why the U.S.A. MUST be the worlds policeman.

I can give you the awnser an one word
Sudan
30000 civilians have been killed
1.2 MILLION have been displaced
The U.S. congress has labeled it a genocide
And what do our vaunted allies the E.U. and the U.N. propose we do?
Sanctions.
People are being slaughtered like cattle by the Arab Janjuweed militia and Europe wants to take away thier charge card.
Does anyone here truly believe the jajuweeb care whether or not they can buy PDA's and T.V.'s.
They have guns and lots of bullets what else do they need to buy?
Women are being raped by the thousands and the only country calling for or even bringing up the topic of the use of force is the U.S.
The U.N. removed the word sanction from the official resolution because the idea of sanctioning a country which is systematically and with government approval slaughtering citizens might "offend" some council members.
These people don't care about sanctions, either diplomatic or economic. They understand only violence and thier only currency is death.
The E.U. and The U.N. are busy discussing the whether or not the situation is a "genocide" as if there is any doubt. and the only reason the African Union is even considering troops is because of U.S. pressure.
You ask why the U.S. has to be the worlds policeman
Because no one else will.

Originally posted by mwm1331
I can give you the awnser an one word
Sudan
30000 civilians have been killed
1.2 MILLION have been displaced
The U.S. congress has labeled it a genocide
And what do our vaunted allies the E.U. and the U.N. propose we do?
Sanctions.
People are being slaughtered like cattle by the Arab Janjuweed militia and Europe wants to take away thier charge card.

The US is the one who proposed the sanctions.
The UN tried to water down the sanctions that the US proposed.

news.bbc.co.uk...
France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur.

The UN Security Council is debating a US draft resolution imposing sanctions on militias accused of "ethnic cleansing" against non-Arabs.

The US also hinted that the sanctions could be extended to the government.

[edit on 11-8-2004 by AceOfBase]

God, please.

Remeber Somalia? remeber Vietnam? See Iraq?

I do not care what idiots in other countries do to one another, i really dont. I think we should start policing our govornment instead, and screw the rest of the world.

Some people, I swear, you never learn, your short sightedness is gonna bury this country.

NO to Sudan. In case youre geographically challenged, Sudan is right there in the vicinity of Somalia.

Saddam killed a whole bunch of people. So? What has Iraq gained us? Nothing. Should have left him to his party. he could have served alot more uses in power than out.

....investigation

We could have solved the Sudanese problem instead of going to Iraq; the end justification we now have saying that the Iraq invasion was " because he slaughtered his own people" was & is much more in play in Sudan; so why did the Cop on the Beat, Bush, miss the crime right in front of him!?!

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I do not care what idiots in other countries do to one another, i really dont. I think we should start policing our govornment instead, and screw the rest of the world.

Didn't they same this same stuff before WWII?

Bout time - maybe because Bush like myself, believes that the lbs in this country will once again refuse to see the need for millitary action regardless of how great tht need really is.

Its unfortunate but that is simply how things are and always have been down in those countries!

I don't believe we should waste more of our taxdollars to ensure that these savages are kept in control. I believe Europe is thinking the same thing.. just let them be.

It's not our job to be the worlds policeman.... plus everytime we try to be everything gets screwed up anyway. Interference in not fully-understood foreign cultures is always bad news.

We need to fix our own domestic problems first before we start shoveling out money on these hopeless and unfixable problems. Unless you plan to occupy those countries with troops forever.

We need to ensure peoples basic needs are met in our country first before we start shoveling out money to these warlike savage nations.
[edit on 11-8-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 11-8-2004 by RedOctober90]

I hate to sound cruel but what the heck does ANY of that have to do with us?

The United States Federal Government was intended to do VERY little.

One of the few things it was intended to do was protect us from forgien invasion. Now you can even streach that to cover first strikes but NO where does it mention that we must protect the world from itself.

You know I can understand saving the world (which I think is impossible) but what about us? And I'm not talking about terrorism, I'm talking about our jobs, the economy and the enviroment. You know this president has done very little about any of that regardless of 9/11. Yes the economy has approved a little but I want to see everyone who lost their jobs since Bush took office get their jobs back. I feel sad for employees of the Airline industry who lost their jobs after 9/11.

