Who Believes the United States Should be the Worlds Policeman??

I would like to see my country go into a more Isolationist mindset regarding world events. We went to war with Iraq based on WMD, uh who cares they are half-way around the world, they had on delivery system that could hit us with them.

Now the talk of war with Iran, because they are developing Nuclear technology/capability. Again I don't care, they have no delivery system to hit us with them.

Let the rest of the world do something about them, why does it have to be placed on our soldiers. Have we not bled enough for the rest of the world?

America's Empire of Bases

As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize -- or do not want to recognize -- that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet. This vast network of American bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire -- an empire of bases with its own geography not likely to be taught in any high school geography class. Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld, one can't begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.

It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.

Do we really need to be this huge Empire???

reply to post by LDragonFire


I agree with you in part. We Americans, as a country, seem to have our noses in everyone else's business and I'd love to see the day when we quit trying to play hall monitor to the rest of the world. You'd think that with the crime we have in our own country and the thousands of homeless and starving people we have here that we would try to help them rather than make sure we are the only country with nukes or send money and food overseas to other countries. We should take care of our own first before "fixing" everyone else's problems.

I don't completely agree with you on Iraq and Iran though. If they did have the ability to launch nukes at us and threatened us with them, then yes we should defend ourselves. Just because they don't currently have the a delivery system to hit us with them doesn't mean they never will. That being said, I don't agree with preemptive attacks on other countries just because they might someday possibly have that ability. That makes about as much sense to me as destroying my house because it was built with wood and might someday have termites, or putting my dog down because he has sharp teeth and might someday get ticked off and bite someone.

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

I agree with you in part. We Americans, as a country, seem to have our noses in everyone else's business and I'd love to see the day when we quit trying to play hall monitor to the rest of the world. You'd think that with the crime we have in our own country and the thousands of homeless and starving people we have here that we would try to help them rather than make sure we are the only country with nukes or send money and food overseas to other countries. We should take care of our own first before "fixing" everyone else's problems.

Very well said other than the crime part, most Americans don't know that we are in a 30-40 year low when it comes to violent crime. Its difficult to know this because MSM focuses on violent crime because of sensationalism sell/ratings, but this is a topic for another thread Think of the money we would save if we brought All our Troops home, we could secure our borders eliminate homelessness and poverty, we could throw Massive amounts of money into our Education System, and personally I would move us more into a manufacturing based economy other than a services orientated economy. We could overhaul our degrading infrastructure, and pump massive money into alternative energy research and development.

I don't completely agree with you on Iraq and Iran though. If they did have the ability to launch nukes at us and threatened us with them, then yes we should defend ourselves. Just because they don't currently have the a delivery system to hit us with them doesn't mean they never will. That being said, I don't agree with preemptive attacks on other countries just because they might someday possibly have that ability. That makes about as much sense to me as destroying my house because it was built with wood and might someday have termites, or putting my dog down because he has sharp teeth and might someday get ticked off and bite someone.

Thats really my point, if we butted out of the affairs of the rest of the world, Why would they want to attack us.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Thats really my point, if we butted out of the affairs of the rest of the world, Why would they want to attack us.

Perhaps you should recall some historical facts: the US launched an attack on Iraq while most countries did not support such an attack and thus saying that America ''is doing the dirty laundry for others'' is complete nonsense.

The two main motives for invading Iraq and the wars in the Middle East:

Securing the Middle East Oil Reserves to prevent others (China) from doing it (New American Century) ... why do you think the US has so many troops in Saudi Arabia? If the House of Saud will fall, American troops will be there to take control of the country's huge oil industry.

The (Oil Dollar)... preventing Saddam from trading oil in Euros (which would likely have caused a domino effect on other countries) and thus trying to delay an economic collaps as long as possible.

I am not asking Uncle Sam to invade nor attack Iran, if the US, France or Israel want to do this so badly they can... I don't take responsibility and don't try to blame others for the current mess in Iraq that the US is responsible for.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Very well said other than the crime part, most Americans don't know that we are in a 30-40 year low when it comes to violent crime. Its difficult to know this because MSM focuses on violent crime because of sensationalism sell/ratings, but this is a topic for another thread

I meant crime in general, not specifically violent crimes. My fault, should have elaborated on that one!

Thats really my point, if we butted out of the affairs of the rest of the world, Why would they want to attack us.

Probably for the same reasons anyone attacks anyone. Because we have different beliefs/values/etc. Why did the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor? They wanted to.

