AMERICA-The World's Unofficial Police

[Elrol]

I'm not one to start an argument, but technically this is a debate. So myself being an American, I tend to wonder from time to time if we have the authority to just go wherever and do whatever we want by justifying it under "threat to national security" We seem to put our noses in where they don't belong alot, which tends to have reprocussions. Granted there hae been times when we were justified in our interference in foreign affairs, but more than not we've plowed head first into another countries business, and only accomplished getting ourselves in so deep we can't get out. Why is America the only country allowed to have nuclear arms? If we aren't going to let anyone else have them, what gives us the right. While I pay no disrespect to the poverty or hardship of other counties, I say this. We have poverty, sickness, disease, and homelessness in our own country but our government chooses to go and help other countries without even looking at its own people's condition. Not sounding selfish in that, other countries need help with poverty and such but our own country needs looking after as well. I guess what it boils down to is one question.

 

Does America have the right to police the world, and stick its nose into other countries foreign affairs; whether the reason be poverty, or nuclear arms.

 

So what are your views on this topic???

 

 

-The Raven-surfing the boards

[D@N]

yes and no it depends on what it is.

[Peregrine]

Why is America the only country allowed to have nuclear arms? If we aren't going to let anyone else have them, what gives us the right.

 

Because we can, and nobody can stop us. It's as simple as that. It's best for us if we have a military advantage (in this case, removing everyone else's nukes). And if it only takes threats of force (rather than actual force) to keep that advantage, good for us. Besides, do you really want a country with an insane dictator like North Korea or pre-war Iraq having the ability to erase entire cities from the map?

 

Protecting its citizens from attack is one of the most basic purposes of a government. If that protection comes at the expense of the military of those countries it's protecting itself from, too bad for them. That's how the system works.

 

While I pay no disrespect to the poverty or hardship of other counties, I say this. We have poverty, sickness, disease, and homelessness in our own country but our government chooses to go and help other countries without even looking at its own people's condition. Not sounding selfish in that, other countries need help with poverty and such but our own country needs looking after as well.

 

This part I agree with you on. All or almost all of our foriegn aid budget should be put to use for the benefit of our own citizens. The rest of the world can wait until we've taken care of ourselves. It's absolutely stupid that our own citizens are suffering, and we ignore them in favor of sending that help to some other country.

 

Does America have the right to police the world, and stick its nose into other countries foreign affairs; whether the reason be poverty, or nuclear arms.

 

If it's in our best interest, then yes. The simple fact is, most of those "poor" countries suffering from US intervention don't deserve to have their borders respected. If US intervention is needed for our own benefit and/or the benefit of that country's citizens, that country's government can just deal with it.

[Dark0ne]

As much as the John Wayne's of America like to think they're untouchable, they're not. It only takes a couple of hundred nukes to whipe out the rest of the world, but it takes even fewer to render the world useless (global warming, nuclear winter, radiation, etc etc etc) and if they were to try something "in their best interest" with any country other than the ones that are exploitable due to little and/or no military power, then they're screwed like everyone else.

 

Having said that, America can't do whatever the hell they want. The American economy is probably the most dependent on trade in the world; without other countries thriving yanks (and limeys, and froggies, etc) wouldn't enjoy the luxuries they do today. Hence why relations between countries have to remain good and America, and the UK, and France, etc. can't do whatever they want, unless it's mutually agreed as beneficial for all. Foreign aid is something that all these trading parties agree on, and all countries do.

[Slaiv]

SOmeone once told me something that makes sense. America was determined not to get involved in World War II, and insisted on neutrality [to some extent.] Because so many individuals were brutally killed by the Nazis, the US feels like it has an obligation to help other countries to make up for this lack of involvement. We've gotten a little over-zealous in out train of actions, however, as stated, a government's primary duty is to ensure the safety of its citizens. If another country is threatening this, then the US has the right to stop this. I agree that we have taken it too far with Iraq, and did not gain enough support before taking action.

 

And a reason for the concern of outside assistance is that the US is such a powerful nation [politically, militaristically, and economically.] AS such, we feel that we have an obligation to help other nations because of our excess. It actually has sort of a socialist feel to it. We're trying to bring everyone together, trying tho make everyone equal. But we do need to secure things here at home before taking action elsewhere, except for in dire situations such as genocides, natural disasters, etc...

[Malchik]

America does not have the right to police the world and I seriously doubt if it has the resources.

 

I do not believe it is the only nation with a workable nuclear arsenal and unilaterally it will not prevent other countries from producing nuclear (or other horrendous) weapons.

 

The giving of aid to other countries is rarely altruistic and is usually associated with exploitation in one way or another and is in fact in the best interests of the US (or whichever Western country is giving the aid).

 

Peregrine's fairytale view of US military supremacy strikes me as having something of the 'dancing on the edge of disaster' feel to it.

 

One of the UK's most right wing papers has called the US a 'rogue state' that must be brought to heel internationally for the good of the planet. I am inclined to agree. And as Dark0ne points out, because of the importance of trade to the US, this would not impossible to bring about. What is missing is a concensus on how to do it.

