Should the US police the world?

cmo

cmo

Active member
what do you think the role of the US is? should we just sit around and watch countries in need suffer, or should we take action and help these countries?

ps...this will also help me write a term paper
 
the US should build an army of robots and station them in countries that play a role of minorities in our own country and kill anyone who steps out of line.

and if things get too out of hand, we nuke the country and everything around it
 
yeah, let's spend all of our money on the whole world, while our teachers have to spend money out of their own pockets for school supplies. Let's make sure North Korea is complying while there are starving kids out on the streets. sounds like a plan to me. I mean canada doesn't police the world, and they have free health care? how dumb is that? And they aren't even worried about north korea bombing them.
 
thats because canada has us. and their health care is waaaaaay below american standars, because it is provided by the govt. so the docs. dont get paid as much, so not as many ppl wanna be a doctor. word to capitalism.
 
does canada really need us? so much that it costs highschool kids money to play school sports, schools are falling apart, and there is no money to fix them, and my tuition is increasing rapidly, just so we can "be safe" I don't really think so. Canad has pretty solid healthcare, and there meds are way cheaper. But we can't get ahold of them because they are "unsafe" even though they are made the exact same? But we make ephedrine here. Ephedrine is the key ingredient in meth, and meth is THE biggest drug problem on the planet, much more damaging then weed or even cocaine And it can totally be stpped by banning ephedrine which is completley man made. But we let it continue to be produced, Jea for capitalism. Jea for health insurance, that costs about a bajillion dollars, so we can pay a ton of money for real meds, but ephedrine is sooo cheap.
 
i didnt say that canada "needs" us, just that they have us and the rest of the western world for protection cause they are liked by most govts.
 
You do realize that you just pulled a statistic out of your ass? "Not as many ppl wanna be a doctor"? In every damn college in the country hundreds get refused each year to study medecine. What you said is downright false. Our salaries might not be as impressive as the ones in the U.S, but, trust me, they are more than satisfactory for the doctors themselves.

If you really want to sink lower, say that canadian standards in health care are lower than in the U.S again.

Regarding the initial question, logically, a superpower with good, although sometimes questionnable, intent, should theoretically police the world. The problem is that the resources that would be necessary to dish out in order to do so would be downright fiscally impossible. So many countries, ranging from the downright corrupt (think Africa) or with very doubtful democracies (recent example: Belarus) would need cleaning up, but what real advantage would there be to gain?

And what if they don't want to? A lot of countries would react like Iraq, and the last thing the U.S needs is a few dozens Iraqs on their hands. So, unless the whole bunch of real, rich, democracies would care to help, the U.S shouldn't do more than they are doing right now, unless their safety is in danger.

On the other hand, I still think that we could start helping countries that need it without as much as invading them. If they signaled interest, we could cancel their enormous and crushing debt towards us, invest money with protection against ravenous interest rates for them, and send a few employees overseas to shape up the whole government. Even though much of the corrupt governments are very comfortable where they are, I believe a few have signaled enough interest (Mozambique, for example, I think) to warrant help. Then others would probalby follow suit.
 
it doesnt really matter, because a countries policy is always look out for number one, so the US will almost always do what they think is in their best interest, NOT because we're so kind. if it is a kind act it would most likely to promote our "good" image to other countries and ppls.
 
it doesnt matter cause a countries foreign policy is ALWAYS look out for number one. so the US will always do what they think is best for them. NOT because we're soooo kind. im not saying the US never does anything kind of coure, but when it does its usually not from the goodness of our heart, but merely because we believe it will help our own country out.
 
Well... obviously. But you did mean "get back" rather than "promote" the good image, right? Because, I hate to break it to you, pretty much the whole world hates the U.S (of course I'm exagerating a bit).

If you deny it, go flaunting your U.S flag around suburbs of Paris, streets of Sierra Leone or markets in Iran. I'm not saying I hate the U.S, I think it's a great country... but dude... the world hates you. Maybe another reason why policing the world would be all the more difficult without help from other nations. And they most certainly don't want to (for the most part).
 
You think there are more people that "love" the U.S in the world than despise it what a passion? Think again. I was actually shocked at how much unfounded anti-americanism there is even here in Canada. Imagine Europe. Imagine the Middle-East.
 
So you listed 3 places. There are many individuals around the world who love america because of agencies (not govt ones usually) have reached out and helped them. But either point is impossible to prove because a poll necessary would never work.
 
the us uses its charities for bribes, our "help" is just used to get our way, there were economic sactions on iraq before the war started. the U.S. govt was "policing" by holding food from poor people, so a corrupt government would change. That's not good will at all that's bullshit. Whenever an unfavorable government to the u.s. comes in to play, aid stops. Even if that person in control of the country won a y a fari popular election
 
Thats why I said not govt ones. There are many nonprofits that do it because they care. And as I said before, the govt only looks out for number 1.
 
look at bolivia and the current president evo morales, the government doesn't agree with him, allthough he is the first ina long series of presidents to bring peace to the country. the u.s. cut their funding to bolivia into a 100th of what it once was. I bet the bolivian people love being punished for progress, just because our govts don't agree
 
this thread is about the u.s. as a whole, and all the religious "nonprofit" organizations you are talking about are making money by making converts, as for the nonreligious ones, there really aren't that many.
 
that question is irrelevant to the thread, you're just answering questions with questions. If the us government was such a great thing, there would be aid based on need, not on government period.
 
the real question is "should we have to bomb the fuck out of the middle east just so we can put our big macs there?" because obviousley the middle east doesn't want them.
 
but i want them.

Yeah, it has been a while. Uni has been a bitch to me lately, so i havent had much time to visit here lately.
 
Im too tired to go into detail. But the world no olnger needs the US to play world police. It helped in the occasions. But other times like Vietnam the US should have just let other countries solve their problems.

Right now I dont think the US is serving a just cause by playing world police, making Iraq is a democratic state is not in the best interest for Iraq, there not ready for it yet, they abusing their power for their best interests.

Theres something called the UN, thats their role, no idividual country should play world police, no matter how high and mighty they are.
 
But the UN does such a shitty job and they take forever to do anything. Like with the situation in Iran. They well have their nuclear program up and running well before the UN rules to take action against them.

As far as the U.S. policing the world I think it's just too damn expensive and their are too many people in the world who just plain hate each other. You can't erase thousands of years of hate.
 
depends on how you look at it. I think the UN makes sure that they do infact have nuclear weapons program,rather than jumping to conclusion and invading a country illeagally and not finding any weapons and look like a bunch of fools.
 
First off they basically admitted to it. A head Iranian leader was making threats to the U.S. on national television basically saying if you come in to shut down our program we'll come after you. We can't back down from stuff like that. The UN is a bunch of pussies afraid to take action against a courty and risk offending anyone. A prime example was when enacted tariffs against courties who were harming the enviroment. The UN ruled that the tariffs were too finacially devastating to these coutries and ordered the U.S. to take them off. The UN is weak and only concerned with watching it's own ass.

Oh yeah and isn't "invading a coutry illegaly" kind of an oxymoron. I don't think it ever really legal to invade a coutry, it's something you do because you feel it's just and needs to be done.
 
I am going to start this off with a solid fact:

There are 725 American Military bases in 130 foreign countries. There are only 190 countries in the world. That means that the US has its specialized, trained and dangerous military in 2/3 of the world.

Now, some may be doing well in those places to keep order. Others may be stagnant and just in waiting. But, there are some that are terrorizing people in those countries.

The real question is(and by the looks of this thread we love questions) what is the degree of the US policing?

Here is another fact for you to ponder:

The defense budget was 3/4 of a trillion dollars last year(yes that is 750 followed by 9 zeros). Profits within the military sector went up +25% last year also.

Now, for those of you who have seen "Why We Fight" this will be familiar to you. War has become profitable. It is not the olds days where economies collapsed and hyperinflation dropped countries to their knees. The US is making money off of war. Now, it is not the gov't who is making all that money. It is being distributed to labourers, construction companies and builders of weapons. So the country is benefitting from destruction.

As of early 2006, Congress had already approved an additional funding total of $300 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now why do we want thatextra funding? To me it looks like that some country is causing a bit of a problem so the US must crush them. I am not going to get into the oil debate because that will go around in circles.

When adjusted for inflation the request for 2007 together with that needed for nuclear weapons the 2007 spending request exceeds the average amount spent by the Pentagon during the Cold War, for a military that is one-third smaller that it was just over a decade ago. This increase in funds is stunning.

I am just going to put some facts out there:

-The US military spending was almost two-fifths of the total

-The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.

-The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.

-The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending

-The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $10 billion each year, or about $1.70 for each of the world’s inhabitants

I am going to expand on that last fact. Why is an organisation such as the UN given such a small amount of money to SAVE THE FUCKIN WORLS!!! The UN is trying to tone down warfare, but how can they when they are dealing with a industry such as defense(and yes now it is an industry) whose budget is 75 times larger. You know, because the US is making massive amounts of money off war. They cause more war that means more money for them, which in turn means more dominance over the world.

To answer the original question, The US already polices the world.
 
the usa ia a state that should have the same importance as every other state when it comes to global politics. there should not be any kind of world-police. and there wouldnt be any need for something like it if the worlds governments would start to solve their problems with and not against each other.
 
Its called imperialism, The UK was powerful once upon a time. When they were powerful, they exploited every poor country and claiming it was for man kind. Later we realised that they were commiting an international crime against humanity.

Now the US has taken their place and making the same capitalist mistakes. Not only they believe its for world peace, but the leaders believe they are "hellping" the middle eastern countries. Its history all over again.

The US should go back home. Look at the country; unjustice is everywere, people are suffering and the crime rate is the highest in the world. Don't come and tell me everything is fine...it isn't.

No countries should police the world. Nobody can give a clear set of bonderies when it comes to law. Christian has their sets and Muslims has theirs; we live on the same world, but are views are completly diffrent.

The only force that is good enough to control the world should be the United Nations in which every country is present. Together, we can come to peaceful desicions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top