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Thats really my point, if we butted out of the affairs of the rest of the world, Why would they want to attack us.

Perhaps you should recall some historical facts: the US launched an attack on Iraq while most countries did not support such an attack and thus saying that America ''is doing the dirty laundry for others'' is complete nonsense.

Uh speaking of Historical Facts and Nonsense.
US names 'coalition of the willing'

The US has named 30 countries which are prepared to be publicly associated with the US action against Iraq.

According to these Facts at least 30 other countries participated in the attack, granted 98% of troops use where American. And about this dirty laundry remark, google WWII sometime. As a side note I have always been against our war with Iraq.

The two main motives for invading Iraq and the wars in the Middle East:

Securing the Middle East Oil Reserves to prevent others (China) from doing it (New American Century) ... why do you think the US has so many troops in Saudi Arabia? If the House of Saud will fall, American troops will be there to take control of the country's huge oil industry.

The (Oil Dollar)... preventing Saddam from trading oil in Euros (which would likely have caused a domino effect on other countries) and thus trying to delay an economic collaps as long as possible.

I am not asking Uncle Sam to invade nor attack Iran, if the US, France or Israel want to do this so badly they can... I don't take responsibility and don't try to blame others for the current mess in Iraq that the US is responsible for.

Also regarding Historical fact and nonsense
US pulls out of Saudi Arabia

The decision was confirmed by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a joint news conference with Saudi Defence Minister Prince Sultan.

I do agree however the war was about oil!!

Americans don't want to be the world's policemen. We would love no more than to quietly mind our own business.

But we have, also, been raised in a way that teaches us all that freedom and righteousness are the natural Rights of all comers. That all men are created equal. And that, to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the Governed.

That is the foundation of our country. We, naturally, presume that others in other parts of the world agree with that sentiment. Therefore, we are a friend to anyone seeking the liberation of the individual.

Many of our American individuals risked and gave their lives for the liberation of faceless "foreigners". Recently, for example, it was the U.S.-led NATO who finally dealt with the European problem of Melosovic in whatever happened to Yugoslavia.

No, I don't want my country to have to solve all the world's problems. (I'd hoist a cold one on the day they'd be ready to solve them all themselves!)

My message to the world?

World,

We gave you Mayberry. This is America.

Watch it. Learn it. Only then will our boys never be in danger of saving yer Anti-American asses again.

Sic semper tyranus.



[edit on 19-9-2007 by Tuning Spork]

I believe some foreign policy is good.However I 100% disagree with the iraq war,except on a strategic stand point.It was smart to take the oil,however doing it in the name of peace keeping is BS.I only think it was a good move if the studies showing oil is and will run out are correct.Self preservation FTW.

I think if the country can survive on its own and the majority are living "normal" lives then it should be left alone.If it comes down to it the kurds could have had a revolution,we did it in America so can they.With time certain countries will heal itself.

However I think some places need some intervention like darfur and other real corrupt goverments.Many parts of Afirca could use some intervention because the goverment just pockets all the money without improving conditions so poeple resort to violence.

Sadly we instead decide to "save" Iraq.Hell they may even have gotten a morjority vote for war with iraq over oil,if only they would have been honest.Of course only if the oil is really running out.

reply to post by Tuning Spork

Very well said Thanks for the reply.

Originally posted by Jenna
I meant crime in general, not specifically violent crimes. My fault, should have elaborated on that one!

Its all good, we have the 5th highest prison population on Earth the highest percentage of incarceration is for Non-violent drug possession, But again this is best a topic for another thread...lol

Probably for the same reasons anyone attacks anyone. Because we have different beliefs/values/etc. Why did the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor? They wanted to.

Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?

Answer

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour for a number of reasons, the main being President Roosevelt banning all exports of scrap iron, steel and oil to Japan. Japan had lost more than 90% of its oil supply). Other causes which sparked the attack included; the belief that Japan was becoming encircled by Western powers, the fear of resources such as oil running low, the strong determination of advancing in the East Asia region, the United States demanding Japanese withdrawal from Indo-China, the United States opposing Japanese expansion and Japans demands were not being achieved by diplomacy. The Japanese were keen on expanding their empire and had to make a decision between surrendering or going to war with the United States.

Religion Resources and just plain old greed and to have power over others IMHO are the reasons for War.

reply to post by Project_Silo

LOL the oil part is related to this With Oil At Record Highs, Talk Of $200 A Barrel So you think the US government should have just came out and said We are going to invade Iraq because we want there oil??

reply to post by LDragonFire


Ya thats true,it would be dumb to announce it was for oil if oil really does go up to 200 a barrell.That's still rumor.

