Bull Ring Should the US be the "the world police?" STTAB VS Billy000

Aug 22, 2014
29,410
4,280
280
Should the US be the "world police?" is this something new? Is it something we want? Is there any benefit to the US for doing so?

Many people will tell you that no, the US shouldn't be running around the world like a global traffic cop; and I couldn't disagree more.

My opponent in this debate will be the liberal poster Billy000, who frankly all I know of his position is that he doesn't think we should be the world police.

Anyway, I'll begin this debate by defining "world police" for this purposes of this debate.

For this debate , we will consider any military action by the US which was not used in direct defense of US property or interests , whether here or abroad. For example, the Vietnam War would be considered an example of being the world police, while WWII which we ultimately got involved in because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, would not be considered a world police action.

At this point I will stop and allow Billy to respond and alter my definition in case he doesn't agree to it.
 
Should the US be the "world police?" is this something new? Is it something we want? Is there any benefit to the US for doing so?

Many people will tell you that no, the US shouldn't be running around the world like a global traffic cop; and I couldn't disagree more.

My opponent in this debate will be the liberal poster Billy000, who frankly all I know of his position is that he doesn't think we should be the world police.

Anyway, I'll begin this debate by defining "world police" for this purposes of this debate.

For this debate , we will consider any military action by the US which was not used in direct defense of US property or interests , whether here or abroad. For example, the Vietnam War would be considered an example of being the world police, while WWII which we ultimately got involved in because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, would not be considered a world police action.

At this point I will stop and allow Billy to respond and alter my definition in case he doesn't agree to it.
I agree with that definition. Any military actions that is irrelavant to any American interests. I am against any.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
Should the US be the "world police?" is this something new? Is it something we want? Is there any benefit to the US for doing so?

Many people will tell you that no, the US shouldn't be running around the world like a global traffic cop; and I couldn't disagree more.

My opponent in this debate will be the liberal poster Billy000, who frankly all I know of his position is that he doesn't think we should be the world police.

Anyway, I'll begin this debate by defining "world police" for this purposes of this debate.

For this debate , we will consider any military action by the US which was not used in direct defense of US property or interests , whether here or abroad. For example, the Vietnam War would be considered an example of being the world police, while WWII which we ultimately got involved in because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, would not be considered a world police action.

At this point I will stop and allow Billy to respond and alter my definition in case he doesn't agree to it.
I agree with that definition. Any military actions that is irrelavant to any American interests. I am against any.

Very good.


Well, my first post is going to be about WHY we as Americans traditionally believe we should be the world police.

It's simple and gets right to the very heart of the matter.

The French

if they had not intervened with anything that wasn't directly relevant to their national interests. we probably eventually would have won independence anyway, but it would have been an entirely different history.

And not even 50 years after our own Revolutionary War, we codified this in the Monroe Doctrine, where we basically said "this part of the world is under our protection"

So, it's almost hard wired into us as a nation at this point.
 
Should the US be the "world police?" is this something new? Is it something we want? Is there any benefit to the US for doing so?

Many people will tell you that no, the US shouldn't be running around the world like a global traffic cop; and I couldn't disagree more.

My opponent in this debate will be the liberal poster Billy000, who frankly all I know of his position is that he doesn't think we should be the world police.

Anyway, I'll begin this debate by defining "world police" for this purposes of this debate.

For this debate , we will consider any military action by the US which was not used in direct defense of US property or interests , whether here or abroad. For example, the Vietnam War would be considered an example of being the world police, while WWII which we ultimately got involved in because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, would not be considered a world police action.

At this point I will stop and allow Billy to respond and alter my definition in case he doesn't agree to it.
I agree with that definition. Any military actions that is irrelavant to any American interests. I am against any.

Very good.


Well, my first post is going to be about WHY we as Americans traditionally believe we should be the world police.

It's simple and gets right to the very heart of the matter.

The French

if they had not intervened with anything that wasn't directly relevant to their national interests. we probably eventually would have won independence anyway, but it would have been an entirely different history.

And not even 50 years after our own Revolutionary War, we codified this in the Monroe Doctrine, where we basically said "this part of the world is under our protection"

So, it's almost hard wired into us as a nation at this point.
To my understanding the French aided us simply because the UK was their enemy to begin with.

Either way, I don't think it has any relevance anymore simply because we are a military super power. If you want us to be a world police as defined, then you better be okay with much higher taxes. That's what it would take.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Should the US be the "world police?" is this something new? Is it something we want? Is there any benefit to the US for doing so?

Many people will tell you that no, the US shouldn't be running around the world like a global traffic cop; and I couldn't disagree more.

My opponent in this debate will be the liberal poster Billy000, who frankly all I know of his position is that he doesn't think we should be the world police.

Anyway, I'll begin this debate by defining "world police" for this purposes of this debate.

For this debate , we will consider any military action by the US which was not used in direct defense of US property or interests , whether here or abroad. For example, the Vietnam War would be considered an example of being the world police, while WWII which we ultimately got involved in because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, would not be considered a world police action.

At this point I will stop and allow Billy to respond and alter my definition in case he doesn't agree to it.
I agree with that definition. Any military actions that is irrelavant to any American interests. I am against any.

Very good.


Well, my first post is going to be about WHY we as Americans traditionally believe we should be the world police.

It's simple and gets right to the very heart of the matter.

The French

if they had not intervened with anything that wasn't directly relevant to their national interests. we probably eventually would have won independence anyway, but it would have been an entirely different history.

And not even 50 years after our own Revolutionary War, we codified this in the Monroe Doctrine, where we basically said "this part of the world is under our protection"

So, it's almost hard wired into us as a nation at this point.
To my understanding the French aided us simply because the UK was their enemy to begin with.

Either way, I don't think it has any relevance anymore simply because we are a military super power. If you want us to be a world police as defined, then you better be okay with much higher taxes. That's what it would take.

Ah, so you get to the juicy part of my belief.

I said we should be the world police, I never said that we and we alone should pay for that policing. Just the opposite , I believe we should be making a profit from it.

One can both do the right thing, AND profit.

Why in the world are WE the American tax payer paying to guard South Korea from invasion? Let them pay for it, else go without.

Just as one example.
 
Should the US be the "world police?" is this something new? Is it something we want? Is there any benefit to the US for doing so?

Many people will tell you that no, the US shouldn't be running around the world like a global traffic cop; and I couldn't disagree more.

My opponent in this debate will be the liberal poster Billy000, who frankly all I know of his position is that he doesn't think we should be the world police.

Anyway, I'll begin this debate by defining "world police" for this purposes of this debate.

For this debate , we will consider any military action by the US which was not used in direct defense of US property or interests , whether here or abroad. For example, the Vietnam War would be considered an example of being the world police, while WWII which we ultimately got involved in because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, would not be considered a world police action.

At this point I will stop and allow Billy to respond and alter my definition in case he doesn't agree to it.
I agree with that definition. Any military actions that is irrelavant to any American interests. I am against any.

Very good.


Well, my first post is going to be about WHY we as Americans traditionally believe we should be the world police.

It's simple and gets right to the very heart of the matter.

The French

if they had not intervened with anything that wasn't directly relevant to their national interests. we probably eventually would have won independence anyway, but it would have been an entirely different history.

And not even 50 years after our own Revolutionary War, we codified this in the Monroe Doctrine, where we basically said "this part of the world is under our protection"

So, it's almost hard wired into us as a nation at this point.
To my understanding the French aided us simply because the UK was their enemy to begin with.

Either way, I don't think it has any relevance anymore simply because we are a military super power. If you want us to be a world police as defined, then you better be okay with much higher taxes. That's what it would take.

Ah, so you get to the juicy part of my belief.

I said we should be the world police, I never said that we and we alone should pay for that policing. Just the opposite , I believe we should be making a profit from it.

One can both do the right thing, AND profit.

Why in the world are WE the American tax payer paying to guard South Korea from invasion? Let them pay for it, else go without.

