And the Syrian government kills a greater number of civilians to the tune of several orders of magnitude. Your point?
The US started the Arab Spring?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
What is wrong with America playing "World Police"?
- Thread starter Goodstyle
- Start date
- Status
UnemployedVillain
Member
Oh yeah, I'm completely aware of that, but people have a tendency to call any leader put into power through an election democratically elected, even when said elections actively went against the spirit of process. But I'm also not going to ignore the history of fucking over South America through the forced regime changes of governments that were legit
LastGamer84
Member
If we didn't give lucrative deals to shaddy companies to help "rebuild" countries, and didn't allow PMCs to run wild in places- the whole world police thing would work a lot better. But, you know, money and all that.
That being said, policing the world should be the U.N.'s job, but that will never happen due to the way the Security Council is constructed (China and Russia obstruct everything)
That being said, policing the world should be the U.N.'s job, but that will never happen due to the way the Security Council is constructed (China and Russia obstruct everything)
I listed elsewhere why I wouldn't want other countries to be like the US and why American Exceptionalism needs to die as soon as possible: http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1253826
Peter Ian Staker
Member
Yes but that happened because the US had interest in the ex yugoslavian states becoming independent. Now every ethnic group has its own state and tensions have lowered.
Meanwhile it was decided that Iraq should remain a single country even though that has proved to be a disaster post-Saddam.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
I uhh.
"Elected Assad" really? The Same Assad who handed power from his father, unlimited power and no term, jails and executes dissidents... "Elected Assad," Jesus.
Because the US knows it can carry on throwing stones at wasp nests in its mate's neighbours gardens because when it's time for dinner it can fuck off home and not worry too much about it.
Just so long as the mate promises to put up some lemonade stands when the wasps have all gone from the neighbourhood.
Just so long as the mate promises to put up some lemonade stands when the wasps have all gone from the neighbourhood.
Pretty much every military action the US took after World War 2, to the end of the 80s was shadow war stuff with the USSR, with little care for the countries caught in the middle.
superdeluxe
Member
Yeah, of course there were geo-political reasons why went in, but we stopped genocide. Maybe the idea should be to be to balkanize the other regions?
superdeluxe
Member
Bigger question is, if there is genocide going on, would you want someone to step in? or just let people solve it themselves.
I realize that we have been selective on what genocides we decide to intervene in.
I realize that we have been selective on what genocides we decide to intervene in.
Chezzymann
Member
I think we can at least agree that someone controlling the seas is important as this is a global economy and trade is important
UnemployedVillain
Member
I should have said "elected" (considering my previous post was calling out sham elections). My main point was that Assad wasn't a leader put into place by the US and the problems that arose from him in power were not a result of them
TatteredHat
Member
It's not ideal but if Europe has to play world police we're all fucked, so I'd much rather take it on the chin and leave the US in charge.
Hopefully one day the EU will centralize its army and actually be imposing but right now the only thing protecting us from Russia is the US.
Hopefully one day the EU will centralize its army and actually be imposing but right now the only thing protecting us from Russia is the US.
Historically, it seems like the answer is step in if it's happening in Europe and ¯\_(ツ
_/¯ otherwise.If we played world police, it would be fine. What we are doing isn't world policing. There is no laws that we uphold or quality of life we protect for the citizens in these regions. We back the wrong people, then leave power vacuums..that's not policing. Then civilian deaths skyrocket. Yemen is happening right now by one of our allies. If we were world police wed do something about that, and everywhere in the world. We don't.
it's not conducive to peace and progress of the nation's we interact with. It is for contractors and the arms industry. That says enough for me.
it's not conducive to peace and progress of the nation's we interact with. It is for contractors and the arms industry. That says enough for me.
People don't want us to play World Police until they do. You have people on one side saying we should stay out of shit, and you have others complaining that we don't do enough (see: Assad).
I find it a little funny when the US is singled out in this sort of thing. There's no denying that the Iraq war was a mistake and continues to have serious consequences, but it's also a fact that it was centered around a coalition of nations all going in with us. What stance did your government take? We wouldn't be as likely to take action if our allies weren't so willing to get on their knees.