Clinton, even though he's a sleeze bag too, did a real good job keeping the economy strong. I just don't see why 9/11 has to keep us from bringing our economy back to the way it was and giving the millions of people out there their jobs back.

It should not be the USA's job alone to police the world. A world body should be created to handle these types of situations, as the UN has failed. It should be free of politics and should move quickly and strike hard at any outlaw militias that kill civilians intentionally. These arabs in the Sudan should be dealt with, but it should be an international effort. Nobody should just allow innocent human beings with no means of defense to be slaughtered. It's easy to sit around and say "who cares about those people" but if you happened to be unfortunate enough to be born in one of those countries, you would be singing a different song. You would be hoping the US would step in and save your family from being raped and mutilated. But again it should NOT be our job alone, all civilized countries should band together against genocide, allowing such acts to continue on Earth is like allowing cancer to run rampant through your body, eventually it will consume you.

The U.S. is doomed in the eyes of the rest of the world, no matter what we do.

If we act, then we're called imperialist, and told that we're getting into other countries' business. We are criticized when the U.S. builds military bases around the world, even though -- with the exceptions of Afghanistan and Iraq -- the host country invited us there, and can kick us out at any time (this having happened on a few occasions).

If we don't act, then we're called callous, uncaring, and isolationist, and told that we're just selfishly guarding our high quality lives and letting the rest of the world go to Hell in a handbasket.

I think this catch-22 is why many Americans cry, "Why should we care what the rest of the world thinks?" They're just going to hate us no matter what we do anyway...

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
The U.S. is doomed in the eyes of the rest of the world, no matter what we do.

If we act, then we're called imperialist, and told that we're getting into other countries' business. We are criticized when the U.S. builds military bases around the world, even though -- with the exceptions of Afghanistan and Iraq -- the host country invited us there, and can kick us out at any time (this having happened on a few occasions).

If we don't act, then we're called callous, uncaring, and isolationist, and told that we're just selfishly guarding our high quality lives and letting the rest of the world go to Hell in a handbasket.

I think this catch-22 is why many Americans cry, "Why should we care what the rest of the world thinks?" They're just going to hate us no matter what we do anyway...

Well, that's true.
I personally think the US should stay out of other countries even if there is a lot of violence there. There's no way of telling whether the situation will improve as a result of intervention or if it will become even worse.

The US has already been trying to assist in Sudan for the last couple of years by giving millions to anti-government groups in Sudan as outlined in HR 2052 and HR 5531.

I don't think the US government will ever give up foreign intervention even if we may want them to.
Right now, they're trying to pass a $700 million bill to fund militias around the world to fight terrorism. I don't think that's going to go too well.

[edit on 11-8-2004 by AceOfBase]

700 million???

Waste of money as far as I'm concerned. Here's a list of other such things:

Welfare - Waste
Social Security - Waste
Univeral Healthcare (provided it's executed) - Huge major waste
Department of Homeland Security - Waste
60% of the government payroll - Waste (and inept)
Overseas bases -Waste
Many Grants - Waste

I'd like to see some of my money back someday. I've got to figure out how to "opt-out" of the income tax.

In order for a government to run.. it needs to take in taxes! Especially with all these conservative big military people.. without big taxes you couldn't have all the big weapons they desire.

The reason for the problems with taxes is how disorganized the distribution of tax money is..... find a way to organize it and the money will indeed go to who it has to go too.

It all comes down to self interest... a conservative might be against the income tax but then quickly approve of it, if something that interests him might be payed by the income tax.

You live in a country with a functioning government, you pay taxes. You want these cowbow like yeeehawww crusades in the middle east by a christian conservative president yelling "in the name of democracy".... or "you gotta be for what we do or be an enemy". you pay taxes.

Once again it comes down to personal political opinion, I have no problem paying taxes. I don't consider myself a red,white,blue flag waver nationalist "We are the best we do everything right" kind of guy, so I tend to be bit more liberal towards this.

