Discussion of why the US continually act as the authoritative body in foreign affairs

[indago]

Irrelevant point. Constitution deals with the function of government. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the conduction of foreign policy. But it gave that function largely to the President to do as he see's fit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8]FAMOUS QUOTE[/ame]

 

[Diuretic]

I do think that the United States should stop acting as the world's police, but in all honesty, it won't happen anytime soon. It's not enough to ask why and condemn the U.S. for assuming a global leadership role. It has to be stopped by outside forces, and I don't mean with force.

I'll stick my neck out. The US isn't acting like the world's police. Police - if we have to use the analogy - act (or should) indifferent to personal interests. The US - and it's no different to any other country in this regard - doesn't act impartially on the world stage, it seeks to support it's national interests. It's not the world's cop, it's just the biggest kid on the block and thankfully its own national values (thank you to the American voter) will not allow it to act like Russia or Britain (pre-WWII).

 

[garyd]

Um we are not forming an empire.

And the difference between the shah's policies and those of Mossadiq are essentially non existant. And that had more to do with the Brits than the US in any case. Moosadiq by the way wouldn't have lasted more than a year in any case. With no friends in the West and with the same policies that infuriated the religious hardliners as the shah he would have been gone and a theocracy brought to power a 1/4 century earlier.

 

[Zoomie1980]

No, it most certainly does not give the President authority to do as he sees fit. The Constitution does not authorize our government to form an overseas American Empire, and it is ridiculous to assume that the founders would allow that to happen considering they had just broken away from a tyrannical government.

The President, before the War Powers Act (an unconstitutional law that for some reason has never been challenged) could deploy any numbers of troops for any period of time without any Congressional approval. All Congress could do was to cut of funding.

President was largely given control over foreign affairs and the Congress domestic affairs. The Constitution has NOTHING to do with the conduction of foreign policy.

 

[garyd]

Epi my boy you calling it bullshit doesn't make it so. And never forget that in most of those cases our 'help consisted mostly of refusing to intervene.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Bull-fucking-shit. So much bullshit, in fact, that it doesn't merit a response.

You last sentence says it all. Absolutely disgusting.

Well the world's only Blue-Ocean Navy (13 Carrier battle groups), the largest functioning nuclear arsenal, the world's only penetration nuclear bomber (B-2), and now a nuclear defense capable of countering all but the largest Russian missile launches.....that makes us the Big Dogs.

One Trident missile could wipe out Tehran and Iran could do nothing comparable in retaliation. And we have over 500 of them. At the end of the day, we could do anything we wanted to, at any time we wanted to do it and no one, not China, not Russia, not the EU, could do anything about it!!!

Of course, we are nice guys so we don't do that sort of thing....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The President, before the War Powers Act (an unconstitutional law that for some reason has never been challenged) could deploy any numbers of troops for any period of time without any Congressional approval. All Congress could do was to cut of funding.

President was largely given control over foreign affairs and the Congress domestic affairs. The Constitution has NOTHING to do with the conduction of foreign policy.

Wrong. The President could not deploy troops for any period of time without an official declaration of war from Congress, the representatives of the people. Only after the declaration of war was made did the President inherit his powers as commander-in-chief.

 

[garyd]

The question as originally phrased is pretty near silly. The real question that ought to be asked why are so manny people posting in this thread such racist hacks that they think the only form of government all those porr beknighted black and brown folks ought to have ruling over them is a thuggocracy?

 

[Diuretic]

Um we are not forming an empire.

And the difference between the shah's policies and those of Mossadiq are essentially non existant. And that had more to do with the Brits than the US in any case. Moosadiq by the way wouldn't have lasted more than a year in any case. With no friends in the West and with the same policies that infuriated the religious hardliners as the shah he would have been gone and a theocracy brought to power a 1/4 century earlier.

No need for an empire in the old form of physically colonising countries. The US has economically colonised many countries. Iran under the Pahlavis is just one example. Central America is another. The old imperial model doesn't work any longer, besides it's far too much trouble.

