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?
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.
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.
I as an American Solder believe that there should not be wars but there will always be one. I would be sent out to aid the country we are defending and I will proud to lay down my life so that innocent people don't have to.
There are many people that disagree with my opinion but I am Okay with that, everyone is entitled to their opinion. After what I said here is the Solder Creed I have had to memorize and it really does speak to me.
I am an American Soldier.
I am a warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.
If america wasnt in any wars there would have been a very alternet history, if we were'nt the worlds police then iran and pakistan wold be launching missiles every day at tea time. But there are some wars we need to stay out off, like Vietnam, why were we even in there
Basically, It seems when the United States steps down from our role as "International Police Officer" something bad happens. WW1, We stepped down from our position, Causing WW1, WW2, We stepped down in the 1930s early 40s, letting the UK and France take the position, They kept drawing lines for Hitler, letting him get by with territorial gains, we wouldn't have stepped into the war if Japan had not of bombed us. Us Americans are getting tired of our role, we've been at it for 70 years, it's time for someone else to step up, but no one does, or can't! We're the last "Super Power" remaining on this planet, Eventually our government is going to get fed up with everyone stepping down and end up isolating ourselves, and ONLY and I mean ONLY helping ourselves, doesn't matter if the world is in mass-genocide, we've helped enough. < --- Ending seems like a NO Vote, it's not.
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
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.