• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If the US abdicated its role as world policeman...

TastesLikeChicken

TastesLikeChicken

Lifer
Personally I've always felt that we simply inherited the position by default, and it wasn't even until after WW2 that it happened. I don't look at it as good or bad. It just is. Someone has to fill those shoes and generally, throughout history, that role has been filled by the most powerful country in the world. If it wasn't the US it would be another country. Yet, there's always a lot of scorn in this forum because of the US's role as the world's policeman.

So I'd like to ask the scornful, and anyone else interested, what do you think would happen if we relinquished that role? Who would step into our shoes? China? Russia? The EU? Would the world be better or worse off? Would a power struggle ensue? Would the world still look to the US to lead in a time of crisis? Does the US really have a choice to not be the world's policeman?
 
No one most likely.

We would return to a pre-WW 2 state of affairs where regional wars were rather common
 
As I've said before, what the world needs is to design a political model that allows for global distributed power, to stop the constant pressure for each nation to get more power.

The World's Policeman is a misleading title - that's only part of it. World's thief, world's tyrant, also go with the turf, whoever has held the role.

One of the things to realize is, while average Americans pay the bills for the 'global police' role with their money and kids, only a few get most of the benefits of the role.

Looks like yet another topic the Gen. SMedley Butler quote is relevant to, explaining what he learned after helping fulfill that role:

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

Marine General Smedley Butler
Click to expand...
 
Whoever is in 2nd place would take it over and then we would be able to complain about them with the rest of the world while at the same time spend much less doing the job.

Wait a second......
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
As I've said before, what the world needs is to design a political model that allows for global distributed power, to stop the constant pressure for each nation to get more power.

The World's Policeman is a misleading title - that's only part of it. World's thief, world's tyrant, also go with the turf, whoever has held the role.

One of the things to realize is, while average Americans pay the bills for the 'global police' role with their money and kids, only a few get most of the benefits of the role.

Looks like yet another topic the Gen. SMedley Butler quote is relevant to, explaining what he learned after helping fulfill that role:

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

Marine General Smedley Butler
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure examples from the early 1900's are good examples. Things have changed quite a bit since then. Imperialism was still in play at that time and the US really didn't take the role on until after WW2.

I'm not claiming there are benefits to the role either. Frankly, it's not an enviable position at all. I certainly don't relish it. I'm not sure it's a position we can avoid, however.
 
Well, the world already saw what happened when Europe led the world. Hundreds of millions slaughtered, continents pillaged, human development reversed, etc. We're still suffering from it.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... Does the US really have a choice to not be the world's policeman?
Click to expand...
I think this is analogous to the iraq situation. Since we've opened that can of worms we can't just pullout without causing a lot of instability.

---

Bush 1 vocalized the world policeman idea after gulf war 1. I don't know if it was a formal policy previously. The bankruptcy and disintegration of the ussr made it quite doable.

I've never scorned the u.s. for this. I have scorned the u.s. for preemptively invading iraq though. I still believe the reasons stated for this invasion will eventually come out to be one of the biggest lies of the twenty-first century - but that's not what this thread is about.
 
Not half a stupid as thinking as sticking your hand into a hornet's nest, which is exactly what we did when we followed England's example of interferring in the Middle East's politics. The chickens have come home to roost.
 
We have a lot of military outposts all over the world, which cost hundreds of billions of $$$. We helped to create a stable Europe, Japan, and S. Korea, destabilized many countries as well. China (stuffed with cash, thanks to Wal-Mart shoppers) is trying to buy influence across the world, especially in Africa. In the future, money talks, and the US is heavily in debt, to China.
 
Originally posted by: JKing106
Not half a stupid as thinking as sticking your hand into a hornet's nest, which is exactly what we did when we followed England's example of interferring in the Middle East's politics. The chickens have come home to roost.
Click to expand...

The truth is usually not very popular.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No one most likely.

We would return to a pre-WW 2 state of affairs where regional wars were rather common
Click to expand...

More like: Things would continue as they are, with regional and civil wars being common.

No particular disrespect meant, since it's an impossible job, but the US and the UN are both lousy world police.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Craig234
As I've said before, what the world needs is to design a political model that allows for global distributed power, to stop the constant pressure for each nation to get more power.

The World's Policeman is a misleading title - that's only part of it. World's thief, world's tyrant, also go with the turf, whoever has held the role.

One of the things to realize is, while average Americans pay the bills for the 'global police' role with their money and kids, only a few get most of the benefits of the role.

Looks like yet another topic the Gen. SMedley Butler quote is relevant to, explaining what he learned after helping fulfill that role:

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

Marine General Smedley Butler
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure examples from the early 1900's are good examples. Things have changed quite a bit since then. Imperialism was still in play at that time and the US really didn't take the role on until after WW2.

I'm not claiming there are benefits to the role either. Frankly, it's not an enviable position at all. I certainly don't relish it. I'm not sure it's a position we can avoid, however.
Click to expand...

we should just bring back imperialism.
 
Gary and Lisa could finally get married, Spotswood could retire and the Film Actors Guild could return to its acting roots.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Personally I've always felt that we simply inherited the position by default, and it wasn't even until after WW2 that it happened. I don't look at it as good or bad. It just is. Someone has to fill those shoes and generally, throughout history, that role has been filled by the most powerful country in the world. If it wasn't the US it would be another country. Yet, there's always a lot of scorn in this forum because of the US's role as the world's policeman.

So I'd like to ask the scornful, and anyone else interested, what do you think would happen if we relinquished that role? Who would step into our shoes? China? Russia? The EU? Would the world be better or worse off? Would a power struggle ensue? Would the world still look to the US to lead in a time of crisis? Does the US really have a choice to not be the world's policeman?
Click to expand...

Click the link in my sig.
 
We usually only act as the World's Policeman when it's in our national interest or in Bush's case, the interest of those who controlled him.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No one most likely.

We would return to a pre-WW 2 state of affairs where regional wars were rather common
Click to expand...

More like: Things would continue as they are, with regional and civil wars being common.

No particular disrespect meant, since it's an impossible job, but the US and the UN are both lousy world police.
Click to expand...
Isn't that kind of like saying "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."?

iow, it's all relative. To have any real meaning of "lousy" we have to have someone else to compare the evaluation to. So which country would do a better job?
 
we've already stopped being the world policeman - where are we as hundreds of thousands of people are being killed/raped/driven from their homes in several different African countries?

We only act like the world police when we have something to gain from it.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No one most likely.

We would return to a pre-WW 2 state of affairs where regional wars were rather common
Click to expand...

More like: Things would continue as they are, with regional and civil wars being common.

No particular disrespect meant, since it's an impossible job, but the US and the UN are both lousy world police.
Click to expand...
Isn't that kind of like saying "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."?

iow, it's all relative. To have any real meaning of "lousy" we have to have someone else to compare the evaluation to. So which country would do a better job?
Click to expand...
It's more like saying 'bedrest is a lousy way to cure the plague'. The US is perhaps marginally effective in aiding world stability, but it's not like they have a better (historical) example to follow.

No country, alliance, or NGO has proactively responded to a true foreign crisis yet. Genocide is ignored, dictators are ignored. Action is normally taken 'too late' due to public pressure. Timely action is taken only if 'interests' are threatened. I don't mean this as a pointed criticism of the US; it's the way everybody works, and it's hardly worth pretending we have risen above this level.

In short, trying to evaluate the US as a 'world police force' is meaningless, because they don't act like one. The UN is even worse, because they are supposed to take these actions, but instead engage in little more than political posturing.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top