Who Put The US In Charge Of Policing The World?

1. 72

   rhamsonposted 14 years ago

   With the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by US troops and recent sanctions being considered in Iran, who put the US in charge of cleaning up these countries and instituting democracy as the government that should rule these nations?
   
   The US has a perfect right to defend itself from enemies without and within such as when Al Qaeda operations were launched from Afghanistan with the 911 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.  But when did it become okay to overthrow the sponsoring governments and inject our ideology in their cultures and space?
   
   The US may be a mighty military force to deal with but did we not learn from the Vietnam campaign when the US ideology just is not a fit for a determined population to resist our demands?

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Ivorwenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I have been wondering this exact same thing for some time now.  I wish there were real answers, and that the USA would mind it's own business!  I wish our troops were patrolling our boarders, and keeping us safe, rather than fighting around the world.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         " I wish our troops were patrolling our boarders, and keeping us safe, rather than fighting around the world."
         
         They are one and the same

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The lesson from Vietnam should have been to bomb,bomb, bomb your enemy into submission! Sadly, the Pentagon didn't learn anything.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         War Made Easy:
         
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhIhOKZDPBM

         replyreport
   3. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Well on this I think we can agree. I'm tired of using my tax money to protect foreign interests! If a nation is going to go to war it should be for two reasons, to conquer and plunder, or to defend from the same.
      
      I think it's foreign nations that ask the USA to get involved, often without admitting their request. Frankly, if we're not going to get paid for it, we shouldn't do it anymore. I'm all for returning all American troops back to the homeland and letting foreigners protect themselves. Oh, and don't come crying to the USA when your country is overrun with invaders!

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Another question is, why should the U.S. lead humanitarian efforts around the world?
      
      Who put us in charge of making sure Countries effected by disaster get relief?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Good point! But no one ever wants to talk about the good the USA does, so yes, let's put a stop to that to.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Works for me!

            replyreport
   5. 64

      Greek Oneposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I think it was this guy..
      

      replyreport
      1. 59

         qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         "This guy" said: "Speak softly but carry a big stick!"
         On this planet with billions of crazy humans, nuclear warheads must take the place of the "big stick!"
         J. Edgar Hoover said if we want to beat 'em, we have to out man 'em and out gun 'em!
         Man is, genetically, a warring creature.
         Isolationism has been tried.
         Oceans once seperated us. That was protection!
         The world "shrank!"
         We are now surrounded by pugnacious, hateful, religious, greedy fearfilled, superstitious, ignorant primitives who would love to see us under their "heels!"
         If you have another way you think might bring the world to it's senses and function as a synergistic unit for ALL our benefit....pls...offer it!
         Otherwise quit'cher bitch'in!

         replyreport
   6. 60

      Danny R Handposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Harry S. Truman

      replyreport
2. 72

   rhamsonposted 14 years ago

   The monies that would become available by stopping the US participation in these shenanagins would boggle the mind.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Yes but what would we do with all those soldiers? Face it the government need the military to enforce order. It serves as a sort of welfare program employing millions. The military also knows that it's role is to secure the government and in return they get to develop new weapons and to test them.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with you on this Poppa Blues.  Iguess it would also have a reverse affect on our Military Industrial Complex as many jobs would disappear without the war demand.  Kind of a Catch 22.

         replyreport
         1. 63

            Wayne Orvisburgposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            But how many jobs would be created by all the tax money we'd all save and get to spend on ourselves? Oh wait, we wouldn't get it back, the govt would still keep it and waste it however they want. Never mind.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Bingo! That's why government should fear the people and not the other way around! We need to make government as small as possible to insure it has a minimal impact on our lives and we should start by demanding term limits NOW!

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  We must be on a roll Poppa Blues.  That is the third time we have agreed on something today.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     OMG! I might have to go for liberal detox!

                     replyreport
                     1. 72

                        rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Hell I may need a de-crustification.

                        replyreport
3. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago

   

   replyreport
4. 60

   kephriraposted 14 years ago

   The doctrine of liberal interventionism (i.e. starting wars to spread democracy and save people from evil dictators) was one of Tony Blair's pet projects after succesful and locally popular interventions in Sierra Leone and what was Yugoslavia, which was then applied hurredly and not very well in Iraq and Afghansitan because Bush (perhaps understandably if not forgivably) wanted a swift response to 9/1. But that doesn't make it wrong.
   
   Think about it this way - if your neighbour was beating his wife and raping his daughter, and you knew it for sure, but there were no police to do anything about it, would you just shrug your shoulders and says it's non of your business or would you go around and give him a kicking?

   replyreport
   1. 72

      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The key to that is if you "knew it for sure".  The action of a neighbor most assuredly is not acceptable but were you to intervene should you not be held accountable for your actions?  What if the rest of the community felt that you were not honest with your intentions? What if they thought you were trying to inflict your values or religion on them due to your actions?
      