I find it a little funny when the US is singled out in this sort of thing. There's no denying that the Iraq war was a mistake and continues to have serious consequences, but it's also a fact that it was centered around a coalition of nations all going in with us. What stance did your government take? We wouldn't be as likely to take action if our allies weren't so willing to get on their knees.
KeyBladerXIII
Member
I wonder what would happen if each country had giant domes placed over them like a giant timeout for 2 or 3 years.
The US is so entangled into everyone elses' shit that doing anything is going to hurt a lot of people and doing nothing is also going to hurt a lot of people. There's no way out of this without receiving hate from one party or another.
The US is so entangled into everyone elses' shit that doing anything is going to hurt a lot of people and doing nothing is also going to hurt a lot of people. There's no way out of this without receiving hate from one party or another.
The hard truth. It beats the ever living shit out of the alternative. Russia is making attempts right now to undermine and take over Europe. Russia also has zero integrity and will fuck over anyone and anything.
CyclopsRock
Member
There's always going to be someone be the world police, and I can't think of a country I'd rather it be than the US.
There are two main problems with American adventurism (why not just call it for what it is?): the first is that Nation-States are supposed to be sovereign and have the freedom to exist without interference from outside powers. This principle forms the backbone of just about all international agreements since World War II, and violating it can exacerbate and expand conflicts.
The second problem is that the Americans just aren't very good at it. Even if we just talk about the events of the last couple of decades, American intervention has tended to make things worse rather than better. And the cases that don't obviously produce worse outcomes tend to have prolonged effects that end up weakening American positions. I suspect that this stems from the State Department having unrealistic end goals and overly buying into neocon ideas.
The second problem is that the Americans just aren't very good at it. Even if we just talk about the events of the last couple of decades, American intervention has tended to make things worse rather than better. And the cases that don't obviously produce worse outcomes tend to have prolonged effects that end up weakening American positions. I suspect that this stems from the State Department having unrealistic end goals and overly buying into neocon ideas.
The situation was more complex than that. Which really illustrates another problem with American foreign policy: a lot of complex scenarios are viewed and sold to the public in overly simplistic ways, leading to all sorts of problems.
Events don't exist in a vacuum. It's likely that Russia only made their aggressive moves because of American and NATO moves.
OverBlood 3
Banned
superdeluxe
Member
Historically, it seems like the answer is step in if it's happening in Europe and ¯\_(ツ
True.
TheRagnCajun
Member
The dilemma is that if you intervene with a foreign situation, whether for altruistic reasons or for hidden agenda, you then take ownership of the situation, and its outcome.
afternoon delight
Member
Bingo! A few historical examples of America's intervention and why it's usually an awful idea to use awful methods-
a. The 1953 Iranian coup we backed in a joint venture with Britain deposed a freely elected prime minister for oil profits and strengthened the regime that led to the '79 revolution.
b. Intelligence agencies aided and supported tyrants all throughout Central America in the seventies and eighties, to the point of training and funding death squads to keep prices down and 'preferred peoples' in power. Look at the School of the Americas which was just renamed to alter its reputation.
c. The Bay of Pigs poured gasoline on Cuban relations and helped push them to acquire nuclear missiles, which of course creates the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The trend that all three share is brash, violent actions towards local groups usually leads to unforseen brasher, more violent actions where nothing good actually happens at all. It actually demonstrably worsens.
Darryl M R
Member
Is America better at policing the rest of the world than American police are at policing America?
George Carlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDw-zFFhFgc
And im sure that the US and NATO's decision didnt exist in a vacuum either. Russia is dangerous. To everyone.
hobblygobbly
Member
In my opinion, the world should be involved when there is
a) genocide taking place
b) liberating people from occupation by another country
The world should not interfere with things like arming rebel groups in civil wars, backing/planning coups, going to war and violating another country's sovereignty and personal affairs over differences in ideologies (disputes in ideology should be done through diplomacy).
I don't think any single country should be the "world police", not even the U.S even if other single countries may be worse. The UN security council is supposed to do its job and be the "world police".
America is more like the mafia than the police. They are there for protection on the countries that pay them there dues and those that dont get persuaded ("liberation"). That being said its not really that different from any ruling empire and it just happens to be america at the moment.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Because we don't have single payer healthcare and yet we afforded to wars AND tax cuts.