Besides they don't care when oil prices go up,they make that much more money.Then when the oil would have hit 200 a barrel we could have kept ours at a stable price because we openly admitted the war was for oil,so now we own the oil mofos.But of course they don't give a shat what we think anyway,so they just lie to us,and will let oil get to $200 a barrell and make that much more off of us.

"they" being the goverment
"we""us" being the citizens of America

[edit on 19-9-2007 by Project_Silo]

We could go back to the pre-World War 1 days when Americans don't give a dam if the Europeans were killing each other. Just want to make some money instead.

Still wonder why President Clinton had to apologize for Rwanda even though we had nothing to do with it.

I dont know if i like it, but someone needs to do it. This world is just too crazy for nations to do whatever they want and go unchecked. Talk about utter chaos if everyone just "did their own thing".

I think once the EU or China becomes strong enough to be worlds policemen then let them have a shot, but right now we are about the only ones who can.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
I dont know if i like it, but someone needs to do it. This world is just too crazy for nations to do whatever they want and go unchecked. Talk about utter chaos if everyone just "did their own thing".

I think once the EU or China becomes strong enough to be worlds policemen then let them have a shot, but right now we are about the only ones who can.

How about the UN being the worlds police force? If we pulled out of every country, if we ended our Empire, and looked to our interests at home, every American would be better for it. Terrorists would have no reason to attack us. If we continue on the path we have chosen what is the likelihood of a terrorist strike in America?? Or the likelihood of going to war against another country because of our interest in other regions around the world.

Isolationism is Good. Empireism is Bad. All Empires have fallen and will fall. I don't want to see the USA fall

Yar ye matey ye swab da dek Ill tend to dis rum

Still wonder why President Clinton had to apologize for Rwanda even though we had nothing to do with it.

Because he could of done something about it instead of letting all those people die.

I would be perfectly happy if the US kept it's nose out of other peoples business, but I only say that because I live in a country that doesn't need any help. Some countries do need the help and the US has the capability to help, but does it?

In my eyes, it doesn't. It has a powerful military that could be put to good use but is instead allowed to ransack two entire countries so that a few rich men get even richer. If they ended their senseless wars, think of the good that money could do. Irrigate Africa, new energy or helping crumbling economies.

The US empire will fall, be it within 5, 50 or 500 years, it will fall. Depending on how they treat their power will determine whether this will be a good thing or not.

Originally posted by Zanzibar

Still wonder why President Clinton had to apologize for Rwanda even though we had nothing to do with it.

Because he could of done something about it instead of letting all those people die.

I would be perfectly happy if the US kept it's nose out of other peoples business, but I only say that because I live in a country that doesn't need any help. Some countries do need the help and the US has the capability to help, but does it?

So because bad things happens in the world its the USA's fault?? Because we could do something means we should?? What is the UN role in the world, why didn't they do something???? If anyone is responsible for helping out with the worlds problems its them. Why didn't your country help??

In my eyes, it doesn't. It has a powerful military that could be put to good use but is instead allowed to ransack two entire countries so that a few rich men get even richer. If they ended their senseless wars, think of the good that money could do. Irrigate Africa, new energy or helping crumbling economies.

Again how is it the US's responsibility to build Irrigation in Africa, Why don't they do this themselves?? With the help of the UN and All nations on Earth.

I sometimes think the US should become a bit more isolationist. All that money spent on war could've been used to secure our borders and ports. Invest in intelligence and defense. Develope better military technology and focus on bettering ourselves.

On of the biggest problems with countries like Iran developing nuclear weapons is selling them to terrorist. Then the terrorists sneaking them into the US. That's where intelligence and an air tight border would come in handy.

With the money we have spent on war we could have bought every terrorist on earth a convinience store to run.

Is a big misunderstanding about US role in the world as police state that term was invented to justified our nations intervention in wars and to give the regular American a reason to be proud.

Our nation's intervention in the world comes with a high price for the targeted nations.

Is all about wars for profits and control every where our nation intervene is money to be made, that is why the profiters of war are just behind our government making sure they get their shared.

Look at Iraq, while this is the most expensive war for the American tax payer, the profiters in corporate American that are behind this government and supported by this government are making billions.

It's one thing to be the world's policemen. It's quite another to be the world's bullies. And that is how most countries see the United States, frankly. I personally don't see any 'policing' going on.

(no offense to the Americans; I have nothing against you personally, only your leaders)