View Poll Results: Who should has the job of World Police?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • America is the world's remaining superpower. It's our job.

    8 18.18%
  • Let Russia become the new world police

    1 2.27%
  • China as the most people so it should be their job

    1 2.27%
  • Regional associations deal with regional matters; the Arab League, NAFTA, NATO.

    8 18.18%
  • The UN with its own standing military, of which America also subjected to.

    8 18.18%
  • Other

    18 40.91%
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 162

Thread: Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

  1. #11
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Nobody can police the world and this country has gone broke trying, the loss of blood and treasure we have suffered is just not acceptable.
    Our foreign and military posture is not the source of our financial and fiscal woes.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Our foreign and military posture is not the source of our financial and fiscal woes.
    You realize how much money all these wars and police actions and things like bombing Libya have cost? Not to mention the American lives lost and horrible injuries sustained.

  3. #13
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Excuse me, but where is the "NO ONE" option? In my opinion NO ONE has the right to be the "world's policeman." Since OTHER is a B/S choice, and none of the rest qualify, I did not vote.

    P.S. It is not "isolationist" to respect the sovereignty of other nations and demand they respect OUR sovereignty. We can make our own alliances and deal with our own interests without outside interference.
    Operating from the position that a vacuum would e created and a true hates a vacuum. However, I included an "other" oion just in case there were preferences I didn't think of.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  4. #14
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

    Re: Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    I've always been puzzled by this standard. "We should not intervene in Y because X is worse." Because invariably the question you have to be asked is "Alright, well do you support intervening in X?" Usually the answer is a solid no. We do not live in a theoretical world and a million and one variables stand in the way of an intervention coming about. Would I personally support greater US involvement in the Congo? Yes I would. But that is an implausible objective at present. Syria is not and the fact that people are suffering in Goma or Kivu does not diminish the suffering of people suffering in Idlib or Hama.

    On a secondary note... why is it so terrible to erect a 'unilateral' form of justice? The standards we've set are by and large liberal ones agreed upon by most of the worlds democracies if not all of them. The application of force may not be universally agreed upon, but certainly the standards of behavior are fairly uniform. It does not overly bother me that the United States in concert with her democratic allies of the moment take action when action needs to be taken. Why should I care what the authoritarian strongman in Moscow or the autocratic gang in Beijing thinks about what we do aside from the practical impact? Morally I don't care at all. We talk about the UN and the UNSC and global bodies of approval but at the end of the day how many of these interventions are only stymied by these authoritarian states? Most of them. I'm quite alright with trusting ours and our allies moral compasses (but especially ours) and forging ahead without them.
    It is far easier to say these things than to show examples of when they ever actually existed. Your standard cop out "of we can't do everything but..." is noted. So far this "massive consensus" to act in Syria exists in France and the U.S., according to Obama and a few others, but has yet to become "popular". If your idea of justice is simply to act "sometimes" or when we think nobody will (can?) object in a major way then I reject it out of hand, so no thank you.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #15
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    You realize how much money all these wars and police actions and things like bombing Libya have cost? Not to mention the American lives lost and horrible injuries sustained.
    Yes. They are still not the source of our poor fiscal house. Moreover when considering future costs and burdens their role dwindles even further in the face of entitlements and debt servicing.

  6. #16
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    None of the above. We should act when our own vital national interests are at stake, and otherwise let the rest of the world take care of itself.


    **** with us, we'll smash you to dust; leave us alone, we'll return the favor.
    Ah, thus the root reason we are seemingly more interested in the Mid-East and the Mid-West. The free flow of oil and stability in the oil rich Middle East is our vital interest and has driven nearly of of our foreign policy since the end of the Cold War where even then it placed second.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  7. #17
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,535
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    I've always been puzzled by this standard. "We should not intervene in Y because X is worse." Because invariably the question you have to be asked is "Alright, well do you support intervening in X?" Usually the answer is a solid no. We do not live in a theoretical world and a million and one variables stand in the way of an intervention coming about. Would I personally support greater US involvement in the Congo? Yes I would. But that is an implausible objective at present. Syria is not and the fact that people are suffering in Goma or Kivu does not diminish the suffering of people suffering in Idlib or Hama.
    You pose a false dilemma because the issue is not which battles we pick, it's why we get involved at all. Typically our government picks based on "vital interests" which in the case of the Middle East has always been Oil and Israel, in that order. If the Congo had something we wanted, we'd be in there too. We have no "moral high ground" in such choices, it's always what provides the most return on our investment (in this case American lives and military expenditures). This has always troubled me because we inevitably make lasting enemies both overt and hidden by our obviously self-centered acts of violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    On a secondary note... why is it so terrible to erect a 'unilateral' form of justice? The standards we've set are by and large liberal ones agreed upon by most of the worlds democracies if not all of them. The application of force may not be universally agreed upon, but certainly the standards of behavior are fairly uniform. It does not overly bother me that the United States in concert with her democratic allies of the moment take action when action needs to be taken. Why should I care what the authoritarian strongman in Moscow or the autocratic gang in Beijing thinks about what we do aside from the practical impact? Morally I don't care at all. We talk about the UN and the UNSC and global bodies of approval but at the end of the day how many of these interventions are only stymied by these authoritarian states? Most of them. I'm quite alright with trusting ours and our allies moral compasses (but especially ours) and forging ahead without them.
    That is a particularly ethnocentric viewpoint, and as I have explained to another member, the same attitude displayed by "superpowers" throughout all eras of history. We do not have a corner on the "proper form of government" market. Each society should be allowed to choose their own without outside interference.

    If our system is so good, and naturally the most advanced, then all we need do is set a good example and let people choose to follow it. Why do you think just because we currently have the strongest military force this authorizes us to compel other societies to comply with our ideals? How would you feel if we were NOT the strongest and China and/or Russia were and THEY tried to compel US to adhere to their moral ideals or forms of government? It is hubris to think we have such a duty.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 09-01-13 at 05:32 PM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  8. #18
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    It is far easier to say these things than to show examples of when they ever actually existed. Your standard cop out "of we can't do everything but..." is noted. So far this "massive consensus" to act in Syria exists in France and the U.S., according to Obama and a few others, but has yet to become "popular". If your idea of justice is simply to act "sometimes" or when we think nobody will (can?) object in a major way then I reject it out of hand, so no thank you.
    It isn't a cop-out, unless you think we actually can do everything I think you'd be forced to agree: we cannot do everything. We take action where political will and strategic/humanitarian imperatives afford us the opportunity to take action. I think you've given a very disingenuous assessment of what I wrote.

    As for examples, what are you looking for?

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Yes. They are still not the source of our poor fiscal house. Moreover when considering future costs and burdens their role dwindles even further in the face of entitlements and debt servicing.
    I'll agree that the dollar cost incurred by our military exploits are far outweighed by entitlements and debt but what about all the lives we have most and all the men that have come home blown all to Hell? Not only that but half the time when we play world cop we do more harm than good. IMO if we are not directly threatened we should stay out of it.

  10. #20
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

    Re: Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    It isn't a cop-out, unless you think we actually can do everything I think you'd be forced to agree: we cannot do everything. We take action where political will and strategic/humanitarian imperatives afford us the opportunity to take action. I think you've given a very disingenuous assessment of what I wrote.

    As for examples, what are you looking for?
    The real reason that no action was taken in the congo would be a good start.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •