• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Who should has the job of World Police?

  • America is the world's remaining superpower. It's our job.

    Votes: 8 21.1%
  • Let Russia become the new world police

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • China as the most people so it should be their job

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Regional associations deal with regional matters; the Arab League, NAFTA, NATO.

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • The UN with its own standing military, of which America also subjected to.

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 17 44.7%

  • Total voters
    38
My observation is there seems to be a culture of dishonesty and con-artistry with a lot of Africans I've met. In fact around half the Africans I've personally met seem to think dishonesty and scheming is the ticket to material success. On a more macro scale, we hear about widespread corruption and other problems in Africa that to me seem to be factors of their relative newness to representative government. Many of the problems we see in Africa with government was going on here a century ago and to a lesser extent even today that we finally matured out of for the most part. That's a lot different than the Middle East where suicide bombing is an act of worship.

Plus a big part of why there is so much of what we consider barbaric practices is because they embrace the Medieval Age and all that the 8th to the 11th centuries represented culturally. The devotion to reliving that time in history continually is tied inseparably to a type of nationalistic pride and patriotism. This is because the Medieval Age was their "Golden Age," taken from them through military defeat. If you study up on it its undeniable they were accomplishing some pretty impressive stuff back then for that time in history and they're very proud of that and in practice seek to relive that time in history forever. However, with that they also try to embrace every nuance of life back then including many of the very disturbing 8th to 11th century norms based on modern aka western standards. Another major component of their culture is they feel it is their duty to enforce compliance up to and including the use of deadly force to what they think is right behavior on others. As long as they see the 8th to 11th century culture as the right way to live, its their sacred duty to make everybody around them also comply and we're all up in their grill because of the utter importance of oil, I can't see an end to conflict.

What if sometime while trying to make Africans more civilized we realize that they tend to worship the prehistoric times?
 
No NATO member was under obligation to join in this campaign as it was outside the NATO area and outside the scope of the NATO Treaty.

Yet they did and you feel fooled that there was no ethnic cleansing? The sites that have evidenced ethnic cleansing conducted on Albanians is too graphic and not allowed to be shown as per rules of DP. But here is a less graphical one:

Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo: An Accounting

See numbers like above 6000 massively murdered and put in mass graves. Happy now?
 
my opinion :

we cover the Americas, China deals with Asia, and Saudi Arabia handles the Middle East. we maintain our alliance with Israel.

if we're to be global cop, there needs to be a global tax to pay for it. even if there were, though, i still wouldn't support it.

also, any police action needs to be met with wartime tax rates at home. we can't afford to put another one on the credit card, and also, shared sacrifice. all tax brackets should go up significantly until the mission is complete.


I like that (part in bold). We should be getting paid for it.
 
Wait a second, you deny the genocide?

You claim that Serbia tried to physically extermintate the Albanian population? How great a percentage of the Albanian population of Kosovo was killed?

Of course there was no genocide. Just a very brutal and nasty campaign to fight the KLA and its supporters.
 
Yet they did and you feel fooled that there was no ethnic cleansing? The sites that have evidenced ethnic cleansing conducted on Albanians is too graphic and not allowed to be shown as per rules of DP. But here is a less graphical one:

Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo: An Accounting

See numbers like above 6000 massively murdered and put in mass graves. Happy now?

Thousands more of Serbs were killed. And Sebs and Gypsies were driven away by the KLA.
 
my opinion :

we cover the Americas, China deals with Asia, and Saudi Arabia handles the Middle East. we maintain our alliance with Israel.

if we're to be global cop, there needs to be a global tax to pay for it. even if there were, though, i still wouldn't support it.

also, any police action needs to be met with wartime tax rates at home. we can't afford to put another one on the credit card, and also, shared sacrifice. all tax brackets should go up significantly until the mission is complete.

I disagree completely. I don't want to be the world's police, especially if it's going to cost ME more money in taxes. My government is the most irresponsible entity when it comes to handling money, and I am taxed QUITE enough already thank you.
 
I disagree completely. I don't want to be the world's police, especially if it's going to cost ME more money in taxes. My government is the most irresponsible entity when it comes to handling money, and I am taxed QUITE enough already thank you.

I'm absolutely against being the world's police force, too. Perhaps confiscatory tax rates will lower public appetite for war.
 
I'm absolutely against being the world's police force, too. Perhaps confiscatory tax rates will lower public appetite for war.

Perhaps. That's actually pretty sly. :lol:
 
What if sometime while trying to make Africans more civilized we realize that they tend to worship the prehistoric times?

All the Africans I've met be they black, white or of Asian descent all are on a mission to make Americans think Africa is just as modern as the west and the bush people are only a small subculture similar to our Amish. Of course, I think they are a bit behind in terms of modernization but they don't want us to think that. Its a big pride issue for them for the rest of the world and especially Americans to know they have cell phones, the Internet, cable/satellite TV, cars, highways, shopping malls and air-conditioning. They do not worship tend to worship the prehistoric times from my interactions but embrace modernity and want us to know it.
 
Good to know..which means that despite our "interests" we have no right to control it or to try to destablize an unfriendly government in order to try to control it. That means we just sail around instead. Why? Because we can without war or bullying, as you so nicely pointed out in your other segmented replies.

So you reject your earlier statement that the U.S. should pursue her interests, in favor of the new claim that the U.S. should instead pursue a path of avoiding conflict?

Is "sail around it" your answer to the Strait of Hormuz as well?

Sorry, don't generalize or twist my words. I have made it very clear when military intervention is acceptable...simply because it might make things "easier" for us or "more profitable" does not constitute my support for a war.

You suggested we pursue our interests, and do so with allies. If you wish to put a caveat on that of "unless it means that we may risk getting into a war over those interests", then you need to make that explicit.

Thats a circular world policeman argument that I don't buy. "The oceans are free because WE keep them free, and we keep them free because the oceans ARE free."

Not at all. Shipping lanes are free because we keep them that way, and we do so because it is in our best interest to do so. It is an incredible public good provided by the U.S. because we net-benefit from it.

Sorry, did you miss the part about "act of war?" Chinese or Iranian naval action (i.e. military action of national forces like the act Obama contemplates in Syria) is an act of war. Piracy is reserved for "independent" gangs of individuals.

Right. Except that you are the one who suggested that the threats to free-shipping lanes would come from pirates. The point I am making to you is, in the absence of a global hegemon that provides a security guarantee to global sea lanes, the world breaks back into local, regional hegemons in which each central power (in Asia that is China, in the Persian Gulf, Iran) extends control over the region and suffers no competitors. Except that these powers are not the liberals that we are - they are mercantilists. The Chinese leadership does not believe it is in its' best interest to maintain the Malaccan straits (should they get the ability to do so, which they would in the absence of a forward-deployed 7th Fleet) for the World Trade Organization and all its' member-states; they believe it would be in the best interest to control them for China.

Nice try, but no. We don't keep the oceans free.

Er, yes, we objectively do maintain that as a task for the United States Navy / Marine Corps. Having engaged in collection against the threat and then performed and supported these
missions, I'm rather directly aware of them.

Here is the worlds' shipping routes:

M_WorldShippingRoutes.jpg


You will notice there is significant overlap between major choke points (where the sea lanes concentrate) in the worlds' oceans and regional competitors in both the Pacific and the Persian Gulf, but no such overlap for the concentrations in the Carribbean or the Atlantic, where the dominant power is the U.S. and there are no nations seeking regional hegemony.

Now here is the U.S. Naval Map from STRATFOR as of 29 August:

Naval_Update_08-28-13.jpg


Notice how we're poised to project power into those same concentrations? East Coast naval units don't deploy to patrol the English Channel, they deploy to the 5th Fleet out of Bahrain. West Coast naval units don't focus on Panama, they move to Japan, and then down through the South China Sea to Australia to maintain presence near the SCS Straits.

They are free because they are simply too big to control (or patrol) and because any nation that tried would lose trade doing so.

:lol: Why in the world would any nation that demonstrated an ability to increase the cost of other nations' shipping while decreasing its' own lose trade?

The history of our sea-faring empires belie this claim - control of the worlds' key geography as relates to sea lanes has always enabled - not reduced - trade.

If you mean they are free for US to go just about wherever we want because we currently have the biggest navy...that lasts only as long as we KEEP the biggest navy. Notice China is building up their navy there partner? I wonder how much longer we will have the biggest navy the way our economy is going....

Well you are right to notice that the biggest threat to our own ability to project Naval power is our own fiscal profligacy.

We have no moral high ground to act as the world's policeman.

Sure we do. Of all the worlds' policemen and hegemons, we are the first to do so on behalf of providing a Global Public Good, rather than simply a narrow-self-interest that seeks relative advantage in a zero-sum game. When one recognizes that the alternatives are not "no one polices the world" or "the UN polices the world", but rather "China, Russia, and Iran police their regions of the world as the globe descends into another game of grab-what-you-can", the superiority of the American option becomes almost tautological.

In fact, we have no moral high ground at all

Then if that is the case - and nations do not attain nor ever have the moral high ground - then it is a useless measure, as it cannot ever be applied.

we simply have the power currently to bully just about anyone we want

And yet we do not do so. We do not colonize, we do not invade simply to show off our prowress, we do not massacres others for "The Glory Of [insert capital city or monarch here]". The United State has a very high threshold indeed on when to employ it's incredible might to serve its' interests; and when it does so, feels obliged to do so in a manner so as to at least somewhat benefit those upon whom it is acting. Which makes us rather different from empires of eras past, and is what gives us that "moral high ground" you derided a second ago.

That's why Obama drew his "red line in the sand," because he thought Assad would never cross it. Now he's stuck between acting and maybe getting us into another little dirty war, or backing off and embarassing us internationally.

:shrug: the most important part of a threat is being willing to back it up. But refusing to back up the U.S. security guarantee is a sure loser, and will lead to more deaths and abuses, not fewer.

If we didn't keep acting the bully, we would not be getting into such messes in the first place.

Really. Please tell me what act of bullying on our part caused Syria to descend into civil war? :roll:

And you'll have to forgive me if I look upon the statement "Saying 'Do not use chemical weapons against your own people' is a bullying act" with a rather jaundiced eye.
 
So you reject your earlier statement that the U.S. should pursue her interests, in favor of the new claim that the U.S. should instead pursue a path of avoiding conflict?

I really don't appreciate people appending their slants on MY statements and then declaring these slants are now MY position. Nor do I accept the need to follow their fallacies down paths they wish me to trod. My position has been made perfectly clear; if you are confused by it simply follow the prior posts and read them for comprehension. :)

The "Strait of Hormuz" is shared like the Straits of Malacca. That means no single nation bordering it has absolute control over it, and therefore exclusive claim to it. Now that's the last straw man argument I intend to reply to.

Syria is involved in a civil war, that is none of our business. Like I've told everyone else, if YOU feel the need to fight for one side or the other feel free to gear up and GO there. You have my blessing. Sending American troops, or using American force in "air and missile strikes?" Nope, not without a clear declaration of war by Congress.
 
Good afternoon, Goshin. :2wave:

:agree: History proves that with all the great civilizations that have come and gone...Egypt and Rome being examples. They bankrupted themselves waging wars, and look at where they are today. :shock: They remain great tourist destinations, but that is only so we can view the magnificence they once were, as shown by the pyramids, cathedrals, and aqueducts they built which we can see today. Sad... :peace:

Once Obama threw Mubarak under the bus, Egypt is no longer a tourist destination for anyone from the western world.
 
"World Police"?
What hubris! World judge too, and jailer/executioner, no doubt.
There's no policing involved. The US will do what it sees best for the US and any 'policing' aspect is the job of the spin-doctors.
 
There's a lot of sentiment lately over scaling back America's role outside of our own borders. The position of "global beacon of democracy," "the world's only remaining superpower," etc., etc., comes with what some consider to be a duty to therest of the world that includes being the world's police in the most extreme cases of state sponsored terror. Some accept tgat we have that as part of who we are. Others think only if and when we get a consensus and cooperation from most other governments albeit with our leadership. Others still take the position that its not our concern when atrocities occur outside of the United States. Nature hates a vacuum however and if we turn our backs on the role of global peacekeepers I wonder is the isolationists has considered that and if so do they have a preference on how the world community should respond to atrocities.

I voted America. What's in our general interest is usually what is in the general interest of the world. I know that sounds lame on the surface, but freedom of the seas, airways, resisting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, championing free markets, etc. is generally in the best interest of the world economies. The term, "world police" is really inaccurate because We actually don't get involved in most conflicts throughout the world as our libertarian brothers would believe. Generally,we only get involved in conflicts that effect our interests.

So why us? We are the only major super power as you said. We have the ability. We have the collective conscience to help or try to do good (better than what China would do with such power). If not us, no one else would do it.

I've been around the world, and I've seen the benefits of American influence. I can tell you it is overwhelmingly positive. Without it, again this sounds lame, there would be chaos.
 
I really don't appreciate people appending their slants on MY statements and then declaring these slants are now MY position. Nor do I accept the need to follow their fallacies down paths they wish me to trod. My position has been made perfectly clear; if you are confused by it simply follow the prior posts and read them for comprehension.

:) You declared and I do quote:

Captain Adverse said:
We can make our own alliances and deal with our own interests without outside interference.

and now appear to have a problem with the fact that this is precisely what we are already doing. Our interests are mutually incompatible with other nations' interests, bringing us naturally into conflict.

If you want to modify or explain your position, let me know. I'd be more than happy to discuss it. Simply referencing that you've mentioned it to others without even links, however, is a poor tactic, and makes you appear dodgy.

The "Strait of Hormuz" is shared like the Straits of Malacca. That means no single nation bordering it has absolute control over it, and therefore exclusive claim to it

:lol: so? What in the world makes you think that China or Iran care about whether or not other nations have a claim to critical chokepoints upon which their security and economic posture depend? Shutting the Strait of Hormuz is an Iranian option, and a very serious one - it's one they've threatened before, and the only reason they haven't done it commensurate with their increases in regional influence is because of the presence of the 5th Fleet in Bahrain. Similarly, the Chinese maintain a rife of territorial disputes in this area with Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Japan, and Indonesia; and doesn't use it's (relatively) overpowering navy to seal the deal because of the 7th Fleet and forward-deployed U.S. forces in Okinawa (and starting now, Australia).

What, did you think that in the absence of the U.S. these nations were going to suddenly become followers of Kant and the Perpetual Peace, submitting their national interests to UNCLOS arbitration? Sorry. Asia, Africa, and the Middle East don't live in Kant's world (yet), but in Hobbes'.

Syria is involved in a civil war, that is none of our business. Like I've told everyone else, if YOU feel the need to fight for one side or the other feel free to gear up and GO there. You have my blessing. Sending American troops, or using American force in "air and missile strikes?" Nope, not without a clear declaration of war by Congress.

While Syria's civil war is hardly "none of our business", I'm not aware of anyone calling for us to try to end it one way or the other - for example, the way we did in Libya. Should we attempt to do so, we should make sure that we do so in such a way as to get the greatest relative gain for minimal expenditure of resources (as we did there). Plenty of my fellow conservatives felt the need to critique the President because he was The Other Guy over Libya, but with the exception of some embarrassing rhetoric (lead from behind :roll:... really...), it was actually quite well done.

In the intermediate period in Syria, however, America should nonetheless pursue her interests by both striking key portions of the regimes infrastructure that it is in our interest to destroy or secure (such as her IADs functions and CW stores) while at the same time providing coverage to fleeing groups of civilians. So long as it is contained, Syria's civil war can serve our interests by drawing extremists out of Iraq, and serving to split the efforts of groups who would otherwise be targeting the Suez Canal and Israel, as well as draining the resources of the nation who would otherwise be extending and deepening her influence in Bahrain, and Iraq. But you have to secure the WMD before it get's lost, and you have an interest in being the one providing protection to civilian populaces.
 
cpwill;1062268283....and now appear to have a problem with the fact that [I said:
this is precisely what we are already doing[/I]. Our interests are mutually incompatible with other nations' interests, bringing us naturally into conflict.

If you want to modify or explain your position, let me know. I'd be more than happy to discuss it. Simply referencing that you've mentioned it to others without even links, however, is a poor tactic, and makes you appear dodgy.

(Sigh)...and of course you only go back as far as you think will help your current claim, and ignore EVERYTHING ELSE I've stated showing EXACTLY what I meant by that last comment. Then you decide to append what YOU think I must be talking about and off you go on your own little path thinking I am going to follow you.

Sorry, I don't feel compelled to repeat myself over and over every time someone tries this tactic. I am not an isolationist, I simply prefer we limit military action to declared wars, defense of our treaty allies (again requiring a Congressional declaration of war); or in immediate response to a direct attack (self-defense) followed by a declaration of war. Gee, even FDR still went to Congress to ask for a Declaration of War on December 8, 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbor:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan...As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense...I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

Absent that, we stick to Diplomacy. I believe I've also outlined what I meant by that in this thread. (See Post #52, page 6).

Syria meets none of those conditions.
 
Last edited:
(Sigh)...and of course you only go back as far as you think will help your current claim, and ignore EVERYTHING ELSE I've stated showing EXACTLY what I meant by that last comment. Then you decide to append what YOU think I must be talking about and off you go on your own little path thinking I am going to follow you.

Sorry, I don't feel compelled to repeat myself over and over every time someone tries this tactic. I am not an isolationist, I simply prefer we limit military action to declared wars, defense of our treaty allies (again requiring a Congressional declaration of war); or in immediate response to a direct attack (self-defense) followed by a declaration of war. Gee, even FDR still went to Congress to ask for a Declaration of War on December 8, 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbor:

Absent that, we stick to Diplomacy. I believe I've also outlined what I meant by that in this thread. (See Post #52, page 6).

So Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz would not be something you would intervene in? Meaning that we are not pursuing our interests.

You're not interested in repeating yourself? I'm not interested in going back and reading through everything you've ever written in the hopes of coming across the nugget you reference but do not describe (until now). If you are going to claim that others have a poor understanding of your position, then you need to be able to adequately express that position.

The position you describe is fine. It would even be preferable if it was still the 19th century and Britain was still global naval hegemon. Sadly, we are no longer able to free-ride on the expenditures of others; and so to benefit from our current global supply chain we must instead bear the costs of underpinning it ourselves.

It would also be preferable if there were no chemical weapons dangerously loose in Syria. Again, sadly, such is the case. The idea that we would fail to launch preemptive strikes against threats flowing to us from Islamist jihadi networks died on 9/11.

Syria meets none of those conditions.

Actually Syria has shot at both Turkey (a member of NATO) and Israel (a treaty ally) now, as well as served as a launchpad for attacks that cost thousands of American lives in Iraq. If Syria wants to claim a monopoly of force in her borders, then she has to accept responsibility for the force projecting from within her borders - meaning that she is already at war with us.
 
Thousands more of Serbs were killed. And Sebs and Gypsies were driven away by the KLA.

More Serbs killed than Albanians?

That source of mine cites 6 thousand Albanians massively murdered and put to mass graves in a systematic fashion as seen during Hitler. If you have sources that we did more than 6 thousand of Serbs so as to backup your claims you are very welcomed to provide them.

This certainly requires a source. Have any?
 
All the Africans I've met be they black, white or of Asian descent all are on a mission to make Americans think Africa is just as modern as the west and the bush people are only a small subculture similar to our Amish. Of course, I think they are a bit behind in terms of modernization but they don't want us to think that. Its a big pride issue for them for the rest of the world and especially Americans to know they have cell phones, the Internet, cable/satellite TV, cars, highways, shopping malls and air-conditioning. They do not worship tend to worship the prehistoric times from my interactions but embrace modernity and want us to know it.

Well there is some movement to make ME more civilized by pushing them the f away from religion. Any programs do you know aimed to civilize Africa?
 
More Serbs killed than Albanians?

That source of mine cites 6 thousand Albanians massively murdered and put to mass graves in a systematic fashion as seen during Hitler. If you have sources that we did more than 6 thousand of Serbs so as to backup your claims you are very welcomed to provide them.

This certainly requires a source. Have any?

I understand you have a poor command of the English language.

Claiming that Albanians were killed by Serbs in a systematic and genocidal manner is an obvious lie. Then there should have been hundreds of thousands of Albanian dead, quod non.
 
I understand you have a poor command of the English language.

Claiming that Albanians were killed by Serbs in a systematic and genocidal manner is an obvious lie. Then there should have been hundreds of thousands of Albanian dead, quod non.

There would be if the ethnic cleansing lasted for years as it did in Bosnia. Luckily it was only 77 days. So 6000 children, women, and elderly ethnically cleansed systematically for 77 days during bombing as well as prior to that while negotiations were taking place give or take 2-3 months and you have an achievement.

But you see, I would not even take this route in conversation with you if you did not told me you were a Belg from Brussels. But knowing that, and continuing with blabber even when presented with sources, and inability to backup your statements with sources (i.e., more Serbs killed than Albanians?), just shows me that you may have slipped to the other side of RT media.

So I guess I feel a bit pity about you for being influenced by their lies. Hence this form of communication in trying to persuade you that (as the source can point out) civilians got ethnically cleansed in deed. I find you very atypical for a Belg also.

Alternatively, you could be trolling perhaps?
 
There would be if the ethnic cleansing lasted for years as it did in Bosnia. Luckily it was only 77 days. So 6000 children, women, and elderly ethnically cleansed systematically for 77 days during bombing as well as prior to that while negotiations were taking place give or take 2-3 months and you have an achievement.

But you see, I would not even take this route in conversation with you if you did not told me you were a Belg from Brussels. But knowing that, and continuing with blabber even when presented with sources, and inability to backup your statements with sources (i.e., more Serbs killed than Albanians?), just shows me that you may have slipped to the other side of RT media.

So I guess I feel a bit pity about you for being influenced by their lies. Hence this form of communication in trying to persuade you that (as the source can point out) civilians got ethnically cleansed in deed. I find you very atypical for a Belg also.

Alternatively, you could be trolling perhaps?

I never denied that there were campaigns waged against the Albanians by the Serbs. But there never was a genocide or an attempted genocide. And the campaign of the Serbs against the Albanians was followed by a similar campaign by the Albanians against the Serbs and other minority groups in Kosovo.

You are simply every bit as much of an extremist as the Serb extremists.
 
There would likely be much less major conflict and acts of terrorism if no single country or group of countries were to assume or even agree to police the world. Each nation should be allowed to retain their sovereignty as long as they keep their internal differences within their own borders.
 
Back
Top Bottom