Just as one example.
Ok I must ask. What exacty should we be doing and where do you draw the line?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
Should the US be the "world police?" is this something new? Is it something we want? Is there any benefit to the US for doing so?

Many people will tell you that no, the US shouldn't be running around the world like a global traffic cop; and I couldn't disagree more.

My opponent in this debate will be the liberal poster Billy000, who frankly all I know of his position is that he doesn't think we should be the world police.

Anyway, I'll begin this debate by defining "world police" for this purposes of this debate.

For this debate , we will consider any military action by the US which was not used in direct defense of US property or interests , whether here or abroad. For example, the Vietnam War would be considered an example of being the world police, while WWII which we ultimately got involved in because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, would not be considered a world police action.

At this point I will stop and allow Billy to respond and alter my definition in case he doesn't agree to it.
I agree with that definition. Any military actions that is irrelavant to any American interests. I am against any.

Very good.


Well, my first post is going to be about WHY we as Americans traditionally believe we should be the world police.

It's simple and gets right to the very heart of the matter.

The French

if they had not intervened with anything that wasn't directly relevant to their national interests. we probably eventually would have won independence anyway, but it would have been an entirely different history.

And not even 50 years after our own Revolutionary War, we codified this in the Monroe Doctrine, where we basically said "this part of the world is under our protection"

So, it's almost hard wired into us as a nation at this point.
To my understanding the French aided us simply because the UK was their enemy to begin with.

Either way, I don't think it has any relevance anymore simply because we are a military super power. If you want us to be a world police as defined, then you better be okay with much higher taxes. That's what it would take.

Ah, so you get to the juicy part of my belief.

I said we should be the world police, I never said that we and we alone should pay for that policing. Just the opposite , I believe we should be making a profit from it.

One can both do the right thing, AND profit.

Why in the world are WE the American tax payer paying to guard South Korea from invasion? Let them pay for it, else go without.

Just as one example.
Ok I must ask. What exacty should we be doing and where do you draw the line?

The same things we're doing now.

Where would I draw the line? Well, I certainly would hope we wouldn't be doing anything that was against our own best interests, though I certainly feel like in many instances we do that now.
 
I agree with that definition. Any military actions that is irrelavant to any American interests. I am against any.

Very good.


Well, my first post is going to be about WHY we as Americans traditionally believe we should be the world police.

It's simple and gets right to the very heart of the matter.

The French

if they had not intervened with anything that wasn't directly relevant to their national interests. we probably eventually would have won independence anyway, but it would have been an entirely different history.

And not even 50 years after our own Revolutionary War, we codified this in the Monroe Doctrine, where we basically said "this part of the world is under our protection"

So, it's almost hard wired into us as a nation at this point.
To my understanding the French aided us simply because the UK was their enemy to begin with.

Either way, I don't think it has any relevance anymore simply because we are a military super power. If you want us to be a world police as defined, then you better be okay with much higher taxes. That's what it would take.

Ah, so you get to the juicy part of my belief.

I said we should be the world police, I never said that we and we alone should pay for that policing. Just the opposite , I believe we should be making a profit from it.

One can both do the right thing, AND profit.

Why in the world are WE the American tax payer paying to guard South Korea from invasion? Let them pay for it, else go without.

Just as one example.
Ok I must ask. What exacty should we be doing and where do you draw the line?

The same things we're doing now.

Where would I draw the line? Well, I certainly would hope we wouldn't be doing anything that was against our own best interests, though I certainly feel like in many instances we do that now.
Okay describe to me this us making a profit.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
Very good.


Well, my first post is going to be about WHY we as Americans traditionally believe we should be the world police.

It's simple and gets right to the very heart of the matter.

The French

if they had not intervened with anything that wasn't directly relevant to their national interests. we probably eventually would have won independence anyway, but it would have been an entirely different history.

And not even 50 years after our own Revolutionary War, we codified this in the Monroe Doctrine, where we basically said "this part of the world is under our protection"

So, it's almost hard wired into us as a nation at this point.
To my understanding the French aided us simply because the UK was their enemy to begin with.

