• Forum Moderator applications are now open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.

The moral responsibility of the United States

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eszett

Registered User
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
I recently brought up this issue among my group in Public Speaking, so I wanted to pitch the question to you guys.

Should the United States be acting as the police of the world? Is it its duty to resolve or absolve any threats to world safety or any areas of human subjugation? In what manner should it use its power to achieve these ends, assuming it should achieve these ends?

I am generally against the prospect of the United States acting upon policing diplomacy to see that the world is kept in a good working order, at least not as a first measure. Things might be slower to resolve through the facilities of the UN and other nations, but it would serve to reduce the hegemony we have over the world and make for more seamless conclusions to any issues that might arise, which ultimately gains us a better image in the world and a greater willingness for other nations to accept our help in negotiating with them. However, the military force of the United States is not to be neglected since at the very least it will lend some weight to our words; however, it should not be too excessive so as not to make our word too decisive in the whole matter.
 
It's not our business. Usually things will right themselves. Events like Hitler are rare and usually there are ques before the fit hits the shan. Unless there is something that poses a direct threat to America or there's no other acceptable alternative (and I think the UN should be the ones to define "acceptable") it should be left to the UN and the involved countries.
 
We need to use our power to strengthen the UN and make the UN a force for good. The US should NOT be responsible for the world, but we SHOULD help a world body (in this case, the UN) in THEIR efforts to make the world a better place. But the US should do nothing directly in terms of policing the world. Just supply troops and money.
 
I agree. The US should not do it personally, but help everyone else take care of their own problems. You can't really rid the world of evil anyway, because it is part of the balance. It will always come back somewhere, in some other form, not to mention evil is but a point of view.
 
Indeed, it is often said that a terrorist to some is a freedom fighter for others, and that dictators to the outside world are perceived as liberators within the dominion of his reign.

I tend to agree that the United States should not get itself involved with outside affairs as much as it does, but at the same time I have some meritocratic leanings and am thus prompted to say that the United States deserves at least some heightened leverage over other nations in world affairs. Strengthening the UN would be the best plan of action for the world and the United States, but I don't know how many Americans would be willing to serve under the UN. Even so, there is the potential of the UN forces essentially being a proxy for the whims of the United States, which would only make matters worse than they are now.

It's a tricky, sticky situation.
 
In theory, we'd take care of stuff that effects us and our allies, and pass the other stuff to the UN. Too bad the UN is incompetant and allows countries like Syria, Libya and Iran to head up Human Rights Councils and Atomic Proliferation Councils.

They're doing a great job in Darfur.
 
Maybe if the US was actually good at solving problems instead of just making them far worse.
 
The Golden Wang of Justice said:
They're doing a great job in Darfur.
Click to expand...
That's because the US treats it like a laughing stock and their peace keeping force is a joke. Maybe if the UN had teeth it would be taken seriously.
 
As it stands, I'm only for one of two choices:

1) The US go into Darfur, bomb the hell out of the Janjaweed and the other warlords (i.e., what they should have done in Fallujah)

2) The UN sending in "peacekeepers", just to show how weak they are.
 
I unfortunately have to agree that right now these are our options. :disgust:
 
It's all perspective but if everyone expects the US to play leader, they shouldn't criticize the way they go about it.
 
Not to be an isolationist douchebag, but really, with so many people displaced by Katrina and a city still in ruins, shouldn't we worry about putting our nation on the right track before we start a war with yet another set of Arab militiamen?

I mean, we haven't done very well the first couple of times we've tried the "WAR" strategy, and I don't think we have any signs of the third time being the charm. We do have a responsibility to the world, yes, but we need to remember that a nation has a primary responsbility to its citizens, not random-ass foriegners.
 
I agree with Ev. We have more than enough problems of our own. Dealing with outside problems only distracts us.

1) The US go into Darfur, bomb the hell out of the Janjaweed and the other warlords (i.e., what they should have done in Fallujah)

2) The UN sending in "peacekeepers", just to show how weak they are.
Click to expand...

If given a choice between trying to solve death and destruction with more death and destruction or just trying to talk things through, I'd pick the second.
 
And you wouldn't solve a thing either.
 
Bombing the hell out of them would be better than diplomacy at least. Even though I believe they're just animals who would eventually get into bitter dustups later anyway, my plan kills more of them ante bellum :)
 
Zeta said:
If given a choice between trying to solve death and destruction with more death and destruction or just trying to talk things through, I'd pick the second.
Click to expand...
If you had a choice between solving death, destruction, starvation and rape by military force or just diplomacy, which would you choose?

I'd chose military intervention. The international community has had 3 years of thumb-twiddling over Darfur, resulting in...what? 300000 people murdered and raped in a government supported genocide.
 
ades said:
If you had a choice between solving death, destruction, starvation and rape by military force or just diplomacy, which would you choose?

I'd chose military intervention. The international community has had 3 years of thumb-twiddling over Darfur, resulting in...what? 300000 people murdered and raped in a government supported genocide.
Click to expand...

How touchingly ignorant.

There's a 7000+ force from the African Union in Darfur presently. It is financed in large part by the EU and UN, with material support from various countries, including Canada (105 Armored Personel Carriers). Sure, more financing and personel would be necessary to improve the situation further, but that hardly qualifies as thumb-twiddling, especially in light of the fact that a western direct intervention would have only caused more problems (deploying peacekeepers now to assist the African force may be acceptable, though)

It sure beats consorting with the govt of Sudan (note that while the source may be questionable, I don't know it, the original article is from the LA Times).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom