Should America be the Policeman of the World? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message

Leon_Figg3 -> Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/20/2008 11:11:38 PM)

I hope that I am posting this thread in the right forum. I would post this in the Current Events forum but I have a pretty good idea what the resposnes may be, but I am not opening this thread to either rehash old arguements about Iraq, or policize the discussion anymore than it really needs to be . Also, the question(s) that this thread may delve into do not directly deal with current events but they do deal with general ideologies, rationals people use for justifying reasons for war and the conduct of those wars.

I have thought of various ways to open this thread and have decided that perhaps the best way woulld be to simply ask the question(s).

Does, or does not America have the right and responsibility, as a super power, to act as the policeman of the world picking and choosing under what conditions, reasons, and proceesses it will challlenge and interfere in the affairs of other countries?

Having engaged in a war, does America have the right/ responsibility to treat individuals, captured in a war zone, as criminals, POWs or terrorists?

How should terrorists and terrorism be seen in this modern age in which individuals/ goups may fight more for ideologies than for countries that they swear no allegiance to? An age in which countries, and powerfiul, wealthy people have learned to use proxies to fight for their cause.

In some respects these questions may seem simple to some, but in light of recent history, and proposals made in regard to the WoT and certain individuals seen as chiefly responsible for that war (at least held responsible for a dramatic attack on American soil), these questions may not be as simple to answer as some may seem.



relady -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/21/2008 12:55:27 AM)

quote:

Does, or does not America have the right and responsibility, as a super power, to act as the policeman of the world picking and choosing under what conditions, reasons, and proceesses it will challlenge and interfere in the affairs of other countries?
Nope.

quote:

Having engaged in a war, does America have the right/ responsibility to treat individuals, captured in a war zone, as criminals, POWs or terrorists?
They should be treated as POWs.



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/21/2008 1:13:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: relady

quote:

Does, or does not America have the right and responsibility, as a super power, to act as the policeman of the world picking and choosing under what conditions, reasons, and proceesses it will challlenge and interfere in the affairs of other countries?
Nope.

quote:

Having engaged in a war, does America have the right/ responsibility to treat individuals, captured in a war zone, as criminals, POWs or terrorists?
They should be treated as POWs.

Then why do some people, in America, believe we should be the policeman of the world and treat individuals, captured in a war zone, as nothing but criminals?



relady -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 1:14:46 AM)

quote:

Then why do some people, in America, believe we should be the policeman of the world and treat individuals, captured in a war zone, as nothing but criminals?
I really don't know. I guess you would have to ask them. I have never felt we should try and police the world. And if we are fighting a war then the captured on either side should be considered POWs. Of course, traditionally, we have always treated POWs very well to encourage decent treatment of our forces who end up as POWs. That seems to have changed some lately....



FurGodWurLivin -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 5:00:42 AM)

I'm going to attempt to not be overly didactic with this response, so please accept my apologies if I do not succeed.

Do we have the responsibility to be the "policeman of the world"? This is a question that has a very complicated answer. It must be asked, why do we feel a need to be the policeman of the world? The answer? World War 2. Because of America's isolationist attitude to the world prior to 1942, we didn't intervene in what should have been deemed a genocide until Japan attacked Peal Harbor. Because of this (and the cries of "never again!" proceeding from the Liberal Jewish lobbyists) we cannot go back to being isolationist. I think everyone can agree with the idea of Saddaam Hussein needing to have been removed from power... regardless of our feelings on how it was accomplished. However, it is more complicated than even that. Because of our various political factions, and the various derrogatory names that accompany them (ie, bleeding heart liberal, hillbilly conservative) we cannot not intervene when something drastic is happening in the world. If there is a massive humans rights thing going on, the Liberals will go nuts (Darfur, anyone?) and if it is conceivable that our moniker of "greatest nation on earth" is at stake, the conservatives will go nuts. I think it is possible that we are victims of our own successes...

Secondly, due to the influence of the "globalization" crowd, it behooves us to intervene when a nation is not being a "good global citizen".[:'(] If not, we are not doing our part to lead the world to a peaceful Utopian society where we can freely worship the might of the human spirit. That sounds extremely socialistic, and for that I do apologize... but I calls 'em the way I sees 'em.

Now, do we have the RIGHT to be the policeman of the world? The 600 pound gorilla sleeps where it wants... 'Nuff said.
quote:

Having engaged in a war, does America have the right/ responsibility to treat individuals, captured in a war zone, as criminals, POWs or terrorists?
This is a sticky political question. If we are to classify those at Guantanamo Bay as POW's, it gives legitimacy to not only the war in Iraq, but also to the global War on Terror... and oh the horror if we were to do that. If we classify them as criminals, we have no jurisdiction to arrest them because the ones that are being apprehended now have not committed crimes (that we know of) on US soil (at least some of them haven't). So the classification of Terrorist is actually quite convenient because it implies an offense greater than that of a common fellon who escaped the country, but it isn't as dramatic as legitimizing what the deomcrats laughingly call an "illegal invasion" of Iraq... that they voted to approve. So, as bad as that sounds, everybody wins... except the terrorists. In the specific case of Iraqi detainee's, my personal conviction is that they should be treated as POW's until it is proven that they have committed an actual crime (such as conspiracy to attack the USA). However, that is very easy to say as a person who is living relatively comfortably (barring the gasoline price) at home.

"The armchair quaterback always seems to think they are the smartest person on the field..."-- Eisenhower

Adam



SonInMe1 -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 8:20:48 AM)

For those whom have been given much, much is expected.

Its not a question of should America be the world police....its should we not?



psende -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 9:30:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SonInMe1

For those whom have been given much, much is expected.

Its not a question of should America be the world police....its should we not?

That is really a good answer.

After WWII, Europe and much of Asia were in shambles. Had the US stepped back at that point and let each nation fend for itself, there would be no European prosperity today. The areas of Asia that were war-torn would also have been in bad shape even today.

If the US had not assumed the leadership role it did, the world would today be a much sadder place.

That is not to say that the US is without fault; but I believe it is more (far more) without fault than any other nation would be in the same circumstances.

Much of the world bad-mouths the US, and what is amazing is that the United States citizenry takes it in stride as does it's leaders. Nowhere else would you find this geatness of heart.



fiat_lux -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 9:51:53 AM)

quote:

Because of our various political factions, and the various derrogatory names that accompany them (ie, bleeding heart liberal, hillbilly conservative) we cannot not intervene when something drastic is happening in the world. If there is a massive humans rights thing going on, the Liberals will go nuts (Darfur, anyone?) and if it is conceivable that our moniker of "greatest nation on earth" is at stake, the conservatives will go nuts. I think it is possible that we are victims of our own successes...

In a sense I think you may be right. A history of interventions makes one more intervention a lot more tempting. It has to be said, though, that America's record - and I'm not intending just for straight America-bashing here, hear me out - isn't really about policing for human rights or peace or whatever else. Some of the world's more abusive regimes remain our allies, and Western initiatives, usually (beacuse of its power) spearheaded by America, have been plenty violent, even aggressive, before.

The key thing, though, is that a policeman is subject to the rule of a higher law and a higher authority, and acts to enforce that law. Whether this can be said of the U.S. in the world today is debatable. Most American-led interventions lead to some improvement in terms of liberty and democracy, but the U.S. is usually reluctant to submit to international law itself. A policeman with little regard for the law is, well, not a very good policeman.

quote:

This is a sticky political question. If we are to classify those at Guantanamo Bay as POW's, it gives legitimacy to not only the war in Iraq, but also to the global War on Terror... and oh the horror if we were to do that. If we classify them as criminals, we have no jurisdiction to arrest them because the ones that are being apprehended now have not committed crimes (that we know of) on US soil (at least some of them haven't). So the classification of Terrorist is actually quite convenient because it implies an offense greater than that of a common fellon who escaped the country, but it isn't as dramatic as legitimizing what the deomcrats laughingly call an "illegal invasion" of Iraq... that they voted to approve. So, as bad as that sounds, everybody wins... except the terrorists.

Well, sort of. The other thing that loses in your scenario is the rule of law.

quote:

Nowhere else would you find this geatness of heart.

With all due respect, statements like this might be part of the reason why people complain about the United States citizenry.



humbleinspirit -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 9:59:02 AM)

I believe that the U.S. does need to protest its interest, that is its own security. I do not believe that they should interfere with foreign relations unless there is human rights violations, and even then it should be done with grat caution.

It was said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and would eventually use them on the U.S. At least that was the reason for going in there anyway. Now we are just in a big mess instead!



solarflare -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 10:03:37 AM)

quote:

It was said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and would eventually use them on the U.S. At least that was the reason for going in there anyway. Now we are just in a big mess instead!


Massive over-simplification.



humbleinspirit -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 10:14:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare

quote:

It was said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and would eventually use them on the U.S. At least that was the reason for going in there anyway. Now we are just in a big mess instead!


Massive over-simplification.


Maybe, but that was the laymans terms that was given for it.



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 10:33:49 AM)

SonInMe,
Thank you for using my signature block. It prompted me to fially research and discover where I had heard it. I have long suspected it was a Bible verse but was never sure where.

Even though Matthew (the Beatitudes) is my favorite book in the Bible it seems that this verse has been a guide for me as far as facing individual concerns and concerns of the world (world view).



Zhi -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 2:35:21 PM)

quote:

Then why do some people, in America, believe we should be the policeman of the world and treat individuals, captured in a war zone, as nothing but criminals?


I can answer the second half I think.

The Geneva Convention has very strict specifications regarding what being a "soldier" means, and what being a "prisoner of war" means. Anyone who does not fulfill the Geneva Convention specifications of "soldier" cannot engage in combat. If they do, it's considered a criminal act, not an act of war, therefore, they are arrested as a prisoner on a criminal basis, not on a prisoner of war basis. Prisoner of war is a designation reserved for someone who fulfills the requirements to be considered a "soldier". Specifically, a "soldier" must have some sort of identifying mark... usually a uniform, but wearing a colored armband or the like also counts, and must carry their weapons openly during military operations and the preparation thereof.

Combatants who deliberately ignore the requirements of the Geneva Convention are not protected by the Geneva Convention and can furthermore be held culpable for civilian endangerment.

So, basically, they're treated as criminals because according to the Geneva Convention, it's illegal to engage in combat without being specifically marked as a valid combatant.



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 9:09:33 PM)

fiar_lux,
Who is responsible for establishuing "international law"?

What is "international law" actually based on?

Isn't "international law" based on the notion of what is a right and proper way of conducting war, at a given point in time?

At one point in time-our Revolutionary War- the way we fought was not seen as right and proper because, at the time, right and proper dictated that soldiers meet each other on a field of battle.

Then around WWI, the use of airships was not seen as right and proper because it put soldiers at a distance from battlefields.

Then WWII introduced many ways of conducting war that were not exactly considered right and proper.

Wars, and the conduct of war, always bring into question what is right and proper.

What happens when what is right and proper fails to resolve a conflict in a timely manner?

What happens when conducting a war, in accordance to what is right and proper, actually makes matters worse, instead of better, especially when the other side, either a country, or an organization has not signed onto the concept of "international law"?

Whether or not "international law" exists, are we not held by a higher authority?

I believe Washington had it right that our approach/ conduct of war should be governed by assuring that we conduct ourselves at higher moral standard of conduct than those we are fighting.

As for the Geneva Convention, if it was truely followed there would be no reason for war since it requires that countries, holding POWs treat them better than they treat their own soldiers.

Also, I believe there is a section in the Geneva Convention that allows us, which we are doing, to hold uniformed individuals in a war zone as POWs, rather than criminals until such time that accusations and charges against them could be investigated. (Sorry but I'll have to review the Geneva Convention to make sure.)



galadriel2 -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 10:04:35 PM)

I don't think we have the ability to police the whole world. Best to stick to our own country and then on the international level - to pick our battles wisely, it seems to me.

God bless,
Galadriel2



galadriel2 -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/22/2008 10:16:23 PM)

As far as international law and where it comes from - it comes from several sources - precedent, treaties, laws that are customary in nations who are part of the international community. Generally speaking though, as far as I understand it, the laws of nations takes precedent over international law where there is a conflict.

God bless,
Galadriel2



deliveredarling -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/23/2008 9:09:16 AM)

I haven't read all the other responses.

No, it is most definitely not our responsibility to police the world. In fact, it is irresponsible of our nation. We are in the situation we are in because we have decided to make the rest of the world our business. We decide the rest of the world needed to change, not them asking us to change them. We have now taken it upon ourselves to them them that their cultural differences are wrong, when they have lived, breathed, thrived for thousands of years before America was ever established. Who are we to tell another country their beliefs are wrong. Who are we to decide that the need freedom. Most of these countries didn't know what it was and were perfectly happy without it. Now look at what freedom has done for them! Their countries are destroyed, we owe them for repairs and destructions our ideology has created! I'll stop here because this subject puts me on an never ending rant![:@]



rnershigh -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/23/2008 9:58:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: deliveredarling

I haven't read all the other responses.

No, it is most definitely not our responsibility to police the world. In fact, it is irresponsible of our nation. We are in the situation we are in because we have decided to make the rest of the world our business. We decide the rest of the world needed to change, not them asking us to change them. We have now taken it upon ourselves to them them that their cultural differences are wrong, when they have lived, breathed, thrived for thousands of years before America was ever established. Who are we to tell another country their beliefs are wrong. Who are we to decide that the need freedom. Most of these countries didn't know what it was and were perfectly happy without it. Now look at what freedom has done for them! Their countries are destroyed, we owe them for repairs and destructions our ideology has created! I'll stop here because this subject puts me on an never ending rant![:@]


I for one am glad that the U.S. decided to "police the world" during WWII and the Korean War.
Having heard from my mother what my grandmother endured in an occupied Korea from Japan until they were liberated when Japan surrendered, and then what she went through during the Korean War, I am glad the U.S. came to the rescue when the North Korean army invaded the South.
If it weren't for U.S. efforts, manpower, and supplies, there would be no N. and S. Korea as we know it today, it'd be one Korea under the control of a government like the N. Korean government oppressing its people and starving them.
Instead, S. Korea is a country that enjoys a democratic government, with a high literacy and education rate, and a very vibrant economy.

I agree with SoninMe and psende.



EStan -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/23/2008 10:46:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rnershigh

quote:

ORIGINAL: deliveredarling

I haven't read all the other responses.

No, it is most definitely not our responsibility to police the world. In fact, it is irresponsible of our nation. We are in the situation we are in because we have decided to make the rest of the world our business. We decide the rest of the world needed to change, not them asking us to change them. We have now taken it upon ourselves to them them that their cultural differences are wrong, when they have lived, breathed, thrived for thousands of years before America was ever established. Who are we to tell another country their beliefs are wrong. Who are we to decide that the need freedom. Most of these countries didn't know what it was and were perfectly happy without it. Now look at what freedom has done for them! Their countries are destroyed, we owe them for repairs and destructions our ideology has created! I'll stop here because this subject puts me on an never ending rant![:@]


I for one am glad that the U.S. decided to "police the world" during WWII and the Korean War.
Having heard from my mother what my grandmother endured in an occupied Korea from Japan until they were liberated when Japan surrendered, and then what she went through during the Korean War, I am glad the U.S. came to the rescue when the North Korean army invaded the South.
If it weren't for U.S. efforts, manpower, and supplies, there would be no N. and S. Korea as we know it today, it'd be one Korea under the control of a government like the N. Korean government oppressing its people and starving them.
Instead, S. Korea is a country that enjoys a democratic government, with a high literacy and education rate, and a very vibrant economy.

I agree with SoninMe and psende.


Agreed. Anyone who thinks the world today would be a better place if we'd stayed out of WWI, WWII, and Indochina are missing the big picture IMHO.

So let me ask this: why would someone say the U.S. has no right to "police" the world, but then demands that we do something about Bosnia, Somalia, and the current atrocities in Darfur, Sudan?



WesP -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/23/2008 11:12:51 AM)

quote:

I for one am glad that the U.S. decided to "police the world" during WWII


Actually, we were isolationists when WWII started. We entered after we were attacked. That is much of the reason that we do not take an isolationist stance any longer. We already paid the price to learn that lesson.



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/23/2008 12:51:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: deliveredarling

I haven't read all the other responses.

No, it is most definitely not our responsibility to police the world. In fact, it is irresponsible of our nation. We are in the situation we are in because we have decided to make the rest of the world our business. We decide the rest of the world needed to change, not them asking us to change them. We have now taken it upon ourselves to them them that their cultural differences are wrong, when they have lived, breathed, thrived for thousands of years before America was ever established. Who are we to tell another country their beliefs are wrong. Who are we to decide that the need freedom. Most of these countries didn't know what it was and were perfectly happy without it. Now look at what freedom has done for them! Their countries are destroyed, we owe them for repairs and destructions our ideology has created! I'll stop here because this subject puts me on an never ending rant![:@]

delivereddarling,
First of all, let me thank you for your response. You bring up some valid concerns. I do believe these are concerns that America has tried to keep in mind as we have become involved in other countries. Sometimes we haven't done a good of a job as we probably should have in thinking along those lines, but on the whole our history has shown that we do not seek to dictate to people how they should live, or what they should believe.

Our history, our background has shown that at the core of our ideology is what is at the core of each and every individual-the desire to feel free and secure as we live our lives and to be all that we can be, and are meant to be.

Our history and our background has shown that we know what it is like to be under the thumb of all kinds of tyrants and dictators.

I know that it was not a very big selling point for the war in Iraq, but I do believe that people in Iraq were calling for our help. They were calling us to help them be liberated from those who were missusing them. People throughout the world have been and are calling for us to help them in many ways especially in the numbers of people who seek escape from their country to come live here either legally or illegally.

If countries have been destroyed because of freedom, doesn't that tell you that the desire for freedom is alive in each and every person in the world? Che Guevere (sp) led many revolutions so that people may be free from abuse by the wealthy, militarily powerful, politically connected elite in vatious countries of Latin America.



deliveredarling -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/23/2008 6:25:08 PM)

quote:


Our history, our background has shown that at the core of our ideology is what is at the core of each and every individual-the desire to feel free and secure as we live our lives and to be all that we can be, and are meant to be.


I don't believe this to be true at all. It is evidenced in the terrorist reactions to us. They react to us because we have infringed upon their culture and territory. We don't understand their cultural beliefs or systems. We fought for our freedom because we wanted it. They did not. How could they desire something they do not even know or understand. We have thrown chaos into countries by insisting upon change. Why do you think that agreements can not be made for peace? Countries have such diverse religions that they live by. Their very essence depends upon their religious beliefs. It's at the core. We can not be responsible for every single country that runs into problems of some sort. The finances in America have been depleted, abused, misused and are unstable. but because we have run to the rescue for so many others, we do not have money to take care of the very soldiers we sent to help. We can't end our own hunger problem, our own homeless, our own rising medical cost. We have a debt we can't pay back to China. Yet, we still magically produce numbers on paper and play games with serious funds to the point that money has shifted out our the baby boomer's Social Security funds. There won't be any left for the future generations, all because they found a money supply in a temporary system. Our government doesn't manage itself with the well being of it's citizens as first priority, how can it possibly manage another country's any better?



SonInMe1 -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/23/2008 7:56:23 PM)

Sometimes in these things there are no easy answers...or even good answers but, actions must be made.

quote:

We can not be responsible for every single country that runs into problems of some sort.


Neither are policemen responsiblke for every problem a citizen encounters but there is a time and place for policing.

quote:

The finances in America have been depleted, abused, misused and are unstable.


If fighting for the freedom of others is wasted money, then waste away. We waste so much more on completely ridiculous stuff right here at home that has nothing to do with the great work our military does....and if a soldier is underfunded its not because we do not have the resources...its because getting elected and supporting the troops do not go hand in hand anymore.

Social Security is threatened by raiding.



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/24/2008 1:38:38 AM)

deliveredarling,
With all due respect I disagree with your conclusions.

Yes, we have problems and we very well may not be meeting all of our domestic needs, but I do not believe it is because we are busy helping others so much. If anything, we are guilty of not using our money and resources wisely. We are guilty of stifling imagination and initiative. We are guilty of increasingly placing our domestic priorities, interests, and sense of responsibilities in the worng places.

As far as your concern about our approach to Eastern religions, I believe we have had knowledge of these religions. We are well aware that, in many ways Eastern philosophy runs contrary to Western philosophy. But I am not talking about philosophical differences. I am talking about basic human nature. Philosophies arise out of man's need to explain, understand and control human nature.



deliveredarling -> RE: Should America be the Policeman of the World? (7/24/2008 9:15:27 AM)

Religion is a driving force of culture. It can not be ignored. Islam is a driving force in our present occupation of Iraq. Their country is utterly destroyed and for what? They did not ask us to come in and remove SH, we wanted the oil. Pure and simple. In that process, we have destroyed culture that did not operate as we see fit. Their ideas do not match ours or even come close. We should have left well enough alone. Things that we find absolutely appalling, horrendous, abusive ect are norms for their culture. Just because we may not agree with it because of the cultural norms a morays of our country, does not make them wrong in their country. It's dictated by their religion. Same with us, we live and breathe based on the foundations of a Christian Nation. Or at least we used too.
Our countries finances are in the shape they are in because of of the same things you mentioned. You forgot the biggest issue though that rules our country-GREED. And it's a monster devouring it's citizens.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI