The US needs to take a stand to help those who are not super powers in order to promote peace. The UN does not do their job and the USA is the only country that truly looks out for others. Plus the middle east wants to wipe out Isreal. If we don't help them then who will?
The US should help the allies of the world from the injusts that spure from dictators and tyrants. If we are truly a great nation, this should be on the list of topics we should focus on. To say that we are to powerful is stupid. Russia has the largest military on the planet and China has the second. If we had to fight one or the other, it would not matter. Both sides would suffer unheard of losses.
Wherever there is injustice the United States must intervene, militarily if necessary. Where there is hunger we must provide food. Where there is poverty we must provide financial assistance. Where there are political struggles we must choose the winners. We cannot let bad things happen. If there is a tyrant, we must overthrow him. If there is a king, we must demand elections. Where there are too many people we must provide contraception and legal abortion. Where there is too much development or industry or production of energy we must demand environmental controls and stamp it out. We must cure disease, control the climate, and right wrongs.
If we provide these things for our own people, how can we refuse it to the world? Certainly we can borrow this money on the good faith and credit of future generations of Americans, and pay it back over the centuries after we balance the budget.
With Great Power, Comes with Great Responsibility. I believe the Nation who has good intentions should rule and control the world. The one who helps, the one who is concern, the one who is willing to move mountains, the one who is willing to explore space, the one who will take care of our planet and yet still believes that there is a God.
First, do we want to live in a world with no policeman?
I think not. There are currently a number of countries or sections of countries where outlaws dominate. They include, North Korea, the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, The tribal areas along the Afghan border in Pakistan, Somalia—previously Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq. There are a number of other countries who threaten their neighbors with violence like Iran.
In a world with no policeman, these outlaws and belligerents harm innocent people and prosper from doing so thereby encouraging them to expand their bad behavior and encouraging others to imitate them. 70 years ago, the Axis leaders—Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and the Japanese—decided to take over the world. No policeman stopped them.
They did take over much of the world and 62 million people died in the war, twice as many of them civilians as military. And 50,000,000 or 81% of the dead were in the allied countries that “won” the war. Untold property damage was caused. Huge national debts were incurred and are still being paid by succeeding generations. That’s what can happen in a world where no one acts as policeman.
If ever there was a stitch-in-time-saves-nine example, it was World War II. Had there been a policeman who nipped the Axis Powers in the bud, 99% of those losses could have been avoided.
Clearly, the world needs a policeman the same as your local neighborhood needs policemen.
So the question is not whether we need a world policeman, but who it will be.
Should the U.N. Be the policeman of the world?
Most people would say the United Nations. Actually, the United Nations was the name of the warring powers who opposed the Axis (Germany, Italy, and Japan) during World War II—also known as the Allies. The United Nations was formed right after World War II ended by the victors.
Has the U.N. Been an effective policeman?
It votes to take military action very rarely—far more rarely than is needed. Furthermore, even when it does vote to take military action, members often refuse to provide the needed military personnel and assets, or provide them, but restrict their use to the point where the U.N. Force is impotent.
If not the U.N., who?
So we must have a policeman. The U.N. Has had 60 years to prove it can do the job and has proven it cannot do the job except in the most clear-cut, extreme cases involving relatively weak aggressors, most notably Iraq invading Kuwait in 1990.
For one thing, it takes a certain amount of size and prosperity to be the policeman of the world. Denmark, for example, is not a candidate. They are too small and have too few people and resources. So which countries have the size and resources to possibly serve as policeman of the world?
Maybe the United States, Russia, China, India, the United Kingdom, Germany, France. The next country on the list would be Italy by gross domestic product.
Only nation willing to enforce international law when UN can't. As soon as the UN changes to end this problem the US can abdicate the role as world policeman. The US would welcome other nations help in this role but moving fast is easier to do unilaterally in emergency situations like Syria and Iran.
"In the simplest of terms, what we are doing in Korea is this: We are trying to prevent a third world war" (Harry S. Truman). Is a third world war really what we want? We should step into Syria and continue out roles as world "policemen". Not because other people will not but because our goal as a democratic republic and constitutional government our job is to not only create a nation that is free but to further a world that is free as well; free from dictators and communists so that someday the world will act in harmony not violence and disagreement.
