We are NOT the Worlds Police.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us
I mean.. really.. isn't the goal (for both sides) to be able to get out of Iraq eventually?
2007-11-26 05:43:10 · 11 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
With this administration considering accepting the deal to run Iraqi security in the future.. we are looking like World Police.. not how I want our resources used myself.
2007-11-26 05:48:26 · update #1
We aren't the world police. And when the Iraqi government requests our help, we are not policing them against their will. I say again: they are requesting our help. Yes, you are correct: the goal for both sides is for us to leave eventually. However, it's also a goal that when we leave the situation is peaceful, or an Iraqi force is capable of maintaining the peace after we leave. It is not our goal to abandon Iraq and leave it in bad shape, and they don't want that either.
2007-11-26 06:36:43 · answer #1 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Although we are not the world's police, we are the world's beacon for freedom. Freedom doesn't just occur in a vacuum: it must be defended and its principles protected by those who can provide such protection.
Look at how long our troops stayed in Japan and Germany after World War II. We provided "security" to those countries long after major US troop withdrawals had occured, and this was a key detriment to our enemies as well as a key area of confidence for our allies.
That area of the world holds similar risks and potential rewards that the 20th century held. While a different challenge, there will be different US administrations that will have to get the best advice and make the most crucial decisions for long-term impact and benefit. It would be nice to think that "both sides" can come together - thank God the other "side" is the terrorists because the Iraqi government and the US government can come together in agreement. There is already quite a bit of success in Iraq and, with neighbors such as Syria and Iran, it is much better for the US to have a presence there than to not. Just as "star wars" (the strategic defense initiative, or SDI) was envisioned by Ronald Reagan and his experts with an ideal to share with freedom-loving nations (only a pure defensive SDI would be shared, of course), so too is it a great ideal to ensure Iranian or Syrian sponsored terrorists never acquire weapons of mass destruction (such as a briefcase nuke).
The debate about how we go about such measures can go on, the the principles and ideals should continue to unite us.
2007-11-26 06:04:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Well to be honest with you, when was the last time the US really left a place, besides Viet Nam? World War Two has been over for 62 years and we still have almost 100K Troops in Germany, Italy, and Japan...Korea has been under an Armistice for over 54 years...we still have 58K Troops there and several die each year to enemy action...so Iraq may not be any different...it is intellectually dishonest to call for a pull out of Iraq and not for Germany, Italy, Japan, and especially Korea...
2007-11-26 06:08:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Being in Iraq isn't really being the world's police. The Persian Gulf has long been an area of strategic importance and national interest, not just to the US, but to the entire developed world.
The economies of the developed world are built upon petroleum, making it a strategic commodity, and the free flow of oil a necessity. That's why a WMD Iraq or a nuclear Iran is considered unacceptable - because it threatens the world supply of oil.
Clinton attacking Serbia was being the "world police", because not only did we have no national interests at stake, the region is not strategically important to us.
-------
And the US has considered that region of strategic nation importance for decades. It is why we have been involved with what goes on there for 50+ years.
2007-11-26 05:56:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
You're right we're not.
I strongly disagree with the way the US government has become too interventionist in the last few decades. I know that we have a responsibility to act somewhat, since we are the superpower, but we've gone way overboard in that.
Yes, we should eventually get out of Iraq, but we're not at that point yet. Pulling out now is to invite there to be chaos and even more death than has already happened. We're making progress and soon should be much more able to leave without problems.
2007-11-26 05:45:47 · answer #5 · answered by Yun 7 · 4⤊ 6⤋
A deal of this magnitude will require congressional approval;will be interesting to see what they(congress) decide.
2007-11-26 05:50:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
I find it unfortunate that many went for the crap they were fed on the Iraq issue to begin with. This is the natural progression for the true reason we invaded/occupied to begin with. It sucks.
2007-11-26 06:00:53 · answer #7 · answered by gone 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Finally we have a puppet govt installed,
now if we can trick the people into thinking it is a democracy
then we win
2007-11-26 05:53:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
If we are not the police, we should also not be the free food for the starving group either.
2007-11-26 05:46:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
"There is no political solution"
If we are NOT the world's "Police", why do we have the Sting(er)?
2007-11-26 05:47:40 · answer #10 · answered by outcrop 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