Should the US police the world?

i just got out of us history having a debate about american imperialism in latin america. just say social darwinism / dog eat dog.
 
How old are you sir? If you are over the age of 18, then perhaps you should join the military. If you are under 18, you should look to whether your school has a jr. ROTC program, where you can enter the armed services upon graduation. Apparently you feel so strong about your beliefs, that you would like to go to the middle east and you can send one of many others who don't want to be there, back home.
 
I think the USA needs to be humbled and acknowledge their relative youth as a nation. Countries around the globe have been governing and running themselves for thousands of years without help from a country 500 years old. The US is filled with self righteous ignorance, believing the rest of the world cant afford or cant attain the education or "American Enlightenment" of US culture.

There are plenty of countries and governements we should be taking cues from, learning from. Just because the US focused on military above all else, does not give them the right to run around the world declaring righteousness and 'defensive action'. No one would want to attack the states if they minded their own business. Now that globalization is a reality, there should be a "World Police' which is comprised of all nations, i.e the UN. too bad the USA doesnt listen to the UN, and the UN has no way of making them listen. Thats whats fucked. I say, give all the nukes to the UN and let them deploy them when and if necessary.

i know it will never happen, but it should.
 
Why does a nation's "age" matter so much? There is no such thing as nation "seniority" in world history. If you are referring to being mindful of mistakes made in the past, I would agree with you.

I believe it is absurdly naive to believe that the US ripple effect can simply be withdrawn. Militarily it certainly can, economically not a chance in hell. Whether anyone likes it or not, the US is still the current pace setter for the rest of the world. Everyone else in some way or another has adjusted themselves to try and emulate the US's success.

The most powerful nation in the world has every right to push their polices outside their borders if it is in their interests. Thats just the nature of the beast. The most powerful nation in the world also has some obligation to "police" the world. Call it crazy, but some people don't believe in sweeping international problems under the rug (thats what the UN was founded on). The world is too close now to ignore everything.

Unless the UN is transformed into a tangible government, is of no use to anyone on a large political scale. It all well and good for trying to solve small conflict, but they can't do anything if say, India and Pakistan were quarreling. The only way anything is solved by the UN is because the actual nations themselves choose to intervene. When it comes to economics, it the most invisible and worthless organization in the world. Thats ironic in itself because that is how the world is really being pulled together, not by some omnipotent imperialistic army.
 
To an extent, yes. I believe in the future (very distant and far beyond any of our life spans) the world will eventually be drawn close enough where it is forced to work as a single cohesive unit. It's probably the only way mankind can survive in the very long run. I don't think what the US, or any nation in the world is doing is going to work to that idea. No one is ready for that kind of world. It's a bit off topic, but I just see it as inevitable.

The US has just been doing the same thing that any large and powerful nation has done in history, push its own interests. I'm not saying whether its "right" or not. Thats just the reality of it.
 
Oh yeah we've sure seen how well other goverments around the world have worked so well. Just look at Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, China, Russia, India, Central America, the Balkans, North Vietnam, and the Pacific rim. All are prime examples of how well the rest of the world's goverment works. The U.S. should really take cues from other coutries where you can't even speak out against your own goverment and people live on pennies a day.

You need to go do a little reading on the UN. To say they are better at policing the world than the U.S. is rediculus. The UN is more concerned with it's own well being that anything else.
 
That's sort of what I was saying... if it's not right, then they shouldn't do it, should they. I mean that's sort of the definition of "should", or "ought"... So I guess that entire last post was a contradiction.
 
Is not a contradiction. You're just making a habit of putting words in my mouth.

If a nation has the power to do that, who is to say they can or can't do it? For that matter, who is to stop them? When it comes to history, the one with the stronger arm usually gets what they want. I don't have a real problem with it because I don't see anything inherently wrong with what the US is doing.
 
Ok here is a hypothetical question. What would a world super power do if they weren't "interfering" everywhere else? How would anyone become a super power if they didnt look outside their own boarders? Just some thoughts Id wanna see discussed...
 
theres always been and will be one nation that is a superpower and that nation will try to act as a global police force, i think it is good that the us is as involved in foreign policy as it is because if there was no nation that acted like a "global police force" we would have numerous nations being run completely by terrorists which would be a danger to all countries...

it would be like having no police force in a state... it wouldn't work
 
We should build a nuclear bomb proof dome around the entire US. That way we dont have to deal with weather (making snow all the time), other countries, and illegal immigrants.
 
and then we could just save sweeden and any other nation with an abundance of hot chicks and bomb the shit out of anyone we didn't like
 
You are saying two things.

X1. "To some extent, can implies ought." "There isn't anything inherently wrong with policing the world".

X2. "I'm not saying it's RIGHT..."

If those aren't accurate paraphrases, if I'm putting words in your mouth, then you must have some edition of the dictionary I'm not aware of. Simply put, who is to say they can't do it? Morality. Is there anyone to enforce this? None who can, effectively... but that doesn't make it right, now does it. Citing historical precedent doesn't establish ought, either. It all comes back to what I was saying:

Can does not imply ought.

Anyone who knows anything about ethics knows this; just because you are capable of doing something (or because no one or no thing can stop you) does not mean you SHOULD do it. That seems so obvious it amazes me that I even have to type it out.

You don't seem to understand what you're typing. It's fairly simple. The big defining question of "what is right" is "How ought we to act?" X1 and X2 above are an example of trying to have your cake and eat it too.
 
I'm impressed that you can take little bits of my sentences and turn them around. If you are going to pick at specific in my words, paraphrasing isn't the best vehicle. If I'm being to vague, just say so. I'd rather not go back and fourth picking apart articulations.

Let me clear it up for you.

I'm not necessarily condoning a nation going around and beating its chest. It depends of the circumstances (as it ALWAYS does). If the US has due cause to push interests outside their borders, they can go ahead and do it. I deem it acceptable if it is in the best interest of the nation's well-being and the people living in it. That's how a country sustains itself. You can only do so much looking inward. Bringing morality and ethics into it doesn't change much. It still depends of the circumstances and the pros and cons of taking action (or lack thereof). Does that justify everything the US has done aboard? No. Does it make it completely unacceptable? No.

Basically I just told you "it depends."
 
Well, I'm talking right and wrong, is it right or wrong to take military action in X circumstance. How does it depend on the pros and cons of taking action? Assumedly consequences are what you're talking about. What consequence would make it okay?
 
first off

youre a fool

youre putting words in my mouth and making quantum leaps in idea assumptions.

The only reason said countries are in so much trouble is because of the infiltration of brutal economic overpowering from westernized contries, headed in most cases by the US.

I never said the UN is better at policing at all.

I said they should have all the nukes.

Ill adress other posts in a second.

I was calling you a fool because of all your posts in many threads ive been reading.

its a trend.
 
Those coutry's suffering has nothing to do with the U.S. It's stems solely from poor goverment and lack of rescources.
 
A nations age matters yes, primarily from taking cues from mistakes. secondly, the established religions, cultures, customs and respect which is, in my opinion, essential for a successful society.

the USA acts its age, like a rebellious, trendy, self absorbed teenager.

I never said it could be withdrawn.

Since military = economy for superpowers, I dont believe military can be withdrawn.

Why does the most powerful nation in the world have a right to push their policies outside their borders? It may be whats happening now, but that does not by any means, entail rights.

Yes they have an obligation.

I never even said they shouldnt police the globe.

The UN may be relatively useless now, but it shouldnt be, and needs to be re-vamped.

Humanity needs to become profitable, not exploitation and destruction.
 
Uh... there's enough food, grain etc, going to waste from decomposition to feed the entire world. It has nothing to do with a lack of available resources... in poorer countries farmers have to grow cash crops for export, because the people who LIVE in that country can't afford to pay for it. The Corporation has a far greater bearing on the standard of living in the third world than their governments do... in fact, they have a greater bearing on the governments than do the people; economic pressures are instrumental in determining power relationships in the modern world. Who applies all the economic pressure? Nike and Coke. I'm not being a Marxist, sometimes you're better off slaving in a factory for 25 cents an hour than working as a rice farmer... but this is all fact, and it is exploitative. Don't blame the governments or the people for a situation that they're born into and that's applied on a massive international scale. It's not ALL the corps' fault, but they exacerbate the situation by taking best advantage of the circumstances for profits, and it doesn't necessarily foster growth in less well-off countries.
 
Those are infinitely detailed questions. If the US is worse off in the long run by not taking action, then doing something is probably acceptable. Sometimes you can have moral and ethical contradiction with your choices of action (i.e. damned if you do, damned if you don't). The tricky part is that some consequences are not always most evident. Look at the Gulf War. That was a result long complex multi-decade chain of changing circumstances and issues. Did the US have any reason to guard the Saudi border and charge into Kuwait and Iraq? Should they rush to guard countries that share and economic interest if they feel a risk? What about all the people in the Middle East that died and continue to die from the actions of multiple interests? Is it better to let it be and let them stew in their own conflict? Or is it better to go in and try to rite it? Is there anything to gain from it? People much more qualified than me debate that very thing. It's honestly quite hard to tell how things will pan out.
 
Frightening! No, really. People in your own country should be frightened of that line of thought. It's dangerously close to seeming viable to a large number of people. Fourth Reich ahoy!
 
Fair enough. But what nation does act their age. Switzerland?

I agree about the UN. The world needs a universal force that can better monitor and control the world. I get stuck on how that is accomplished. I don't think the world is ready to hand over power to an organization like that.
 
I hate the context the word "terrorist" is use in all the time. You act like that ever since the dawn of time, there were "terrorists". Like they are some mythical creatures that are a threat to humanity everywhere.