But I'd like to see better organization of already existing tax money.

The needs of the many come before the needs of a select few I believe.



[edit on 15-8-2004 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by RedOctober90
The needs of the many come before the needs of a select few I believe.
[edit on 15-8-2004 by RedOctober90]

Taxes is just the Government selecting the few, the best thing the Government can do is get off the back of the many and let us live our lives.

99% of what our Government does is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution and for good reason it was not intended to be.

About the only place I disagree with Krazy Jethro, and this might not even be a disagreement, is I would leave government funding at a state or federal for education LOANS and job training for the TRULY disabled. This would Maximize EVERYONES chances to earn a living and would help those truly on the bottom of the heap. Give a man a fish, etc. This could be done for pennies on the dollar of the cost today.

Originally posted by Amuk
About the only place I disagree with Krazy Jethro, and this might not even be a disagreement, is I would leave government funding at a state or federal for education LOANS and job training for the TRULY disabled. This would Maximize EVERYONES chances to earn a living and would help those truly on the bottom of the heap. Give a man a fish, etc. This could be done for pennies on the dollar of the cost today.

No, we don't disagree, we agree perfectly. Here's my idea, we remove the federal social programs. ALL OF THEM.

I think that county (or city depending on location) governments should be in charge of social programs should they decide to have them. This is a MUCH better idea for the following reasons:

1) Easier accountability.
2) The public will be able to see the spending and budget records (unlike the Fed. Gov because it would be an Encyclopedia)
3) The local voter would have much more power and influence on their lives and communities.
4) The local leaders would be much more accessable.
and
5) The local governments are better equipped to assess the need of their communities which would be more cost effective which would lower overall taxes quite a bit.

This is the best program, and we would have the state to oversee the local governments to better keep accountability, whereas the Federal Government has very little to oversee the spending and activity of it's long branches.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I think that county (or city depending on location) governments should be in charge of social programs should they decide to have them. This is a MUCH better idea for the following reasons:

1) Easier accountability.
2) The public will be able to see the spending and budget records (unlike the Fed. Gov because it would be an Encyclopedia)
3) The local voter would have much more power and influence on their lives and communities.
4) The local leaders would be much more accessable.
and
5) The local governments are better equipped to assess the need of their communities which would be more cost effective which would lower overall taxes quite a bit.

Man, used to think like you BUT - corruption is much easier and much more widespread at the local level.

Sorry, this wouldn't work either. Been there, done that.

Food for thought: It's never that simple, if it were somebody would have done it.

(feeling a tad cynical today - scuse me).

Originally posted by Relentless

Man, used to think like you BUT - corruption is much easier and much more widespread at the local level.

Sorry, this wouldn't work either. Been there, done that.

Food for thought: It's never that simple, if it were somebody would have done it.

Maybe, anything we do will have some problems, such is human nature. But, I ask you one question.

Which way is easier to find corruption, annex the problem, and/or check the books? The Fed or a local government?

If we do not facilitate community, then we'll never have it (mind you, this is one of the major roots of the problems in the first place).

The US has done a very poor job of attempting to broker peace in an even-handed manner (it depends on the administration, to be honest) and has consistantly turned a blind eye or made token help to some desperate situations.

Frankly, I think the UN will end up as the world's policeman.

"99% of what our Government does is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution and for good reason it was not intended to be. "

List please.


The USA is the freest nation in the world and you still complain. Why don't we send you over to Saudi Arabia or North Korea.. you would be crying to come back.

No system will always work to the original specifications.. we do not live in 1776.. There are new problems... now with the world getting "smaller" things do change.

Your idea of a founding fathers perfect government will never occur.... You think your political leaders care?

The federal government had no choice to enlarge... this is a much more advanced world these days... more new problems. But atleast they are not shipping you out to the death camps or taking political prisoners out of the citizenry. The idea of Isolationism is suicide these days.

Either change for the times or live miserably in a world that never was.

[edit on 15-8-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 15-8-2004 by RedOctober90]