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

[Liability]

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

EDITED:

I had not read the preceding post before offering my response. I guess I should continue that effort by not responding in like kind to carby's post. So,

nevermind.

 

[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.

EDITED:

I had not read the preceding post before offering my response. I guess I should continue that effort by not responding in like kind to carby's post. So,

nevermind.

Thank you for the gesture.

I'm going to take a wild guess that our friend leans heavily to the left side of our political spectrum. What I have noticed is that a reasonable, polite discussion can be occuring and an "enlightened", peace-loving, tolerant liberal will enter into the discussion and start making arrogant, sanctimonious, condescending remarks to other posters who have simply and respectfully shared their point of view. It's amusing to me to hear of their so-called tolerance because, at least in my experience, they are some of the least tolerant people of all.

In any event, I am interested in hearing from the liberals as to why they feel we should never, ever stop another nation from acquiring nuclear weapons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kbuck projects the "tolerance" of the wing nut reactionary loonies onto the liberals.

 

[Navy1960]

K9 you asked an interesting question, although I would never consider myself a liberal, it's my belief that our nation does have the authority to defend itself by keeping nations that seek our destruction from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. By doing so, the leadership of our nation would be engaged in defending this nation and it's people by preventing our harm. While some may believe that this is advocating unilateral intervention in any nation it's far from it. Take for instance when Israel sent aircraft to destroy a nuclear facility in Iraq, they did so to prevent a nation that had made it clear they intended Israels destruction, from developing them and the end result was they defended thier nation and thier people, for our nation to do the same would not be any different. However having said all that, where many seem to disagree is the process or what constitutes a valid means of *defense* and while this only a personal opinion, in the case of a nation that has on many occasions admitted they wish your destruction and have shown they intend to develop such weapons, there should be no doubt that by prevention you are defending.

 

[Liability]

kbuck projects the "tolerance" of the wing nut reactionary loonies onto the liberals.

Wrong.

It's not projection.

It's reflection.

And his perception of the liberals' penchant for claiming objectivity yet behaving in an intensely, rabidly and intolerantly partisan fashion is quite accurate.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

I do believe that was the intention of our founding fathers and their constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kbuck projects the "tolerance" of the wing nut reactionary loonies onto the liberals.

Wrong.

It's not projection.

It's reflection.

And his perception of the liberals' penchant for claiming objectivity yet behaving in an intensely, rabidly and intolerantly partisan fashion is quite accurate.

Now you are being defensive (and wrong). Now go ahead: project.

 

[California Girl]

K9 you asked an interesting question, although I would never consider myself a liberal, it's my belief that our nation does have the authority to defend itself by keeping nations that seek our destruction from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. By doing so, the leadership of our nation would be engaged in defending this nation and it's people by preventing our harm. While some may believe that this is advocating unilateral intervention in any nation it's far from it. Take for instance when Israel sent aircraft to destroy a nuclear facility in Iraq, they did so to prevent a nation that had made it clear they intended Israels destruction, from developing them and the end result was they defended thier nation and thier people, for our nation to do the same would not be any different. However having said all that, where many seem to disagree is the process or what constitutes a valid means of *defense* and while this only a personal opinion, in the case of a nation that has on many occasions admitted they wish your destruction and have shown they intend to develop such weapons, there should be no doubt that by prevention you are defending.

Yep. You are annoyingly correct a lot!!

 

[Screaming Eagle]

If the world doesn't want us to be their policeman then they should do what we want.

 

[uscitizen]

Ahh. Policemen or rulers?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It's never ok. Being the "World's Policemen" and "World's Referee" will always equal a Lose/Lose proposition for our nation. On one hand you're accused of being an evil Imperialist and on the other you're accused of not doing enough. This failed foreign policy has given birth and has only encouraged all the "Blame America First" cretins to push that propaganda. It really does equal a Lose/Lose for our nation in the end.

We should adopt a much more neutral foreign policy. We should stop taking sides in every conflict on this planet. We have a very poor record as far as picking the wrong sides in conflicts around the world goes. We should always do our best to help people in a humanitarian sense. We are a wealthy nation so helping others around the World is a good & just thing to do. That's where it should always end though. The Neocons & Socialists are staunch Globalists and Interventionists so they will likely label these beliefs as being "Isolationist" but that's only because they're pushing their Globalist agendas. So their labels don't bother me. No more failed foreign entanglements. Our founding fathers believed in this and so do i.