Either way, I don't think it has any relevance anymore simply because we are a military super power. If you want us to be a world police as defined, then you better be okay with much higher taxes. That's what it would take.

Ah, so you get to the juicy part of my belief.

I said we should be the world police, I never said that we and we alone should pay for that policing. Just the opposite , I believe we should be making a profit from it.

One can both do the right thing, AND profit.

Why in the world are WE the American tax payer paying to guard South Korea from invasion? Let them pay for it, else go without.

Just as one example.
Ok I must ask. What exacty should we be doing and where do you draw the line?

The same things we're doing now.

Where would I draw the line? Well, I certainly would hope we wouldn't be doing anything that was against our own best interests, though I certainly feel like in many instances we do that now.
Okay describe to me this us making a profit.

It's a simple enough concept.

And I'm not sure cash would be necessary to call it a profit. I don't know all the figures and such well enough to know.

For example, let's say it costs $X to guard Korea's border every year. They should pay us $X + 10%. That's a pretty meager profit margin.

Those costs should include all salaries of all US personal involved , all utilities, and weapons expenditures, etc etc.

The US shouldn't be out one thin dime.

On the other hand, we should allow Korea, or whomever, to use the land we build our bases on as payment towards those costs, at fair market value. Or even rent if they would rather rent us the land.

But no, we're so stupid that we pay all expenses PLUS rent the land from the locality to defend THEM.

We definitely need a new paradigm here.
 
To my understanding the French aided us simply because the UK was their enemy to begin with.

Either way, I don't think it has any relevance anymore simply because we are a military super power. If you want us to be a world police as defined, then you better be okay with much higher taxes. That's what it would take.

Ah, so you get to the juicy part of my belief.

I said we should be the world police, I never said that we and we alone should pay for that policing. Just the opposite , I believe we should be making a profit from it.

One can both do the right thing, AND profit.

Why in the world are WE the American tax payer paying to guard South Korea from invasion? Let them pay for it, else go without.

Just as one example.
Ok I must ask. What exacty should we be doing and where do you draw the line?

The same things we're doing now.

Where would I draw the line? Well, I certainly would hope we wouldn't be doing anything that was against our own best interests, though I certainly feel like in many instances we do that now.
Okay describe to me this us making a profit.

It's a simple enough concept.

And I'm not sure cash would be necessary to call it a profit. I don't know all the figures and such well enough to know.

For example, let's say it costs $X to guard Korea's border every year. They should pay us $X + 10%. That's a pretty meager profit margin.

Those costs should include all salaries of all US personal involved , all utilities, and weapons expenditures, etc etc.

The US shouldn't be out one thin dime.

On the other hand, we should allow Korea, or whomever, to use the land we build our bases on as payment towards those costs, at fair market value. Or even rent if they would rather rent us the land.

But no, we're so stupid that we pay all expenses PLUS rent the land from the locality to defend THEM.

We definitely need a new paradigm here.
If these countries had the revenue to pay for both the expenses and fee, why wouldn't they just do it themselves? I'm sure many countries couldn't even afford such services.
 
Ah, so you get to the juicy part of my belief.

I said we should be the world police, I never said that we and we alone should pay for that policing. Just the opposite , I believe we should be making a profit from it.

One can both do the right thing, AND profit.

Why in the world are WE the American tax payer paying to guard South Korea from invasion? Let them pay for it, else go without.

Just as one example.
Ok I must ask. What exacty should we be doing and where do you draw the line?

The same things we're doing now.

Where would I draw the line? Well, I certainly would hope we wouldn't be doing anything that was against our own best interests, though I certainly feel like in many instances we do that now.
Okay describe to me this us making a profit.

It's a simple enough concept.

And I'm not sure cash would be necessary to call it a profit. I don't know all the figures and such well enough to know.

For example, let's say it costs $X to guard Korea's border every year. They should pay us $X + 10%. That's a pretty meager profit margin.

Those costs should include all salaries of all US personal involved , all utilities, and weapons expenditures, etc etc.

The US shouldn't be out one thin dime.