 

[Diuretic]

Well the world's only Blue-Ocean Navy (13 Carrier battle groups), the largest functioning nuclear arsenal, the world's only penetration nuclear bomber (B-2), and now a nuclear defense capable of countering all but the largest Russian missile launches.....that makes us the Big Dogs.

One Trident missile could wipe out Tehran and Iran could do nothing comparable in retaliation. And we have over 500 of them. At the end of the day, we could do anything we wanted to, at any time we wanted to do it and no one, not China, not Russia, not the EU, could do anything about it!!!

Of course, we are nice guys so we don't do that sort of thing....

Okay, now THAT was funny

 

[eots]

king missile americia kicks ass - Google Video

 

[Missourian]

It's either us or someone we trust less than us, there is no third option.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Okay, now THAT was funny

Haha, Diuretic. I wish I could've found it funny. = \ I kinda was just disturbed that people like this exist. It's the sort of stomach reaction I get with Publius and other such Neanderthals.

"My club bigger. You do, I say. Die. Bang. Die."

 

[auditor0007]

Why is it that the United States always feels the need to police the rest of the world. Does it give us the sense of authority and power that we strive for, or is it simply because we believe that other countries are incapable of such a task. And furthermore, why is this responsibility left solely to us, more or less. I don't see Russia or China, who clearly have the means to do so, halting the countless occurrences of corruption we see in today's world, but whenever the united states gets a hint of any kind of totalitarianism they jump right in the middle of it and the don't relent until it is a perfect little democracy.

The US has always been in the middle of other countries' affairs. That is why we had the Korean War and Viet Nam War. Over the last eight years, we've had a President who believes that promoting democracy will lead to better relations with other countries throughout the world, and that the US should lead the fight on that front. Only time will tell if this philosophy will benefit the US or not.

 

[auditor0007]

A better question might be, where does the United States get the right to police the world?

Well, someone's gotta do it. If it's not us, then it will be China or Russia. Take your pick.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, someone's gotta do it. If it's not us, then it will be China or Russia. Take your pick.

This doesn't answer where the authority to police the world comes from.

 

[auditor0007]

The authority comes from most every other free nation on this planet. If they didn't want us doing it, then they would tell us so. Actually, it would be great if we didn't have to do it. Then maybe, all the rest of the free world would pay their fair share of the military spending instead of the US having to foot half the entire fucking bill.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The authority comes from most every other free nation on this planet. If they didn't want us doing it, then they would tell us so. Actually, it would be great if we didn't have to do it. Then maybe, all the rest of the free world would pay their fair share of the military spending instead of the US having to foot half the entire fucking bill.

I don't think it matters if the rest of the world voted unanimously for us to continue to police the world, authority is not given to the government from the Constitution. Therefore, they have no authority to bankrupt our nation by policing the world.

 

[editec]

I'll stick my neck out. The US isn't acting like the world's police. Police - if we have to use the analogy - act (or should) indifferent to personal interests. The US - and it's no different to any other country in this regard - doesn't act impartially on the world stage, it seeks to support it's national interests. It's not the world's cop, it's just the biggest kid on the block and thankfully its own national values (thank you to the American voter) will not allow it to act like Russia or Britain (pre-WWII).

Well...the USA is acting in SOMEBODY'S interests, but of late I am less inclined to think it is always acting in the interests of America or the American people, and more often acting in the interests of SOME SMALL PART of the American people.

I wish to GOD that American foreign policy always put American national interests ahead of every other consideration, but I do not think that is really true.

 

[Diuretic]

Well...the USA is acting in SOMEBODY'S interests, but of late I am less inclined to think it is always acting in the interests of America or the American people, and more often acting in the interests of SOME SMALL PART of the American people.

I wish to GOD that American foreign policy always put American national interests ahead of every other consideration, but I do not think that is really true.

The US doesn't act in the interest of the American people, I was careful to try not to give that impression, if I did so then that's my fault. The US government acts in the interests of the rulers - and again it's no different from any other nation that dares to put a foot on the world stage.