      We took Afghanistan and put the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the run.  We should have erased that threat and left.  Instead we overthrew Iraq and have left neither country.
      
      "WE" (the US) went in without much support and took over even after the threat was greatly reduced.  We stayed and demanded they accept our governing ideology.
      
      If is kind of like going into your neighbors house and removing the father who beat his wife and raped his daughter and decided they should adopt your way of life and moved in until they accepted it.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         kephriraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with you about Iraq, I didn't think it was a good idea at the time and I wouldn't defend it. But saying we should have overthrown the Taleban and then just left is insane. Apart from anything else within a week of leaving the Taleban would back in charge and Al Qaeda would be rebuilding their training camps, making the whole thing pointless.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            And if we knew that these things were ramping up again we would bomb the pants off them until they got the message.  It worked in Bosnia!
            
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_NATO_ … erzegovina
            
            This was also a popular way of dealing with the situation with limiting loss of life and expense to the allies.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               kephriraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Bosnia had UN peackeeper there for ages afterwards, and they were never just left with no government. You can't just take out a country's government and then leave, or even worse keep taking it out every time they try to rebuild it. You have to take some moral responsibilty for your actions.
               
               We could have taken out the Al Qaeda training camps, and kept taking them out, but left the Taliban in place. But the problem with that is we would have to keep taking them out forever with even less chance of a final ending than we have now, and there would also have been a much higher risk of a substnatial Al Qaeda presence in the country managing to stay under the radar and continue operating there in hidden places protected by the Taliban government.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Precisely what I am saying.  the reason why there was a victory in Bosnia is because we did not attempt to re-invent government for them.  The people got tired of the war and we accelerated the process in helping to put the bad guys on the run.
                  
                  Sure the Taliban would stay in power and yes it was an oppressive government but it was their government and not ours to remedy.  And sure Al Qaeda would try to pop up again and we would have to monitor them for possible "re-education" time to time but where is our responsiblity in all of this.
                  
                  Israel exists because of the US.  If Israel is at war with most of the countries over there, then so are we.  They do not make a distinction between the two. We think we are in the moral right when defending that position but the fact remains that we support Israel and therefore are at war with Israels enemies as well.
                  
                  Us against the world is not working and we should take a step back and re-evaluate our priorities.

                  replyreport
                  1. 56

                     Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     "Sure the Taliban would stay in power and yes it was an oppressive government but it was their government and not ours to remedy"
                     
                     Wrong. They saw to it that it became our problem to solve by their actions.

                     replyreport
               2. 56

                  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  "We could have taken out the Al Qaeda training camps, and kept taking them out, but left the Taliban in place"
                  
                  Clinton tried bombing sand from a hundred miles away. It didn't work out.

                  replyreport
      2. 56

         Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         "We should have erased that threat and left."
         
         Really? Is that how it works? 

         replyreport
5. 67

   MikeNVposted 14 years ago

   Follow the money trail... if you can.
   
   War is about money.  It's very profitable.
   
   And money is not just being spent blowing things up and building war equipment.  Money is being spent building roads and schools in an attempt to con the civilians into believing we are on their side.  There are no sides... just money.
   
   Anybody who believes war is a good thing needs to reevaluate their understanding of human purpose.
   
   SouthPark Creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker made a movie about this very issue called:
   
   Team America World Police.
   
   http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/
   
   It's quite entertaining.  Watch it if you can sometime.
   
   Throughout history there has always been "leaders" who will use war to stuff their pockets... it's always about money.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Shadesbreathposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Great movie pull.  That movie and Idiocracy pretty much sum up the U.S. trajectory.

      replyreport
6. 61

   tobey100posted 14 years ago

   I'm pretty sure it was Buford Rideout.  He's my next door neighbor down the road and he usually starts everything.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It was Senator Beauregard T. Claghorn.

      replyreport
7. 75

   Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago

   Who Put The US In Charge Of Policing The World?
   
   Christianity, by making us be the 'Moral Country'. The shining example of doing good for others even if we got nothing out of it in return.
   
   The Forefathers, By teaching us that fighting for the underdog was and is, a just cause. They also taught us to stand up for what one believes in, even if the chances of success are slim.
   
   Lincoln, by fighting the good fight, even if that fight was with your own.
   
   The White Race... By standing up for the minorities, even when it was not in our best interest. Including fighting and dying to free the slaves.
   
   The great thinkers of this nation, by showing us how... By getting it done, no matter what.
   