No, that's a myth that for some reason people are stupid enough to keep parroting.
The US DID fund several elements of the local Pashtun Afghan population, but outright refused to fund the Afghan Arabs(Though Bin Laden was rich enough to fund his own war effort and received help from the saudis)
Steve Coll's Book "The Bin Ladens" among other interviews with journalists such as Peter Bergen and the Pakistani Brigadier general at the time have also added to this.
On the note of world policing, it's because we're mostly terrible at it. Though if people think Russia or China are a better alternative then I guess everyone has to burn at some time.
The UN will never have the power to police the world, being primarily writers of strongly worded letters and peacekeepers first. Europe as a whole almost entirely rejects the concept of power projection and thus will hardly be in any shape to police anything.
The main thing now is that I think it goes heavily against what the public wants when we face so many domestic issues that get passed over. Billions and billions of dollars going into ultimately building other nations when we have so much to do home yet we're always told theres no money.
ITT: People not realizing "World Police" is a metaphor.
OverBlood 3
Banned
OP watch 'The Shock Doctrine' you'll find it answers a lot of your questions. It's on vimeo atm.
^I know it's a metaphor, think of America's policing of it's own country and apply it to the world and have a metaphor party!
^I know it's a metaphor, think of America's policing of it's own country and apply it to the world and have a metaphor party!
The other thing it does is prevent countries and cultures from sorting shit out. If they're broken it could take generations to work through but maybe they should be allowed to? Now the US jumps in and gets everyone's backs up, so at least some blame gets deflected from the local problem onto the US, which perpetuates things like terrorism based on religious shit.
ThreePiMatt
Member
Fact of the matter is someone is going to fill that role and the US is an infinitely better option in that regard than Russia or China.
iamaustrian
Member
seriously?
what world are you living in?
do you seriously think russia would take over europe if the USA wouldn't be?
Red Liquorice
Member
This is just the first few replies, how many more reasons do you need?
DragonSworne
Banned
Because leadership changes every 4-8 years and with that change comes along different ideologies and views on what is wrong and correct in foreign policy.
Just look at the shitstorm these last 16 years have been due to ideological differences.
Just look at the shitstorm these last 16 years have been due to ideological differences.
They're shit at both, but they're more shit at policing their own country, or more specifically, policing their own police force.
OverBlood 3
Banned
Who watches the Watchmen
Bay Maximus
Banned
I think this is what it boils down to. Due to a starting point of resentment, insecurity, whatever of America's power and influence, anything America does it will be too much, or not enough, or not right, etc. America, like every other nation on earth, is a deeply flawed country, no doubt about it. But there is absolutely no way that everything America does happens to be wrong.
That's what's wrong with being the world police. Even if we have the power to stop something or help, everyone will criticize because it's America.
CyclopsRock
Member
Eh, there are more reasons than that. The UN force that was created to stop the civil war in Sierra Leone was utterly routed by the militia there, because fundamentally the make up of the UN forces weren't conducive to getting a good result. It was multinational but the forces had no significant personal interest in the issue, and the militaries involves simply weren't that great in a lot of cases. It was an 11,000 man group, too, so by no means insignificant. The whole mission was teetering on collapse until the British military turned up and cleaned house (in simple terms) because it was a single, professional military force that knew exactly what it could expect in terms of support (air, naval, equipment etc) and had the whole slice of expertise (from infantry to special forces to ground attack aircraft etc). This is very difficult to replicate outside of a permanent alliance such as NATO, and even that relies on having a largely unified foreign policy. Like the Eurozone, it's hard to imagine the UN peacekeepers being a significant military force without a significant centralisation of world militaries which, clearly, won't happen outside of isolated experiments (ie the UK and France).
Mr. Poolman
Member
You guys aren't very good at it.
You are not a neutral force who enters to stop conflict. Many would argue there is more chaos after you are done.
It gives a false sense of entitlement to some north american citizens.
Each country deserves the right to govern itself, last century you kept puppet governments and those were a disaster as well.
You are not a neutral force who enters to stop conflict. Many would argue there is more chaos after you are done.
It gives a false sense of entitlement to some north american citizens.
Each country deserves the right to govern itself, last century you kept puppet governments and those were a disaster as well.
- Status