Ragnar Redbeard once wrote a book titled Might is Right. He emphasized the fact that only the strong survive. Government is founded on property, property is founded on conquest, conquest is founded on power and power is founded on brain and broad. Superiority can only be decided and determined by battle, therefore we must show others that there is a punishment for mass genocide. Authority is not an evil in itself. It is as natural for men of power to rule feeble multitudes as it is for the lion to eat the lamb. We are the global superpower, and to stand by and watch as populations are violated and demolished is a disgrace to the name America and to the so called "honor" to which we uphold. Yes, we should police the international playground.
The US cannot. As much as they'd love to, and gain more power, they CAN'T. They need to take a look at their own country and fix it first. I really don't understand why the government wants to get involved in other countries while our own is having MANY problems of its own. Seen Detroit lately? That's exactly what I'm talking about.
While this doesn't mean we should not help out where possible, but it is impossible for us to constantly be everywhere at once. There is the moral dilemma of who we should help (such as Americans, or others). Also to 'police' other countries we will be forcing them to live the way we live. While Americans tend to think they live in the most optimal setting, I don't feel we should force others to live the way we do, if they enjoy the way their country works
Debt, the U.S cannot risk any more debt let alone world war. If we police other countries we risk our security and our children's future. We should take care of ourselves and prosper as a country not focus on policing other people's country. The only benefit would be more allies
No country, ESPECIALLY the U.S. should be given any authority on anything over the world, the Americans themselves do not trust their government, and the U.S. government itself cannot even show any form of transparency in its actions to its own people, the U.S. marches behind it's banner of "democracy", but this democracy is not the one defined in the dictionaries, this "democracy" comes with an adjective: "U.S. Democracy" . . Which is really another word for "U.S. Imperialism" . . The U.S. Government only wants to "police" countries which they can gain something from, especially in monetary form ...
And if they sincerely want to police the world, why aren't they doing anything in AFRICA? There are blood-thirsty warlords ruling over some areas of Africa who had massacred thousands of people, but, they won't even touch a hair on these men because of jurisdiction laws, however the U.S. will not hesitate to bomb Syria down to rubble because of some civil conflicts within Syria that Syria itself can handle on their own...The U.S. sure didn't hesitate to level Iraq to the ground because of small rumors of WMD from unknown and unreliable sources... Most of the time, the U.S. government forgets we're not in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and even the 90s anymore, people are not as gullible as they used to be because of the internet, which by the way the U.S. Government desperately wants to police right now,
Their REAL motives are very obvious they should start hiring writers from Hollywood to come up with something more realistic and believable...
The audacity of the United States to assume the role of propagator of political practice on foreign peoples is evidence of naivety and the false belief that our perceived superior template of government should be imposed universally. There seems to be no abatement in the belief that we can pacify regional and international conflicts through military intervention.
In spite of cautions expressed by realists who point out that our interventions cannot resolve conflicts within a myriad of ethnicities, religions, races, tribes and economically diverse peoples, we persist.
We are engaged in unending "Napoleonic-like" behavior. It provides deployment (and employment) of mercenaries and work for the manufacture of military hardware but diverts resources from worth and humanitarian needs -- food, clothing, education, housing and security.
The cost of our misadventures has yet to be calculated. We can only hope that sanity will prevail before we declare economic and moral bankruptcy.
The opinions expressed on this site were highly informative and stimulating when it came to formulating my "no" argument for a debate in which i am speaking this evening. My own argument runs like this:
The western allies fail to learn from historic mistakes (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan) intervention can lead to destabilisation, as despotic rulers summon to their cause "freedom fighters" who seek to expel foreign invaders, who seek to impose their own beliefs on to an invaded county
"surgical strikes" as a method for controlling tyrants and autocratic regimes can cause more harm than good. In yugoslavia when a no fly zone was inforced the regime responded with the slaughter of thousands, and in Sarajevo the NATO bombing campaign led to a refugee crisis as people fled the country in fear. Additionally it should be noted that the increasing use of drones as a method of waging war leads to uncertain outcomes often entailing the death of civilians.
In times of economic strife western economies can hardly afford the £300millon price tag that comes with enforcing 1 weeks worth of "no fly zone" in a foreign country, money which could be re-spent stabilizing their own economies or improving public services. Whilst the noble sentimentality often touted by interventionists is laudable, in the medium term future it is simply unfair for struggling economies to put the needs of foreign citizens ahead of their own.
Finally the hypocrisy of selective intervention bankrupts this idea of the US as a moral superpower interested only in the well being of everyone world wide, in lybia they toppled gaddafi, only weeks after ending sales of arms to his regime, in yemen, their ally, they fail to intervene despite the yemeni governments continued campaign of terror against its democratic opposition. In Saudi Arabia & Bahrain where they are worried that the resulting democratic government would align itself with it's enemy (IRAN) they again fail to intervene to cease the murder of innocent civilians who move for their own rights.
Strikingly it is the west who fails to criminalize the use of nuclear weapons, and end their creation and maintenance, whilst labelling nations such as iran & Syria as dangerous for having their own WMDs.
Thank you if you have taken the time to read through this and i look forward to any replies you may have, either in favour or against my argument,
Declaring yourself the benevolent tyrant of the world and holding nations at gunpoint if they do not live up to American expectations is plain lunacy. Disasters such as Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria were not started for the sake of good, only for America's self-serving imperialistic greed and need for an "enemy" in order to make themselves feel like heroes. They've built themselves up on a pedestal after WWII, and unable to climb back down they've taken to inventing new enemies to keep their own population (and the world) in fear. First communism, now terrorism. They have delusions of grandeur wholly unfitting a country which wants to be seen as a leader of nations. A leader needs due humility and the ability to listen to the judgement and advice of others, something which the US is as incapable of as handling a conflict without immediate military intervention which only serves to kill civilians and destabilize any country they invade.
The world needs no police. Nations should be allowed to sort out their own issues. USA has it's own problems It's not a utopia is it? The government itself is a mass HR violator. So all this is rather hypocritical and senseless. The USA would love to be the 'Police' but right now they are just bullies and a pain in the neck for most.
P.S - USA should figure out a way to pay their debts before becoming the 'police'.
The policing is not an ideology. It is a grand scale money transfer from your pocket to someone else pocket. Unfortunately the USA is not a democracy in terms of participation in decisions that relate to federal funds appropriation. In theory the house of representatives should care for what is good for their constituents. Healthcare and Social Justice and Education and Science programs and Recreation. Unfortunately the incredibly diluted 1 to 700,000 representation. Because of this diminutive ratio the representatives will instead find affinity in the few and powerful and turn away their face from the people, the 99%.
We do not have the funds to try and keep fighting everyone's wars. We need to get back to the basics and restructure our own government. We want to condemn nations for the same things our government does. Who cares really what is going on in some remote location across the world. They can find whoever they want across the world but can't find the crack dealer whose hanging out on the block.
The countries of the world have agreements and diplomacy to sort their problems out, but the US has the tendency to just throw themselves in there to start a war! No-one is asking for their drones or bombs. Violent interference only gives way to more violence. We saw that happen after the war in Iraq after which global terrorism shot up higher than EVER before. We don't need or want the help of US, they should sort out their own country first.
The U.S. is not the savior of the world. Who decided that in the first place? Stop the madness...Follow the money...It's all about Israel. Let them take care of themselves! Until the U.S. realizes this there will be no peace. We have no business being involved in civil wars in other countries where there is and always will be tribal war! Why do we think we can change the world? Pride goes before the fall!
Families in the US can't keep shouldering the burden of the cost when they can't keep their heads above water in such a lousy economic climate. Families in the US can't keep shouldering the burden of the cost when they can't keep their heads above water in such a lousy economic climate.