   WE did. By being the only ones on Earth who can.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Most excellent.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Went ta school in Texas did ya'?

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         nope

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            You are qualified to edit textbooks that would meet that state's ummm, unique standards.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Got Proof?

               replyreport
      2. 60

         Danny R Handposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I really dig you.

         replyreport
   3. 72

      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      With a statement like "Christianity did" you assume there should be a world religion as all others must submit to the same understanding.  Also including that the US is the "Moral Country" is equally ludicrous with the corruption that has reared its' ugly face within our foreign dealings.
      
      If America was so "Morally" governed by the what the world needs why is it that poor African countries are left to fend for themselves against warlords and the drug dealer infested countries in South America are allowed to prosper with the full support of the Moral Christian American Government.
      
      You really have take a step back and re-evaluate such a ludicrous statement such as you have made.  I don't feel sorry for your take on the situation but am fearful of the possibility that there are more out there that subscribe to such lunacy.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         In the beginning of its creation the United States was a Christian country. Christian beliefs and moral were passed down through generations.
         
         
         
         Which countries?

         replyreport
         1. 72

            rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Huh?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               What do you mean "huh"? Did you not see the excerpts I was replying to?

               replyreport
      2. 75

         Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         nope

         replyreport
         1. 72

            rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            As I suspected.

            replyreport
   4. 56

      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "The White Race... By standing up for the minorities, even when it was not in our best interest. Including fighting and dying to free the slaves."
      
      Hmmm...I don't think 'the white race' gets to boast about that one.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I agree.  Not a good enough track record to base that one on.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Only the ones with power could give power to those without it.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               so very true.

               replyreport
      2. 75

         Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         really? what races fought in the civil war?
         
         and what races were in control of the policies of the nation and the military at the start of the civil war?
         
         asians? it certaintly wasn't the powerless slaves that decided the national policy in the office of the president... Or was Obama the 16th president?
         
         {making a reference to the first Black President.}

         replyreport
8. 52

   gryffonposted 14 years ago

   The way I see it, the Middle East is a Gordian Knot, you know, the kind of knot that can't be untied. The only way to fix the Middle East is in one of two ways.
   
   One - Go in there, kill all the bad guys, eliminate the dictators and establish a democratic government the rewards the productive people with their own wealth. Once the common man in Iraq or Iran has experienced that, AND set aside their tribal differences, they just MIGHT all get along. It's a long shot, but it's doable.
   
   Two - Unleash Israel and let the dust settle. Maybe if Israel let loose with a few nuclear bombs over there, the rest of the crowd might begin to settle down and let bygones be bygones. Something tells me that when Israel is surrounded on all sides by other hostile nations, constantly being threatened to be blown to bits by those nations since 1948, when Israel became a viable nation of its own, and not one of those nations has been able to carry out their threats with any degree of success, and Israel has defended itself using U.S. hand-me-down military equipment, bailing wire and chewing gum, well... I think that God just might be on their side after all.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I guess you did not learn anything from Vietnam did you?
      
      George Wilhelm Hegel
      What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles.

      replyreport
9. 0

   ralwusposted 14 years ago

   Indirectly I think it was Hitler what done it and then along came Tojo. Lastly Russia opened the door all the way.

   replyreport
10. 70

    thisisoliposted 14 years ago

    The recent spate of invasions WAS to protect US interests.
    
    The dollar, which is only a moderately strong currency, is supported by the sale of oil, which must be sold in Dollars after America flat out extorted oil producing countries by offering 'protection' for those which sold oil in dollars.  The Afghanistan and Iraq both decided to sell oil in Euros, Iran followed suite, since the Eur is a much more stable currency.
    
    Although the intentions might not have been quite so noble, they have done some good in removing some particularly nasty pieces of work from power. But just remember that this move has helped prevent the dollar from dropping in similar ways to the british pound.
    
    This protection of the US currency will help to keep exporting businesses strong, and prices cheap for a wide variety of day to day goods.
    
    (Although I do not know the exact figures, and whether the strength of your currency was worth the huge sums spent in fighting these wars)

    replyreport
    1. 72

       rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I think that your point is a significant one.  The US interests were of the utmost concern for Bush and he laid that out quite often while he was president.
       
       What is funny is that Americas biggest oil ally, Saudi Arabia is now trading in oil with euros and is undermining that policy with greater determination.  I don't know if the reason is due more to our growing debt with China or our debt to them.
       
       No one will ever know the monetary cost of the wars as they have operated outside of budgetary constraints for a very long time.  The US can't account for much of the money anyway.

       replyreport
11. 0

    sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

    Nobody put us in charge! So lets bring all are forces home, close our borders and build a missle defense system. Tell the rest of the world to stick-it!

    replyreport