 

[Liability]

kbuck projects the "tolerance" of the wing nut reactionary loonies onto the liberals.

Wrong.

It's not projection.

It's reflection.

And his perception of the liberals' penchant for claiming objectivity yet behaving in an intensely, rabidly and intolerantly partisan fashion is quite accurate.

Now you are being defensive (and wrong). Now go ahead: project.

Nope. Sorry Jokey. It doesn't work like that. When he holds a mirror up to your face and says, "SEE!" you can CALL it "projecting" all you wish; but it's still just a reflection of YOU which you are seeing with (appropriate) revulsion!

Thank me.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

We are not an Empire. Unfortunately,somewhere along the line our politicians started believing that we were an Empire. That's when all our problems began. Our Founding Fathers never intended for us to behave as if we were an Empire. In fact they wanted the exact opposite. We have lost our way as a nation. Aggressive Foreign Interventionism really is a Lose/Lose for this nation in the end. Lets hope more politicians start figuring this out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It doesn't work like that. When he holds a mirror up to your face and says, "SEE!" you can CALL it "projecting" all you wish; but it's still just a reflection of YOU which you are seeing with (appropriate) revulsion!

Thank me.

You are projecting your mirror image again, Liability.

 

[Liability]

It doesn't work like that. When he holds a mirror up to your face and says, "SEE!" you can CALL it "projecting" all you wish; but it's still just a reflection of YOU which you are seeing with (appropriate) revulsion!

Thank me.

You are projecting your mirror image again, Liability.

Oh the limpness of your rejoinder. 3rd graders aren't as bad at this as you are, Jokey. Truly. You are one of the worst.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It doesn't work like that. When he holds a mirror up to your face and says, "SEE!" you can CALL it "projecting" all you wish; but it's still just a reflection of YOU which you are seeing with (appropriate) revulsion!

Thank me.

You are projecting your mirror image again, Liability.

Oh the limpness of your rejoinder. 3rd graders aren't as bad at this as you are, Jokey. Truly. You are one of the worst.

You keep getting your butt kicked and you come back every time. Your sadistic mostress must adore you!

 

[K9Buck]

There are many good points being made here. The consensus amongs you seems to be that we should not be "policemen" of the world.

It was before my time but history tells me that the U.S. was somewhat isolationist before the outbreak of the WWII. In many ways I'd like to see a return to that type of policy.

I suppose I would differ from some of you, however, on a couple of points. One, if some despot begins committing genocide on his people (or a segment of) then I would likely be in favor of going in and snuffing out the evil, little mass-murderer.

Second, if a despot known to be reckless and crazy were to be in the process of building a nuclear weapon and was promising to annihilate millions of his helpless neighbors, again, I would probably support removing the raving lunatic from power.

My motivation is not to be "policeman" nor to impose my will on others. My motivation in these potential scenarios is simply to protect significant numbers of innocents from an evil, mass murderer.

In general I agree with the sentiments here, however, I do believe in exceptions.

Again, I do appreciate feedback on my topic. Thank you.

 

[K9Buck]

kbuck projects the "tolerance" of the wing nut reactionary loonies onto the liberals.

Could be Jake.

In any event, would you like to provide some feedback regarding the topic of the thread? I'm interested to read your view on the matter. Thank you in advance.

 

[Tony_S]

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?

The US military should be concerned with the territorial defense (air, land & sea) of the continental Unites States and her territories. Once people starting talking about 'national interests', you're entering the realm on of neo-mercantilism and the US military essentially being used as an enforcement arm of commercial and ideological factions within finance capital and the political class. Granted, if the US based its military doctrine on actual defense of the United States, the military budget would effectively be cut by 60-70%, which would cause defense contractors to go bankrupt or drastically scale back the size of their organizations, since the corporate welfare and subsidies would dry up.

 

[Bfgrn]

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 you are personally willing to put your ass on the front line and you have a way to pay for it