tyjet3 Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Yes, Bush has done some stupid things in the past and will continue to do them, but i really think that when Libya removed their WMD it showed how big an effect the war had on other countries... I think in many ways it is good for the US to be the police of the world. We are the richest and strongest country so we should use that power to help others. War is never good, but the outcomes of war sometimes can be great. Libya used to be one of the most dangerous countries and now they are surrending all threats. This might just be the best thing that has ever happened when it comes to world peace. What are your oppinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Now the question arises: Why did Lybia become the most dangerous country? I personally liked Ghadafi, he was the youngest head of state in the world, he was full of ideas which were good. And if he really had done all the good ideas he had, Lybia would be a better democracy than the USA today. Now I ask again: How does it come, that a young, idealistic man with good ideals and ideas how to improve his own country and democracy itself, how does it come that such a man turns into one of the most hated persons in the West? Perhaps because we made him, we drove him into this role? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Yes, Bush has done some stupid things in the past and will continue to do them, but i really think that when Libya removed their WMD it showed how big an effect the war had on other countries... The only problem with this conclusion being that Libya had been trying to 'make up' to the US and UK since the early 90s, and that had really gone into overdrive since 1999, when the UN sanctions against Libya were lifted in return for Gaddafi giving up the Lockerbie bombers. The only thing the Iraq War did was give them a tool to succeed - saying they will give up their WMD. I do agree with the sentiment that the less WMD in the world there is, the better, though. The one thing I will say is that I include ours in that. I think in many ways it is good for the US to be the police of the world. We are the richest and strongest country so we should use that power to help others. War is never good, but the outcomes of war sometimes can be great. Isn't that partially what the UN and NATO is for? To have just one or two countries as the world's 'police force' gives them too much power, no matter who these countries are. Libya used to be one of the most dangerous countries and now they are surrending all threats. No, not really. The only thing Libya did that was threatening was support terrorism, and Gaddafi seemed to have learned his lesson about that after the response to the Lockerbie bombing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Ah, the police - those uncorruptible, unbiased, liberal thinkers we all love? Assuming they might exist somewhere, their role is to uphold the law mutually agreed by all citizens (in effect those who bother to vote). But how can the US police a country where they don't like the laws the citizens have chosen? The US style of democracy (pretty undemocratic in reality, what real choice do the electors have?) may suit the US but not everyone. Therefore they are not in a position to act as international policemen IMO. Some multinational, multicultural group must take that role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted July 14, 2004 Author Share Posted July 14, 2004 The US style of democracy (pretty undemocratic in reality, what real choice do the electors have?) may suit the US but not everyone. Therefore they are not in a position to act as international policemen IMO. I completely agree, democracy is not meant for every country. There is a difference between a policeman and person that comes to change a government style... Isn't that partially what the UN and NATO is for? To have just one or two countries as the world's 'police force' gives them too much power, no matter who these countries are. Yes there is the UN but most of the UN will not play as that role... plus there is nothing wrong with a powerful country (as long as it is controled right)... I would rather there be some strong and some weak than they be all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Would you adhere to that opinion if the US was the weak one and China and India the strong ones? But tyjet3, you miss my point. I agree that it is not a policeman's job to change government. However if the policeman is the US and the laws are radically different from US laws it pushes an impossible burden upon them. They have to understand the new society fully and deeply before it is possible and agree with the laws. There has been no indication in any actions carried out by the US in the last 50 years that they are even aware of the requirement. I have spent a lot of time in the US (I have stayed at least twice in all US states except Alaska and Indiana at once each) and met a lot of people. Their level of knowledge about other countries is all but non-existent, with honourable exceptions. In fact in many cases their political boundaries seem set at their own state lines. I am not saying that this is wrong but it does not serve as a good basis when it comes to international politics. Even if those making the decisions have suitable experience, what really needs to be done cannot be 'sold' to the populace if it means nothing to them. How many non-Muslim Americans have read the Q'ran would you guess? How many know the different legal systems of Europe? How many of them still think September 11th was down to Iraq? It is this lack of understanding that means US involvement is often counterproductive. It makes the US unsuitable to play the role of world policeman. Things can change. If the US sees where it is failing and corrects the inherent weaknesses it could become suitable to take on the role, although I for one would want to see it shared by several nations. At present however I remain sceptical because I do not see either the acknowledgement of the weaknesses or the desire to change. President Bush has remarked that before he commenced the war against Iraq his intelligence was inadequate. No further comment is necessary! BTW - I am not suggesting that the UK is any better. Comparisons are odourous - er I mean - odious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 I totally agree with the above (Malchik's post). I would say this is not only true of the US, but true to a lesser, or, sometimes, greater degree in every country in the world. This is why I am convinced it should be a multinational and multicultural force that is the 'world's police'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted July 16, 2004 Author Share Posted July 16, 2004 How many non-Muslim Americans have read the Q'ran would you guess? How many know the different legal systems of Europe? How many of them still think September 11th was down to Iraq? I'll tell you right now, NOT ENOUGH... Christian would be scared out of their minds if they read the Q'ran... Did you know that it clearly states that no other religion may live with them? It actually supports killing anyone that is not Muslim... Americans fail to see the threat that religion holds to other countries. I think one of the best ways to get world peace is to get rid of every single religion there is on the planet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 The Q'ran does not anywhere suggest killing those who worship other religions. That is a total misconception! Look how enlightened were the courst of Granada, in Spain, when it was in the Turkish Empire. Then the Catholics took over and threw out first Moslems, then Jews etc. I agree whole-heartedly on your point about religion but Dark0ne has requested that we keep religious debates out of the forum as they always get inflammatory. I had to correct your previous misassumption but other than that, if you want to talk religion, please PM me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.