Ninenthe so-called cold war between the united states and Russia was nothing but a hoax today these two countries are in a hot war over who is the most powerful. The ideal of being a superpower is so asinine it irks the hell out of me its like a super person or a supernatural event there is nothing super beyond nature. History has taught me that there are few people who this world and their main concern is money, power and control of the masses of people who don't have does 3 attributes. Just look at the countries meeting in Russia tomorrow that meeting is solely about the 3 attributes aforementioned nothing else. The United Nations is nothing but scapegoat organization acting as if has some authority to resolve conflicts around the world. Israel has violated so many U.N. RESOLUTIONS its ridiculous. It best to clean your own before telling someone else to clean theirs.
It is sometimes against the USA's interest to be the "world police". It not only costs lives, money, & reputation of the US more often than not it doesn't work and allows all the bystanders to snipe US actions and policy from the sidelines. The US should stick to working towards its own interests. Other countries/citizens need to determine their own destinies and not wait for deliverance.
Our country is in a mess. Our borders are so porus that large herds of elephants can walk across undetected. It's time we stop the nonsense of minding everyone else's business when we do not take care of our own. For far too long the US has been there for other countries while neglected it's own people. Other countries stand by waiting for the US to take care of the world's problems. The world blames us if we do and they blame us if we don't.
We have so many problems here at home that we need to address instead of fighting wars across the world that have no benefit to us. We need to put our troops on our own borders and protect our home land. Arming rebels to fight foreign governments that we don't agree with only puts money and guns in the hands of another evil regime. Enough! Let the Middle East take care of it's own!
The term right and wrong are very subjective. What the native Americans used to believe was the root their culture, the colonizers viewed it as barbaric. The native Americans on the other hand viewed the colonizers as dirty, uncivilized bunch of parasites. This is why what you may think of something being right can be very different in the culture, religion or society as a whole of another country. How the Americans live, what they deem wrong and right cannot be applied to other countries such as Saudi Arabia. It would only be tyranny to impose your own personal ideas based on your belief and faith on another nation who's belief and faith differs from yours. The USA for this reason must not and cannot police the entire world.
The United States of America scores the same as Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe, and Colombia when it comes to crime rates. Even though they have the largest prison population and one of the biggest policing budgets. Don't even get me started on their economy, food, water, waste, transportation, educational and healthcare systems.
The United States have too much power in the world, the power of the U.S. Should be limited, like it was during the Cold War. Soviet Union and the U.S. Balanced each others power, so for making a decision on some cases they had to think about impact of the decision.
The U.S. has many issues (debt, immigration, education, etc.) and therefore needs to focus on itself and then the world community. A person who is loosing strength can only carry a tired person so long before they become tired. The country must tend to its own needs or it will drain itself and then no one (including itself) will get aid.
We are losing money because of this crap that Bush started, he sent people to Iraq because of a personal problem, this is what the world has gotten to. If Bush would have shut his mouth, we would have been having iPads in schools but now we barely have any money to get computers for research.
We're too busy worrying about other countries and we can't even handle our own. We are helping other countries while we're in debt. We should have other countries help us just like we've helped them. We do not need to worry about foreign countries; we want foreign people out of our country, yet we help the foreign countries
No, I don't think the U.S. should be the police of the whole world. Every country should just deal with their own people and problems in their own country. I don't like that the U.S. is always dealing with another country and their problems with another country in the Middle East. I believe in just every country minding their own business unless things get out of hand in a country and another country or countries need to step in and handle it.
I agree. We need to stay out of the middle east. I am tired of the US acting like the world police. We have enough internal problems, we don't need unnecessary spending on unnecessary military actions overseas. Enough is enough!The author thinks that USA is the world police. The author needs to visit these troubled areas around the world and the person will clearly get an answer that people don't want USA to interfere in their problems. Just leave people alone and let the government and their countries deal with their own problems.
The US should not try to police the world. It would be a completely thankless job-- most countries would be happy to not have a powerful country continually meddling in their affairs. In addition, it only wastes money and lives of US soldiers that could be used far better elsewhere. The US should help countries that want its help, but not try to force its views on countries that don't.