism, I've rarely seen.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jul 28 2003, 12:27 PM)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 28 2003, 12:03 PM)
I'd be willing to bet you that the next time we undertake a major "policing" action such as that of Iraq (and I'm not counting Liberia), it will be in a country that is a major producer of oil. Coincidence?

It is a major coincidence that the countries we have attacked since 9/11 are oil producing countries. It's a coincidence that the countries has a terrorist network (afghanistan and it's pipeline) and has a nutty dictator with 20 years worth of human rights violations under his belt (iraq)

I don't think Afghanistan is a major oil producing country. They don't export oil, as far as I know...which is why they grow all of those poppy fields.
ConservPat
QUOTE
Al-Queda members, or the specific people who flew the planes in the US? Because those were Saudi citizens and trained in Saudi Arabia and the US. Just because SOME MEMBERS of Al-Queda were in Afghanistan doesn't make them guilty. Guilt by association is troublesome.

Sure it does. Harboring terrorists and giving them places to train before attacking us makes that country guilty.

CP us.gif
CruisingRam
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 30 2003, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jul 28 2003, 12:27 PM)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 28 2003, 12:03 PM)
I'd be willing to bet you that the next time we undertake a major "policing" action such as that of Iraq (and I'm not counting Liberia), it will be in a country that is a major producer of oil. Coincidence?

It is a major coincidence that the countries we have attacked since 9/11 are oil producing countries. It's a coincidence that the countries has a terrorist network (afghanistan and it's pipeline) and has a nutty dictator with 20 years worth of human rights violations under his belt (iraq)

I don't think Afghanistan is a major oil producing country. They don't export oil, as far as I know...which is why they grow all of those poppy fields.



Actually, this is one of the sad things about Afghanistan, they have ENORMOUS oil reserves, but because of thier anarchy for the last 30 years or so have not been able to exploit it- this is a major deal of debate here in my state, because many oil patch workers are itching for the new jobs in Afghanistan!
UrbanWar
We should only intervene when our interests are at stake. It sounds selfish, but it must be so or our nation wont survive. That does not mean we should be the policemen of the world. We can't solve every human rights issue around the globe.

We should be neither policemen nore isolationists, we must be in the middle.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.