The origins of "terrorism" involve something called guerilla warfare. It just wasn't always called terrorism. Guerilla warfare is the normal response of a weaker power, to a stonger power that uses fairly traditional methods of combat. Sneak attacks, ambushes, and suicide runs are all forms of guerilla warfare. It was used in conflicts from the French, American, and Russian Revolutions, Ancient Rome and Greece, and Vietnam.

These terrorists haven't always hated the U.S. We are the reason why they are pissed off. Since 1950, we have have occupied 54 different countries with at least 1000 troops. In 2003 there were 387,920 troops stationed out of US territory.

People are getting sick and tired of the US throwing its weight around. They want their own coutnry with their own traditions and lifestyle. You can't kill every terrorist with an M-16.

You would think that the US would've learned from Britain's mistake 230 years ago...
 
I bet you he could find a few million people who'd agree with him... including Rummy. And more than a few higher-ups at the pentagon. Global Manifest Destiny... frightening.
 
I think the world should be under a single government, but not as a result of a Caesar-esque conquest. The world needs to come together voluntarily. The only realistic way I see that is through sharing common economic interests.
 
Canada acts their age for the most part.

India does, although blinded by pride sometimes for being so old.

anyway

yeah, terrorists are people who actually stand up for what they believe is right, and in that respect, should be admired. but their methods are questionable.

Rebels need to rise up to fight the powers that be. The US was built on civil war

Now theyve clamped down so hard on any protest, freedom of expression is now defined by them.

We cant have a civil war anymore.

even the hackers are having a hard time.
 
There's reason one why moral consequentialism doesn't work; ie; an argument FOR the statement "The rightness of action X is NOT determined by action X's consequences". How CAN we predict the consequences? Should right and wrong be backward looking in that way? The answer is probably no... but to find out why not, let's try to figure out what consequentialism entails. What consequences are we after? You've given me "not worse off" ie, minimizing "badness". Assumedly you also want to maximize good, unless we're only allowed to do anything to prevent bad things happening. But what are "bad things"? What EXACTLY are we trying to prevent, ultimately? Furthering the happiness of our citizens? Average global happiness? (Utilitarianism... if you buy into it, you lose). Safety? If it's safety, why do we value safety? For survival? Surely no one wants to say that the only reason we go on living is a survival instinct.

You can see how looking at consequences will lead you into a lot of traps, problems and dead ends. It'll fail, ultimately, as a moral system, and you'll have to look elsewhere. So, your justification as it sits is probably not going to work because what it's based on isn't viable and is going to lead to unacceptable conclusions.

This IS an argument about ethics. But tossing up your hands and leaving it to people who think they're "more qualified" isn't going to help unless those "more qualified" people can make REAL justifications. Elected officials are not elected for their skills in ethical philosophy, they can't do it any better than you can. So... so much for that.

There are answers. You just have to think about them.
 
The outcome has become Money.

Money is what we've used to judge our "Goodness" or Badness.

if you have more, you are good

its such a flawed system, but its the decision maker.

with the occasional moral victory.
 
Well, yeah. The idea of anything is to promote the good things and prevent the bad things. It's a multi dimensional proposition. The motives behind any US military action should address all those questions. I figured that was implied. Looking backward is partly necessary to define right and wrong. How can you define something if you can't tell what it would looks like. That's the value of history. Truly good things should be motivated by what betters both yourself and greater good of people and also promotes the longevity of the human race. I know there are answers, but they need to be discussed at great length to truly justify them...at least to satisfy your discussion with me. I'm not just casting off the argument and saying "more quailed" people are only fit for these kinds of issues. I was just pointing out that it is still debated, disscused, and thought about even at the highest level.
 
I like to hang out in the area of the top thinkers, to know our arguements are on the forefront of thought and are based in truth. its a good feeling,a nd a great place to grow.
 
..team america...fuck yeah...

yeah i dnt think it would be a good idea for the us to police the world for one we'd prob. mess up a lot
 
i disagree.. although i was mostly joking i think if we really wanted to we could.. if for some reason a hitler type person (( hitler in the sense of extremely motivational ((not anti-semetic)) because now matter how much everyone hates hitler he was still fucking amazing at public speaking and motivating people, i mean lets face it thats how all of germany did what he wanted)) so if a person like taht came into power and other countries didn't realize it soon enough, the us could take over the world... but now that so many nations have atomic bombs ( they would all be the primary targets) i think any large nation with a lot of bombs could take over the world.. if you were committed and you just went on a massive bombing campaign and disabled all the "stronger" nations and then the weaker ones would most likely just surrender once countries like china, the US, russia, and england were uncapable of fighting
 
^Haven't yo useen the end of the world thing on ebaumsworld, that's not the way it would work. Everybody would start freaking out and shooting nukes at each other and within a couple hours everybody would be dead.
 
yes, because when we're all dead, they'll start killing each other, and canada will prevail because we'll have been forgotten about. good ol canada..
 
No way dood. The world will be plunged into a nuclear winter and there won't be any food left to eat. So eventually everyone will be dead. Even Canada.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top