On the other hand, we should allow Korea, or whomever, to use the land we build our bases on as payment towards those costs, at fair market value. Or even rent if they would rather rent us the land.

But no, we're so stupid that we pay all expenses PLUS rent the land from the locality to defend THEM.

We definitely need a new paradigm here.
If these countries had the revenue to pay for both the expenses and fee, why wouldn't they just do it themselves? I'm sure many countries couldn't even afford such services.


I'm sure they couldn't either, too bad for them. Now, if something directly affects OUR national interests , and happens to affect theirs as well, I'm all for footing the bill, otherwise, who cares.

Anyway, let's move on to what actually affects our national interests.

Let's discuss Korea, does guarding the border of Korea affect our national interest?

I would say no it does not, maybe 40 years ago it did, but today? No. Our way of life would not be negatively affected, or even potentially negatively affected one bit if we removed our troops from Korea.

On the other hand, the Middle East, obviously an unstable oil supply affects our national security, so yes, policing that region IS in our national interest.

Let me add this, just because I believe we should be the world police doesn't mean I don't recognize that we are horribly inefficient at it . If I ran my personal finances the way the military runs theirs, I'd be in jail.
 
Ok I must ask. What exacty should we be doing and where do you draw the line?

The same things we're doing now.

Where would I draw the line? Well, I certainly would hope we wouldn't be doing anything that was against our own best interests, though I certainly feel like in many instances we do that now.
Okay describe to me this us making a profit.

It's a simple enough concept.

And I'm not sure cash would be necessary to call it a profit. I don't know all the figures and such well enough to know.

For example, let's say it costs $X to guard Korea's border every year. They should pay us $X + 10%. That's a pretty meager profit margin.

Those costs should include all salaries of all US personal involved , all utilities, and weapons expenditures, etc etc.

The US shouldn't be out one thin dime.

On the other hand, we should allow Korea, or whomever, to use the land we build our bases on as payment towards those costs, at fair market value. Or even rent if they would rather rent us the land.

But no, we're so stupid that we pay all expenses PLUS rent the land from the locality to defend THEM.

We definitely need a new paradigm here.
If these countries had the revenue to pay for both the expenses and fee, why wouldn't they just do it themselves? I'm sure many countries couldn't even afford such services.


I'm sure they couldn't either, too bad for them. Now, if something directly affects OUR national interests , and happens to affect theirs as well, I'm all for footing the bill, otherwise, who cares.

Anyway, let's move on to what actually affects our national interests.

Let's discuss Korea, does guarding the border of Korea affect our national interest?

I would say no it does not, maybe 40 years ago it did, but today? No. Our way of life would not be negatively affected, or even potentially negatively affected one bit if we removed our troops from Korea.

On the other hand, the Middle East, obviously an unstable oil supply affects our national security, so yes, policing that region IS in our national interest.

Let me add this, just because I believe we should be the world police doesn't mean I don't recognize that we are horribly inefficient at it . If I ran my personal finances the way the military runs theirs, I'd be in jail.
So basically you admit your profit idea isn't feasible?

You're changing the subject with this Korea talk. I do agree we shouldn't be there though.
 
The same things we're doing now.

Where would I draw the line? Well, I certainly would hope we wouldn't be doing anything that was against our own best interests, though I certainly feel like in many instances we do that now.
Okay describe to me this us making a profit.

It's a simple enough concept.

And I'm not sure cash would be necessary to call it a profit. I don't know all the figures and such well enough to know.

For example, let's say it costs $X to guard Korea's border every year. They should pay us $X + 10%. That's a pretty meager profit margin.

Those costs should include all salaries of all US personal involved , all utilities, and weapons expenditures, etc etc.

The US shouldn't be out one thin dime.

On the other hand, we should allow Korea, or whomever, to use the land we build our bases on as payment towards those costs, at fair market value. Or even rent if they would rather rent us the land.

But no, we're so stupid that we pay all expenses PLUS rent the land from the locality to defend THEM.

We definitely need a new paradigm here.
If these countries had the revenue to pay for both the expenses and fee, why wouldn't they just do it themselves? I'm sure many countries couldn't even afford such services.


I'm sure they couldn't either, too bad for them. Now, if something directly affects OUR national interests , and happens to affect theirs as well, I'm all for footing the bill, otherwise, who cares.

Anyway, let's move on to what actually affects our national interests.

Let's discuss Korea, does guarding the border of Korea affect our national interest?

I would say no it does not, maybe 40 years ago it did, but today? No. Our way of life would not be negatively affected, or even potentially negatively affected one bit if we removed our troops from Korea.

On the other hand, the Middle East, obviously an unstable oil supply affects our national security, so yes, policing that region IS in our national interest.

Let me add this, just because I believe we should be the world police doesn't mean I don't recognize that we are horribly inefficient at it . If I ran my personal finances the way the military runs theirs, I'd be in jail.
So basically you admit your profit idea isn't feasible?

You're changing the subject with this Korea talk. I do agree we shouldn't be there though.

What I admit is that if forcing other countries to pay us to defend them or we wouldn't be there unless it affected our national interests probably would lead us to be fewer places yes.

And I'm not trying to turn this into a Korea debate per se. I'm merely using them as an example because they are I believe currently our biggest single expenditure outside of the middle east, but we could just as well use Japan as an example if you prefer.
 
Doesn't seem to be a debate................

Do you guys take requests.........................................

Scenario..................Poland...................Russian troops mass on border and threaten to invade Poland.

Poland is part of NATO...............Under the NATO agreement, we are to come to the aid of fellow NATO countries...........................

Do we stand with Poland...............or let them fall............................
 
Doesn't seem to be a debate................

Do you guys take requests.........................................

Scenario..................Poland...................Russian troops mass on border and threaten to invade Poland.

Poland is part of NATO...............Under the NATO agreement, we are to come to the aid of fellow NATO countries...........................

Do we stand with Poland...............or let them fall............................

Well , first of all, I don't believe we should be in NATO, or the UN for that matter.
 
Doesn't seem to be a debate................

Do you guys take requests.........................................

Scenario..................Poland...................Russian troops mass on border and threaten to invade Poland.

Poland is part of NATO...............Under the NATO agreement, we are to come to the aid of fellow NATO countries...........................

Do we stand with Poland...............or let them fall............................

Well , first of all, I don't believe we should be in NATO, or the UN for that matter.
We are and it is happening today..............You are the President............

What action if any will you take................

Russia has just stated OR ELSE..............The tanks are getting into attack formation..............Putin says this is mother Russia's land..............Give it up, or we will take it by force.
 
77374810001_1304811207001_ari-origin06-arc-133-1322757766010.jpg


1st launch from Russia into Poland..................
 
Doesn't seem to be a debate................

Do you guys take requests.........................................

Scenario..................Poland...................Russian troops mass on border and threaten to invade Poland.

Poland is part of NATO...............Under the NATO agreement, we are to come to the aid of fellow NATO countries...........................

Do we stand with Poland...............or let them fall............................

Well , first of all, I don't believe we should be in NATO, or the UN for that matter.
We are and it is happening today..............You are the President............

What action if any will you take................

Russia has just stated OR ELSE..............The tanks are getting into attack formation..............Putin says this is mother Russia's land..............Give it up, or we will take it by force.

Under those circumstances, we abide by our treaty agreements
 
Doesn't seem to be a debate................

Do you guys take requests.........................................

Scenario..................Poland...................Russian troops mass on border and threaten to invade Poland.

Poland is part of NATO...............Under the NATO agreement, we are to come to the aid of fellow NATO countries...........................

Do we stand with Poland...............or let them fall............................

Well , first of all, I don't believe we should be in NATO, or the UN for that matter.
We are and it is happening today..............You are the President............

What action if any will you take................

Russia has just stated OR ELSE..............The tanks are getting into attack formation..............Putin says this is mother Russia's land..............Give it up, or we will take it by force.

Under those circumstances, we abide by our treaty agreements
aka meaning going to War against Russia to protect a NATO ALLY????????
 

Forum List

Back
Top