When it's ok to be "policemen" of the World

[K9Buck]

I've heard people say that the U.S. should not intervene in affairs around the world because we're not the "world's policemen".

I'd like to ask those that generally feel that way what, if any, circumstances should compel the U.S. to intervene into the affairs of another nation. Or, do you feel that we should not intervene under any circumstances?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would like K9BUCK to answer his own question.

 

[K9Buck]

I would like K9BUCK to answer his own question.

I'll be happy to. I asked the question because I already know what I believe and I'd like to hear what others think.

 

[manu1959]

I've heard people say that the U.S. should not intervene in affairs around the world because we're not the "world's policemen".

I'd like to ask those that generally feel that way what, if any, circumstances should compel the U.S. to intervene into the affairs of another nation. Or, do you feel that we should not intervene under any circumstances?

if asked by an ally and then only after a special election and a vote of the people.....after all it is our tax dollars and lives that will be spent to the benefit of another nation....

and while i have the salt shaker....no us tax dollars should be sent to another nation and no us military bases should be on foreign soil unless the host nations foots the cost in total with a reasonable profit....

 

[Big Black Dog]

OK, K9Buck... Here ya go. My personal belief is that the US should stay in their own damned yard and keep out of the affairs of everybody else. Quit giving every Tom, Dick and Harry nation money like we have plenty and begin to pay our bills off with China. When we have repaid every nickel we owe them, if the government wants to give money away again, we'll bring it up then. We don't need foreign oil to survive in this country. We have plenty of our own if we would just tell the environmental wackos to go screw themselves and begin to pump our own out of the ground. We should seal up our boarders and not allow anyone in who isn't already an American citizen. If we do allow someone in, they should be closely watched and escourted out as soon as their business is complete. Fuck the world. We don't need them. Let them feed their selves and have their little tiffs where they claim the US is just a bucket of shit. When they get hungry enough they will change their minds. It's time we played in our own back yard for awhile. Let everybody else do just what the heck they want to do and keep our noses out of it. Bring the troops home now. Either find Bin Lauden and get the hell out of there or make so much of a ruckus that they bring him to the troops just to shut us up. Then come home quickly and close and lock the door. That's just me and Jack Daniels talking...

 

[Truthmatters]

You mean we should not be statring wars with countries who did nothing to us?

why did you defend the Iraqi invasion?

 

[noose4]

I've heard people say that the U.S. should not intervene in affairs around the world because we're not the "world's policemen".

I'd like to ask those that generally feel that way what, if any, circumstances should compel the U.S. to intervene into the affairs of another nation. Or, do you feel that we should not intervene under any circumstances?

We pretty much should not intervene under any circumstances, our armed forces should be for the defense of our nation.

 

[K9Buck]

That's just me and Jack Daniels talking...

I agree with you and Jack!

 

[K9Buck]

You mean we should not be statring wars with countries who did nothing to us? why did you defend the Iraqi invasion?

Hi Truth. Are you directing the question to me? If so, where did I defend the invasion?

 

[xsited1]

I've heard people say that the U.S. should not intervene in affairs around the world because we're not the "world's policemen".

I'd like to ask those that generally feel that way what, if any, circumstances should compel the U.S. to intervene into the affairs of another nation. Or, do you feel that we should not intervene under any circumstances?

As long as Congress formally approves it, go ahead and intervene.

 

[Liability]

My 2 cents (probably not worth that much).

As a general rule, and as a conservative, I agree with George Washington. We should try to avoid foreign entanglements where reasonably possible. But our world is vastly different than President Washington's world, so the truth is, the task is easier said than done.

That said, we are NOT the policemen of the world. If two nations in middle Europe are going at each other, we aren't the new sheriff in town keeping the peace. Sadly, when some idiots in Africa are engaging in genocide, we also aren't their equivalent of the Texas Rangers, riding in to save the day. But let's be clear; when we determine NOT to act in that fashion, there ARE consequences.

So, for a long time I have subscribed to the notion that we have to marshal our finite resources and only come in with guns at the ready when one or more of our national interests is/are absolutely and clearly at risk. This is easier said than done if we remember that every time we refrain from acting, a genocide could be taking place. Choices have consequences.

And it is also foolish to deny that we have some far flung interests. The oil under the sands of Arabia ain't ours, but it is very much in our national interest to keep it flowing and enable the contracts we have to be honored. There are all manner of "interests" too.

But we (as a society) seem very much uncomfortable with openly and honestly discussing what those interests are or how they may be properly prioritized. This is a real problem, imho. But it's one we'd best get a handle on, pronto.

 

[Annie]

Truth is we've never really been an isolationist country. There have been times, actually nearly continuously, when a segment of the populace argues for such. They never win. I've seen many argue that Wilson lost the Treaty of Versailles and League of Nations because of isolationism, isn't true, it was his own hubris-there's many reasons that Obama reminds me of Wilson.

 

[K9Buck]

My 2 cents (probably not worth that much).

As a general rule, and as a conservative, I agree with George Washington. We should try to avoid foreign entanglements where reasonably possible. But our world is vastly different than President Washington's world, so the truth is, the task is easier said than done.

That said, we are NOT the policemen of the world. If two nations in middle Europe are going at each other, we aren't the new sheriff in town keeping the peace. Sadly, when some idiots in Africa are engaging in genocide, we also aren't their equivalent of the Texas Rangers, riding in to save the day. But let's be clear. when we determine NOT to act in that fashion, there ARE consequences.

So, for a long time I have subscribed to ghe notion that we have to marshal our finite resources and only come in with guns at the ready when one or more of our national interests is/are absolutely and clearly at risk. This is easier said than done if we remember that every time we refrain from acting, a genocide could be taking place. Choices have consequences.

And it is also foolish to deny that we have some far flung interests. The oil under the sands of Arabia ain't ours, but it is very much in our national interest to keep it flowing and enable the contracts we have to be honored. There are all manner of "interests" too.

But we (as a society) seem very much uncomfortable with openly and honestly discussing what those interests are or how they may be properly prioritized. This is a real problem, imho. But it's one we'd best get a handle on, pronto.

Well said. Very reasonable.

 

[K9Buck]

What about "rogue" nations, such as Iran, developing nuclear weapons? If Hugo Chavez decides to acquire such a capability, should we intervene to stop him? What if every nation in the Caribbean wanted to acquire a nuclear weapons capability? Should we allow it? At what point does the U.S. have a moral obligation to use its power, wealth and standing in the world to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to unstable nations/despots such as Iran, Venezuela, etc.?

 

[Navy1960]

In my opinion there is a difference between defense and using the US Military as "nation buliders and a world-wide police force" . This nations defense can take many forms , economic, and traditional. If we as a nation decide on that basis to commit to battle then we should prosecute ANY engagement in such a manner as to leave no doubt as to the outcome, and once accomplished leave the task of nation building to those more suited to do it and thats not the US Military. The problem this nation has had in recent engagements is the need to look at the 1960's mentality of war fighting, where the need to rebuild and understand the culture is a task needed prior to engagement. We all have no doubt seen the results of that kind of thinking and have seen the results of that kind of thinking recently. The other issue at hand is this, and thats using the US Military as an arresting powers force rather than a Military force. The US Military should always be there to defend this nation, and in that defense should do so in manner that reflects the military mind-set and not one that reflects the civilian justice systems mindset. If we as a nation cannot ever seperate the two then we needlessly sacrifice by not commiting to total victory in coflict, those young men and women that give up so much for us all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think we should all wear uniforms and all be employed by the Defense Department. Defense should be our only industry, culture, and recreation.

 

[VaYank5150]

I've heard people say that the U.S. should not intervene in affairs around the world because we're not the "world's policemen".

I'd like to ask those that generally feel that way what, if any, circumstances should compel the U.S. to intervene into the affairs of another nation. Or, do you feel that we should not intervene under any circumstances?

When they pay us to do so?

 

[VaYank5150]

What about "rogue" nations, such as Iran, developing nuclear weapons? If Hugo Chavez decides to acquire such a capability, should we intervene to stop him? What if every nation in the Caribbean wanted to acquire a nuclear weapons capability? Should we allow it? At what point does the U.S. have a moral obligation to use its power, wealth and standing in the world to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to unstable nations/despots such as Iran, Venezuela, etc.?

Should we ALLOW it? Who the hell are we to tell other nations what they can and cannot do? Did we patent the nuclear weapon? Why are we the only ones allowed to decide who can or cannot have them?

 

[K9Buck]

What about "rogue" nations, such as Iran, developing nuclear weapons? If Hugo Chavez decides to acquire such a capability, should we intervene to stop him? What if every nation in the Caribbean wanted to acquire a nuclear weapons capability? Should we allow it? At what point does the U.S. have a moral obligation to use its power, wealth and standing in the world to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to unstable nations/despots such as Iran, Venezuela, etc.?

Should we ALLOW it? Who the hell are we to tell other nations what they can and cannot do? Did we patent the nuclear weapon? Why are we the only ones allowed to decide who can or cannot have them?

Well, that's what I'm asking. I take it you don't feel that we have any right or authority to prevent another nation from acquiring nuclear weapons; is my understanding of your position correct? So, would it be fair to say that you are of the mindset that, under no circumstances, should the U.S. ever have the right or duty to prevent a nation from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability?

If so, why do you feel that way?

Thanks again for your feedback. I'm trying to understand this viewpoint better and I appreciate hearing alternate viewpoints.

 

[K9Buck]

I think we should all wear uniforms and all be employed by the Defense Department. Defense should be our only industry, culture, and recreation.

We're having a polite discussion. Why are you injecting this sort of sarcastic rhetoric into it?