Why Not Police the Planet?
Debate Rounds (3)
Survival is the key ideal; common among every human, among every living thing down to bacteria and amoeba. Adaptation and survival.
When it comes to humanity's future existence, proliferation and ultimate survival, why should typical morals matter? Morals and emotion plague so few species, and for good reason, I feel. If nothing could kill, remove or eradicate to survive, almost everything would cease to exist.
Not so many shed a tear when it was Osama Bin Laden who died.
The strongest nations are almost required and should indeed police the planet. Human beings both possess and abuse the ability to destroy themselves.
I strongly believe that nations should not police the world.
There are three main problems with this.
The first problem is that any change we make in another country will not stay. If we tossed out a corrupt dictator or put down some violent rebels, there would be nothing to stop the same thing from happening again in a few years. Unless we plan on having a permanent occupying army in every country that breaks the rules, then this would not be logical. Since a permanent occupation army is impractical, then there should not be a global police.
The next problem is that we have no right to impose our rules onto other countries. We have our rules for our citizens and they have their rules. Our culture is very different than most of the places we would be policing, so we would be forcing our culture and beliefs onto them. Our imposition of rules on other countries would be comparable to the middle eastern countries coming together and forcing all American women to wear the hijab head covers. We would not stand for that, so we should not do it to others.
The final and most important reason is kind of a continuation of the second. Because we are imposing our rules and culture on other countries, they have come to hate us. From a gallup poll done in 2011, middle eastern approval of United States actions are anywhere from 9 - 30%, which is very bad for us.  Because of all the bad feelings against us, many of them have resorted to terrorism. The link between American interventions and terrorism targeted at the US is not a coincidence.
While I agree that it would be nice to save some lives, there is no reason for the US or any other nation to be policing unless there is a direct danger to them or their allies. For these reasons, vote Con.
Allow me to clarify: I wasn't speaking of imposing cultural and/or religious values on other nations. I wasn't referring to the USA and our particular set of ideals and governmental structure as the only 'policing nation'. I do agree with you that forcing a religious or moral operational standpoint on a completely different country is not a valid solution. In fact religion and belief systems are a huge obstacle/detriment when it comes to world union. But I digress.
I was thinking broader scale. Step outside of religion, outside of one specific country's policies or belief system. Looking at us a whole, as one species who is biologically programmed to survive, to thrive. When a threat to our survival, or the homeostatic feasibility of our planet or large parts of it occurs, I feel it is important to act, if able. One example of a threat to our species, or the planet that houses us, is a fanatical dictator with a chip on his shoulder and access to nuclear weapons and/or chemical weapons.
There are countries with the capabilities to fire nuclear weapons at us. Or chemical. They don't because they understand the endgame.
But then there are countries who would love to fire nuclear or chemical weapons at us or others, they don't care about the endgame, but they lack being fully capable. There are countries where they slaughter each other by the hundreds of thousands each year. Citizens, groups and countries all act on their own respective belief systems, many of which are focused in religions, all vastly different from each other, some quite violent. We are on a planet with finite resources and as yet no place to go when we can no longer stay here. Add the volatility of certain nations, and it becomes a recipe for you real disaster.
When I said 'police the world', I didn't specifically mean only start wars and fight for what WE Americans want or believe. I should have clarified. I meant that the a group of nations, or the strongest nations, operating outside of any dogma and with the ability set aside morals for the greatest good, should indeed work together to ensure our survival. Even if it means killing.
The UN is a joke, but I suppose that was the idea behind its creation.
People so often complain about the US, Britain and other countries policing the world, imposing their rule. There are some legitimate aspects to those complaints, but a filter of critical thinking needs to be applied. Do we want someone like Kim Jon Un to have long-range nuclear weapons and the ability AND desire to hit us? Or any place on this planet that we call home?
Also, I forgot to put this at the end of my first round, so here is the source I sited.
Before I talk about the arguments, I will attempt to clear up a definition that we seem to differ on. Policing the planet is when one country uses some form of power or authority to change the actions (or inactions) of another country. The actions that the police nation(s) is trying to stop cannot be a direct threat to that nation or it is an act of self defense, not policing. For example, us taking action against North Korea when faced with a missile threat is self defense, but if NK was threatening Taiwan it would be policing.
Anyway, first I will attack my opponents arguments then support my own.
The Pro begins by saying that everyone has a natural instinct to survive. This is true but gives no reason why we should police the world. Humans also have a natural instinct to reproduce, but you don't see government workers handing out prostitutes on the street corners. Just because we have an instinct doesn't mean that the government can or should fulfill it.
On the argument of dictators with nuclear/chemical weapons, you can look to my definition of policing the planet. As I have said, if there is a direct threat to a country, that country's response is self defense, not police action. Therefore, because self defense is not police action, then the argument about dictators and nuclear missiles falls.
I really don't understand what the Pro is trying to say with his finite resource comments, but it does not have any impact on this debate, so I am skipping it.
Finally, the Pro says that whichever nation or group of nations is the police group, they would do their policing without morals or specific beliefs. I will address this more fully when supporting my arguments, but for now I will only say that removing morals and beliefs from policing is not possible.
OK, now onto my arguments.
The Pro did not address my argument about how our policing would have no lasting effect. I will sum it up here to give him another chance to counter it. We have no way to make sure that whatever changes we make with the police work will stay after we leave. Once we leave, the nation being policed will revert back to the way it was before we intervened.
The Pro kind of addressed my argument about imposing our morals and rules on other nations. I will also show how the removal of morals and beliefs from the policing is not possible here. With any action against another country, we are pushing our beliefs on them. For example, in many Muslim nations, honor killings are usually acceptable.  By American rules, though, it is murder. It is conflicts like this that make it impossible to separate morals from policing. By intervening in another nation, we would be imposing our rules, regardless of what their culture believes is acceptable.
The Pro completely skipped my final argument as well. This argument states that because the US acts as the main world police, it is the main target for terrorism. When we impose our culture on others, they dislike us, sometimes to the point of terrorism. It seems more likely to me that if the US, or any other policing nation, comes under threat from a nuclear attack, that attack would come from terrorists, not governments.
I am winning this debate because I have sufficiently rebutted the Pro's arguments, but my arguments have gone pretty much uncontested. Vote Con!
aenflex forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.