AMERICA-The World's Unofficial Police

[ThetaOrionis01]

Peregrine, can I remind you that it is against the ToS to refer to a certain band on these forums - and your posts in this thread are nothing but a verbose paraphrase of the opening of the 4th song on their latest album. :laugh2:

 

Sorry guys, but all this 'mine is bigger than yours' posturing just makes me laugh. :laugh2:

 

EDIT by Dark0ne to save clogging up: Also, let's refrain from the name calling please, Stanhead.

[Dark0ne]

To be honest the argument of America being inpenetrable, as well as able to take on the world would have so much more value if (1) 9/11 hadn't happened and (2) America + Allies actually had control of Iraq's security.

 

I think Al Qaeda, or who ever and whatever organisation is causing the trouble (since I'm pretty sure a lot of terrorists cells are just fronting as Al Qaeda and American/British media are willing to go along with it to scare the public) have shown just how vunerable the technologically advanced west are.

[ThetaOrionis01]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

My opinion is that no one state has the right to appoint itself the world's judge, jury and executioner - least of all a rogue superpower, among whose citizens, it would seem, there is a proportion who appear to be painfully ignorant of other countries' culture, history and sociology. Perhaps it is this ignorance that contributes to the 'America ueber Alles' arrogance that one perceives, and that is often expressed in US foreign policy?

 

So, no. The US has no right whatsoever to police the world.

 

Those 'threats to national security' mentioned are, IMO, the consequences of previous short-sighted US interference - chickens coming home to roost, if you will. Yet it seems that nothing is being learned from the mistakes of the past.

 

'Policing' the world should be left to the UN. However, political manoeuvering has led to the stage where certain nations hamstring the UN with their vetoes, lack of support, or flagrant flouting of resolutions, then accuse the UN of being ineffectual and incompetent. What's even sadder is that people are actually falling for this. No, the UN isn't perfect - humans aren't perfect. The UN carries with it a lot of baggage left over from the Cold War, from outdated alliances - and also, I think, a certain 'us and them' split. None of it is very helpful in making the UN an effective world police - but it is something that could be overcome - if nations started putting their arrogance and self-interest aside and started thinking of the world as a whole.

 

Because that's what it comes down to - the world is one planet, one entity, with finite resources. No one country exists in isolation from the others (even if some of their citizens like to delude themselves in that respect), and selfish nationalism is outdated and becoming more and more inappropriate.

 

Switch has made an excellent point about US emissions and the Kyoto protocol. The US refusal to sign up to the treaty, the constant attempts to claim that emissions effects are 'unproven' etc smacks of an astounding and selfish immaturity, a complete inability to think long-term... and by long-term I mean 'past the next election'.

 

Regarding addressing poverty in your own country before giving foreign aid - again, it's not that simple, and again, the world needs to be seen as one planet, not 'us' and 'them'. If poor farmers in Brazil burn down the rainforest to clear land to grow crops to feed their families, effects will be global - climate change, loss of species etc. Yet how can you blame people simply wanting to feed their families? BTW - the crop they are growing are soy beans, to sell as cattle fodder to meet to the demand for meat in the 'first world'.... If in some countries conditions of livestock rearing are such that new strains of flu emerge, it's only a matter of time before an epidemic sweeps the globe (and if you think that influenzas are nothing much to worry about, bear in mind that the Spanish Flu killed 25 million people worldwide during its outbreak in the 20th century). There are many reasons why 'putting your own house in order first' is a luxury the world can't afford.

 

In the same way that I think that every country should contribute towards a 'world police' force under the auspices of a strengthened UN, I think that all countries should work towards raising the minimum standard of living worldwide, again under the auspices of an international organisation which is not bound - or crippled, rather - by selfish, shortsighted national interests.

 

Is it going to happen? Yeah, right. Not while much of the economy of the 'first world' relies on expoiting poorer countries. Not while governments seem to derive their policies from John Wayne movies. Not while people continue to create artificial divisions - whether they be religion, nationalism, race or whatever.

 

Not until people stop thinking in narrow terms and start thinking globally and long-term.

[Peregrine]

To be honest the argument of America being inpenetrable, as well as able to take on the world would have so much more value if (1) 9/11 hadn't happened and (2) America + Allies actually had control of Iraq's security.

 

What you're overlooking is that while a devastating psychological attack, 9/11 did near-zero military damage. It was mass murder, not a military invasion. Tactics like that don't work in a real war, and are irrelevant to the military fight I'm talking about.

 

And most of the damage done by 9/11 was because of the fact that it was such a dramatic blow to the illusion of safety. It was the shock value and general idiocy of people that did the lasting damage. Try to turn tactics like that into a constant campaign (as would be needed to actually defeat the US), and they would lose most of their effectiveness.

 

I think Al Qaeda, or who ever and whatever organisation is causing the trouble (since I'm pretty sure a lot of terrorists cells are just fronting as Al Qaeda and American/British media are willing to go along with it to scare the public) have shown just how vunerable the technologically advanced west are.

 

Vulnerable to murder, not to defeat. Killing civilians isn't going to defeat the US or any other western country. At most, they can convince us that Iraq isn't worth the trouble, and make us leave it to suffer whatever mess it's created for itself.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Switch has made an excellent point about US emissions and the Kyoto protocol. The US refusal to sign up to the treaty, the constant attempts to claim that emissions effects are 'unproven' etc smacks of an astounding and selfish immaturity, a complete inability to think long-term... and by long-term I mean 'past the next election'.

 

Actually, it was long-term thinking. No sane member of our government would cripple US industry in exchange for some short term pollution benefits with in such an uneven treaty.

[Switch]

Switch has made an excellent point about US emissions and the Kyoto protocol. The US refusal to sign up to the treaty, the constant attempts to claim that emissions effects are 'unproven' etc smacks of an astounding and selfish immaturity, a complete inability to think long-term... and by long-term I mean 'past the next election'.

 

Actually, it was long-term thinking. No sane member of our government would cripple US industry in exchange for some short term pollution benefits with in such an uneven treaty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to be kidding me, right? The percentages were quite small if I recall correctly, to be introduced gradually over the course of many years, meant to be a kind of starter pack as it were towards being emissions free. And they wouldn't be short term, cutting pollution will affect Earth for the rest of its life. Maybe it wouldn't be good in the long-term for America's industry, but it would be good in the long-term for the planet. The fact that you lot keep pumping 25% of the world's pollution into the atmosphere is selfish, and completely oblivious to the efforts of the outside world to save this planet from being turned into an uninhabitable lump of rock.

 

In the end, what's more important? How much money your country has, or the long-term state of the atmosphere that we kind of need to live? Methinks the atmosphere is the smart choice, and the rest of the world seems to realise that, and our industries are currently not "crippled". Strange that, isn't it? And I think suggesting we limit developing countries is rather short-sighted, at least at first those developing countries will need those industries to get under way. We can talk to them about reducing emissions later. America already has a thriving industry, cutting their emissions isn't going to kill them.

[draighox]

Well, it will. The Kyoto protocol would have killed the industry, which would have had a terrible effect on people. And PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN NATURE.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Well, it will. The Kyoto protocol would have killed the industry, which would have had a terrible effect on people. And PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN NATURE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Do you even fully understand the consequences of climate change?

 

- global warming -> rising sea levels, which will have significant consequences for people living in low-lying coastal areas. Are the people of Bangladesh, for instance, less important that US industry, and the US lifestyle?

 

- gobal warming -> wider spread of tropical diseases, eg malaria. Malaria kills over a million people worldwide each year already - with a wider spread of the disease this annual death toll will rise.

But of course, those extra deaths are less important than the US industry...

 

 

- global warming -> more extreme weather - floods, storms etc. Do you think those events don't have a 'terrible effect on people'?

 

These are just some of the major effects.

 

 

If the US economy is as robust and sound as some people claim, it's highly unlikely that they 'cannot afford' to reduce emissions.

 

The world as a whole cannot afford not to cut back on emissions dramatically.

[draighox]

Could you please give me some proof that global warming is really happening and that gas emisions is the main reason for it?

 

Anyway, what's better: having a few floods, or living without electricity?

[ThetaOrionis01]

Who says anything about living without electricity? You are exaggerating and trying to trivialise the point. If I wanted to make similarly emotive statements I could ask: What's better - banning SUVs, or subjecting people to devastating floods? What's better - reducing energy usage, or submerging 17% of Bangladesh? What's better - paying a little more for 'cleaner' products, or putting millions more people at risk of dying from tropical diseases? What's better - reducing needless and wasteful consumption, or shutting down the North Atlantic Current?

 

Here are some links - you are, of course, free to dismiss the accumulated data, stick your head in the sand.. and go live on top of a hill, just in case.

 

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

 

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadl...2001/global.pdf

[Malchik]

I can't be bothered with quotes, I'll leave that to Peregrine.

 

 

He says that killing civilians will not defeat the US or other western regime. That is a nonsense. With the right kind of biological weapon enough damage could be done to kill the planet. The main reason such weapons are not used is that they cannot be controlled and targeted. They would rebound on the user. It just takes one nutter!

 

Also the continual killing of US soldiers in Vietnam led to the defeat of the US because the US populace would not stand for it. The US position is that they were not defeated because it was never a war. (This may seem incredible to some on these forums but that is in fact the American view.)

 

The reason the US will not initiate a war is that they know there would be no winner. On the few occasions they have invaded, for whatever spurious reason, the result is without exception a disaster.

 

So the US is not acting as world policeman but as world agent-provocateur. And the policy is deliberate IMO. By constantly pointing at overseas problems the nation is gulled into accepting its chronic internal problems must be lived with. It isn't the first nation to do this and it won't be the last.