Is US world Policing justified?

Question

Well i believe that US that Moto behind the world policing is good but It should be done by UN and not US taking into account all the Nations and also US should be dis- armed and not only other nations do u feel so

Answer 1

Having spent a good portion of my life in the military, I know that as a soldier we are taught....we are not policemen. We are not the worlds police force. When we get sent someplace (in my case Grenada and Panama), it does appear as though we are acting as police. In Panama especially it seems as though we were nothing more than a force of Bail-Bondsman going after a fugative.

If the world will not police itself, someone must do it. That was supposedly the job of the UN until they decided they were passive. The US has a right to police and protect it's interests. It's fortunate that we have those in power and in office that are able to identify problems overseas before they work their way into our land and our society. Unfortunately we weren't able to foresee 9-11.

Even in that case...think about it. Had a President sent a military unit into....let's say the United Arab Emits prior to 9-11 and killed the terrorists responsible for 9-11 (maybe even Bin Laden) and prevented 9-11 from ever happening.....in our country that President would still be raked over the coals and in that case would have also lost world support for taking action against something that wasn't a threat...yet. It's about being proactive that we will survive terrorists...not by sitting around hoping the local police or guard service will protect our families and country here. The fight is out there....let's keep it out there.

Answer 2

So long as the US has the wealth and the power, it can bully with impunity. Right now it is living its dream as expressed in the Project for the New American Century which, together with the Rapture-Ready crowd (as to which see Kevin Phillips, "American Theocracy") have greatly influenced George W. Bush and provided the outline for his worldview and his foreign and military policy.

You ask about justification, but that has to invoke some set of norms, preferably objective ones, whether international law, human rights or other. (The current US endeavours seem to reject any limitation on its actions, but inevitably the cost -- and the fact that it is China and Japan and Germany who are financing the resulting debt -- will come home to roost. As will the bizarre, Orwellian (or Kafkaesque) definitions of "democracy" and "freedom" that the Bush administration uses.

Finally, both Bush and his Islamist nemeses reject "compromise" and seek, each in its way, "justice". Compromise, on the other hand, is a very European (and Israeli, since Israel is European and not just in the sense of the Eurovision Song Contest) quality. So there is a dialogue of the deaf going on.

Anyway, it is said that terrorism justifies setting aside ordinary norms. And it's true that to the degree that terror and anarchy cannot be checked by the State's power of coercion including police and military force, civilisation as we know it is in danger. It isn't only the Banyan statues that will be destroyed: Persepolis was saved only by luck; the museums of Europe are in the sights of certain Islamists.

So, policing against global terrorism may be justified. But what about policing in support of economic interests? What about "policing" to assure a supply of oil at a low price? What about "policing" to assure high profits for Halliburton?

You be the judge.

Answer 3

Heck no. And a majority of Americans would say the same. It's the government that thinks we're supposed to take care of the world. Too bad the government of/for/by the people is no longer run by the people.

Let the rest of the world take care of itself. We CAN live in isolationism. It worked before and it can still work. We could still trade with other nations, but withdraw from the UN and all military committments. If south korea, for example, can't handle itself against north korea, too bad. The UN thinks it's so smart - let THEM handle it.

Answer 4

First of all I know our American foreign policies makes us somewhat unpopular in various places around the world. We change presidents every 4 to 8 years, and some government officials even more often, so if our policies are ever changing, try to understand. And secondly America will never be disarmed. It is not going to happen. Besides the fact that our military is the best in the world, almost every American household has guns, and we would fight to the last man for our freedom. We elect our officials by popular vote, so things may change for the better (or worse) in 2008. You can't please all of the people, all of the time. Peace to you from frogspeaceflower.

Answer 5

No! The US needs to learn to mind their own business, and stop trying to tell the rest of the world what to do. Who died and left the US in charge anyway? If something another country is doing is not a direct threat to the US then the US needs to butt out! I'm an American born and bred, but I have just about had it with our government sticking it's nose where it don't belong. Pain and simple, it is NOT our job to police the world. Americans can't make friends by bullying everybody in the world! God knows we have enough enemies to deal with right here on our own soil, much less on everybody else in the world. Thanks, I needed that!

Answer 6

Yes, it's justified by the people, but when you have a leader who wants to control the world and the oil you have the devil. Also, when he has an 1.4 billion dollar business with the terrorist family, he do not mind sacrificing americans as long as it is not his drunk daughters, being called up or forced to fight the family friend the terrorist.

Answer 7

Of course it is. We could have taken over the world after ww2 and didnt, we're the good guys remember. What other country puts "In God We Trust" on it's money. We know what the world needs, its just hard to keep big business out of it.

Answer 8

I think everyone knows the answer to that. No. I think we should be like Sweden or whatever other tiny countries over there and keep outselves out of everything. Trade, wars, everything. I think the economy would improve. Not by a whole ton, but enough.

Answer 9

As long as the USA has the ability...

to feed starving people around the world..

provide medical care to third world countries...

settle disputes between warring countries...

and sending other aide to needy countries....

we have the obligation to help the entire world with their problems

So........ YES The US IS JUSTIFIED

Answer 10

It's wrong for any one country to take on the role of "world police". The danger is that when one country is supposedly "helping" they're actually controlling more and more of the world.