[Switch]

Economically powerful? Haha, last time I checked America was overspending itself billions of dollars into the red on a yearly basis. At this rate their whole economy is going to go belly up.

 

I kinda agree with Malchik here. The fact that the US seems to think it can do what it likes when it likes and stick it's nose wherever it wants could potentially be quite dangerous, and the US government needs to have it's ridiculously sized ego deflated a tad somehow. The fact that they blurt out 25% of the world's emissions with wreckless abandon and refuse to sign up to the Kyoto accords seems just blatantly selfish and plain idiotic to me. The fact they were willing to go into Iraq and throw the entire country into turmoil on intel that was unreliable at best... I mean, surely someone somewhere must have noticed something was up. And as has been said, they didn't wait for enough support from the rest of the world, just because they had this "45 minutes" thing as an excuse.

 

The whole "oh the rest of the world can't stop us" thing that Peregrine seems to be spurting seems like a load of hogwash to me. The rest of the world has more than enough military power to subdue America if it so wished.

 

And it's not just at the expense of other country's military forces, there were and still are thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq also.

 

In my eyes, America puts itself ahead of the rest of the world and believes itself to be the most important and powerful thing on planet Earth. This stupidity isn't going to end well for any of us. :P

[Peregrine]

As much as the John Wayne's of America like to think they're untouchable, they're not. It only takes a couple of hundred nukes to whipe out the rest of the world, but it takes even fewer to render the world useless (global warming, nuclear winter, radiation, etc etc etc) and if they were to try something "in their best interest" with any country other than the ones that are exploitable due to little and/or no military power, then they're screwed like everyone else.

 

I'd point out how your're wrong about "only a couple hundred nukes", but that's not entirely relevant....

 

You know, it's an interesting coincidence. With the exception of China (bad politics to attack) and Russia (too many leftover nukes), every one of those countries with enough military power to stop us are the ones that don't need intervention. As much as people might talk about hating France (or you europeans hating the US), we're fairly close in our ideas of what's best for the world. So war isn't an issue, any minor disagreements we may have can be settled through diplomacy.

 

Having said that, America can't do whatever the hell they want. The American economy is probably the most dependent on trade in the world; without other countries thriving yanks (and limeys, and froggies, etc) wouldn't enjoy the luxuries they do today. Hence why relations between countries have to remain good and America, and the UK, and France, etc. can't do whatever they want, unless it's mutually agreed as beneficial for all.

 

And this same interdependence means that those other countries have to let the US do a lot of what it wants. France isn't going to cripple its own economy over dislike of our invasion of Iraq. So unless you're talking about extreme abuse of power, "international pressure" is an empty threat.

 

Foreign aid is something that all these trading parties agree on, and all countries do.

 

That agreement has nothing to do with it. If the US cut all foriegn aid, the rest of the world would have a few protests in the streets, and then life would go back to normal.

 

 

======================================================

 

I do not believe it is the only nation with a workable nuclear arsenal and unilaterally it will not prevent other countries from producing nuclear (or other horrendous) weapons.

 

Actually, it will. We invaded Iraq over suspicion of those weapons. And there have been plenty of treaties signed that limit the spread of nuclear weapons to those nations that already had them.

 

And worst case scenario, if we have to bomb some dictator's weapons program into dust to keep them from getting nukes, that's a perfectly acceptable action. And the rest of the world will support that attack, no matter what official statements they might make to keep the voters happy. France can protest over poor Iran all they want, but in the end, it's in their best interest as well if nobody else gets those weapons.

 

 

Peregrine's fairytale view of US military supremacy strikes me as having something of the 'dancing on the edge of disaster' feel to it.

 

It's entirely realistic, not a fairytale. The US has the second largets military on the planet, and spends more money on it than the next 10 nations combined. Only China can match us in size, and they have poor quality and zero force projection ability. They can't even take one tiny island off their own coast, and are irrelevant in anything but an attack on China itself.

 

In a war without nukes, the US could easily take any other country (or even an alliance of them). This is simple fact, like it or not, the US does have complete military supremacy.

 

And nukes are irrelevant. We aren't going to be directly fighting anyone who has them and a way to deliver them, and even if we did, that country would be more likely to surrender and salvage what they can instead of sentencing billions of people to death to keep their pride intact.

One of the UK's most right wing papers has called the US a 'rogue state' that must be brought to heel internationally for the good of the planet. I am inclined to agree. And as Dark0ne points out, because of the importance of trade to the US, this would not impossible to bring about. What is missing is a concensus on how to do it.

 

Except you forget that trade pressure is a double-edged sword. People can talk about doing it all they want, but how determined is the UK's government going to be when their own economy starts to fail as well, and the voters start demanding change? The average citizen cares much more about their own financial security than changing US policy.

 

 

===================================================

 

 

Economically powerful? Haha, last time I checked America was overspending itself billions of dollars into the red on a yearly basis. At this rate their whole economy is going to go belly up.

 

 

And last time I checked, the US economy is still the (or up there, I forget exactly) most powerful in the world, and far from failing. The US budget hasn't avoided debt in decades, and nothing's happened yet. California alone, if considered a separate country, would have one of the strongest economies in the world, and that's just one state. I suggest you take some classes in economics before quoting anti-american propaganda.

 

 

The fact that they blurt out 25% of the world's emissions with wreckless abandon and refuse to sign up to the Kyoto accords seems just blatantly selfish and plain idiotic to me.

 

 

Kyoto was a death sentence to US industry. The emissions cuts demanded would've been impossible to achieve without destroying most of our manufacturing. And it would've been a temporary solution at best, as the treaty did nothing to limit the emissions of developing countries, which will eventually become a greater source of pollution.

 

Did you ever stop to think that maybe there's a reason why not a single senator voted for it when the treaty was submitted for approval? That's right, not even the most liberal, environment-loving senator voted for it. In a senate with huge party division, EVERY SINGLE SENATOR joined together in a unanimous HELL NO! to Kyoto.

 

 

The whole "oh the rest of the world can't stop us" thing that Peregrine seems to be spurting seems like a load of hogwash to me. The rest of the world has more than enough military power to subdue America if it so wished.

 

Actually it DOESN'T, but keep looking at anti-america propaganda instead of the real numbers. How would you like to have this war?

 

Without nukes, the US wins effortlessly. We're the only nation with any useful force projection ability, we have insane superiority of numbers, and close to the best equipment.

 

And you're on some good crack if you think the world can subdue the US. The US navy could take on every single other ship on the planet and win. At which point, invasion is a hopeless cause. The troop transports won't even make it to the coast before they're sunk. The rest of the world has ZERO ability to invade the US, any thoughts otherwise are pure delusion.

 

 

With nukes, we "win" as well. The US is bigger than the other countries, and when they're all glass craters, we'll still probably have a few people left.

 

And it's not just at the expense of other country's military forces, there were and still are thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq also.

 

I wasn't refering to Iraq there. I was talking about things like the treaty limiting the spread of nukes. If we can force a treaty that keeps our enemies weak, good for us.

[Stanhead]

Actually it DOESN'T, but keep looking at anti-america propaganda instead of the real numbers. How would you like to have this war?

 

Without nukes, the US wins effortlessly. We're the only nation with any useful force projection ability, we have insane superiority of numbers, and close to the best equipment.

 

And you're on some good crack if you think the world can subdue the US. The US navy could take on every single other ship on the planet and win. At which point, invasion is a hopeless cause. The troop transports won't even make it to the coast before they're sunk. The rest of the world has ZERO ability to invade the US, any thoughts otherwise are pure delusion.

Your ignorance, arrogance and plain turkey-ness never ceases to astound me. Insane superiority of numbers? China has the largest army in the world, and even without China, the rest of the worlds troops far outnumber the US.

 

The US Navy could only beat the British Navy alone through superior numbers (of ships), and even then, the British Navy is one of the best equipped/trained in the world, and the US would still take a beating. With the rest of Europe we'd wipe the floor with your Navy.

 

It's constant remarks like these, like "America pwns 'cos we say so!" and "You can't touch us: we're too arrogant and over complacent!", that make everybody hate Americans [like you].

[Peregrine]

Your ignorance, arrogance and plain turkey-ness never ceases to astound me. Insane superiority of numbers? China has the largest army in the world, and even without China, the rest of the worlds troops far outnumber the US.

 

A huge army that is useless outside their own borders. They don't even have the transport ships to take Taiwan. Those huge numbers of troops would be useless in an offensive effort against the US, and little more than a few extra B-52 targets if we really wanted to destroy the Chinese military.

 

Lets not forget what the eastern front of WWII taught us. The soviets had huge superiority of numbers, and you know what they did with it? Produced some nice superiority of losses throwing hordes of soldiers at the enemy in human wave attacks. Without comparable quality to your enemy, supreriority of numbers just means you get more of your own people killed before you lose.

 

The US Navy could only beat the British Navy alone through superior numbers (of ships), and even then, the British Navy is one of the best equipped/trained in the world, and the US would still take a beating. With the rest of Europe we'd wipe the floor with your Navy.

 

And guess what, we HAVE superior numbers. MASSIVELY superior numbers. So your point is irrelevant, this isn't the good old days where the Royal Navy actually meant something.

 

Once again, you prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. Ship for ship, the British navy might be good, but that doesn't help them when they're outnumbered so badly. You just don't understand how one-sided this is. Say what you want about our spending priorities, but the result is a navy that could easily take on the rest of the world's navies combined and win.

 

And just what help do you think the rest of the world is going to be? Half those countries aren't going to be useful as anything more than extra targets for US anti-ship missiles. Maybe that US carrier strike will sink the French navy instead of hitting something useful.

 

It's constant remarks like these, like "America pwns 'cos we say so!" and "You can't touch us: we're too arrogant and over complacent!", that make everybody hate Americans [like you].

 

And it's the mindless quoting of anti-america propaganda that makes us hate europeans like you.