Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zrk2]

We've moved on a bit, but I wrote this already, so:

It's because we are the world police. I still maintain it was the English who thrust us there. Roosevelt's intentions were to get us the heck out of Europe the second WW2 was over. His death and Churchill's desire for the US to maintain a presence for a broader confrontation with Communism put us on the path of becoming world police.

I fail to see this connection.
Getting involved in the Cold War with the Soviet Union was a political decision of the government of the United States, and in no way did it make the US a world police. Not any more than it made so the USSR at least.
There already is such an institution, and it's the UN. However imperfect it might be, it's the closest we've got to apolitical conflict-prevention force.
I really don't recollect having the world give USA(or any other single state) any right to unilaterally act as an additional one.
I do remember Mr Y's analysis from not-so-long ago in their National Strategic Narrative of where does this belief of being one come from.

The Cold War did in fact lead directly to the emergence of the USA as the dominant world power. (I feel like I'm back in AP American history, I think we had a DBQ on this exact topic) Anyway, given the American policy of containment of communism whenever any communists, or even vaguely communist affiliated groups rose to political power in a region the Americans would then step in and support right-wing groups in other nations or even in that same nation.

This then lead to America being embroiled in more and more minor nations and their disputes and so to settling more and more of those disputes through warfare and political shenanigans. See Vietnam and Korea for the two most famous examples. This naturally morphed into the world police role as communism declined but America still had influence in these various nations, and so still had to be involved in their affairs after the fall of the USSR because of economic and strategic interests that America still had in the previously discussed nations.

---

Anyway as far as 'world police' goes, it's more of 'world mob enforcer' because they enforce peace on the world, but they do it on their terms and to their benefit. So 'policeman' is a bit misleading, but it's more polite.

[Montague]

Well there is legal ground to arrest him : the use of mercenaries, attack of a sovereign country under false pretences, torture, unlawful arrestation...
My interpretation of that war is that it was conducted to settle old scores, and possibly to enrich the president's entourage, to the detriment of the citizens themselves who will pay thousands of time what the conspirators will earn.

It is proved that they knew they had no ground for an invasion, and seriously they never pretended very hard, which is why there was such opposition everywhere else. Worse, everyone knew it was going to fail.

Nothing illegal with using "mercenaries" which are really more like glorified rent-a-cops in the context of Iraq. I'd struggle to qualify Saddam's regime as a legitimate, sovereign government. He was basically a thug or gangster that killed his way into power and controlled the country and its people as his own personal property. Its like saying its legitimate if the Mafia killed off and replaced your municipal government. False arrests and torture? Its war and the enemy during the occupation wasn't a legitimate army with none of the protections afforded by treaty. We were arresting state-less combatants. How do you handle an enemy who's home state refuses to claim them as citizens? I don't mean it is ok to torture them, but then you have to define what qualifies as torture as well. Its not as clear-cut and simple as all that.

I sort of doubt your last point. Congress approved the hell out of the invasion and surely not everyone there is part of any shady good-ol-boy network as tight as the one you attribute to GWB. I don't doubt plenty of people made money off the war, but an almost majority of the contractors involved in Iraq that won bids were foreign corporations. Sodexo and most of the "mercenary" security yokels hired were not even American. If the war was started just to make a few elites richer, you'd think they wouldn't let the DoD open bid everything.

Also, GWB being some conspiratorial elite Illuminati guy? He was a raging moron, he's probably out clearing brush on his ranch right now.

At worse, I see it as the US government simply deciding it wanted to rid the world of one less dictator, and after 9-11, damn the consequences. It figured it might as well go after Saddam, to settle old scores, as you say and because he has always been a potential threat to Israel.

As for Bush being arrested for crimes, what crimes? A nation has the right to pursue its own self interests and to wage war. Especially against illegitimate reigns like Saddam's and the pretenders that rose up after his downfall.

This is for things like the Guantanamo Bay memos, and such, what by all indications was a top down authorization of government agents violating human rights treaties to which the United States is a signatory.  Those things do count for stuff, it's what people like Slobodan Milosevic were jailed on, for the sake of making a legal argument.

Beyond Bush himself, there's also the effective immunity people like Dick Cheney have gotten from foreign prosecution for charges levied against them as private citizens, stemming from his days as a oil drilling CEO.  It wasn't the government committing a crime in that case, it's that his position then and now as a major American politician blocking a legitimate legal case.

I'm not all convinced of the legitimacy of foreign nations to levy charges against US citizens. I think the US gov't holds a similar view on this. Now, if the EU had went in and toppled the US gov't arrested Bush and everyone else, propped up an accommodating US gov't and then tried them with the legitimacy and backing of the new US gov't, then it'd be something like a historical, legitimate war-crime mock trial like in the good ol' days.

I guess it does sort of go back to that "they are too powerful to be held accountable." but I also don't believe the kinds of torture or whatever crimes that might have been mandated really amount to shit compared to what other governments do on a routine basis. Does it make it right? No, but I think its a bit backwards to go after Bush and his band of idiots for approving water-boarding on stateless terrorists and then compare them to thugs filling mass graves. Its just priorities.

[Il Palazzo]

@Zrk2:
To clarify, I wasn't asking for a history lesson. I'm perfectly aware of the historical background leading to today's political situation.
What I fail to see is how a nation pursuing its own interests is being the justification for assuming moral high ground that branding itself "world police" entails.

[Zrk2]

@Zrk2:
To clarify, I wasn't asking for a history lesson. I'm perfectly aware of the historical background leading to today's political situation.
What I fail to see is how a nation pursuing its own interests is being the justification for assuming moral high ground that branding itself "world police" entails.

Ah.

None, I mentioned that in the addendum.

[Montague]

@Zrk2:
To clarify, I wasn't asking for a history lesson. I'm perfectly aware of the historical background leading to today's political situation.
What I fail to see is how a nation pursuing its own interests is being the justification for assuming moral high ground that branding itself "world police" entails.

I'm not sure morality really plays into being "world police". Its simply a matter of being nosy, belligerent and have the power and willpower to go about keeping lesser powers in check. The more the world police/ USA demonstrates its willingness and ability to intervene, the more effective it is at deterring behavior it doesn't like.

The USA acts like a "world police" because it goes after tyrannical or criminal regimes. If some other country in a dystopian alternate universe with a different outlook but similar power and interventionist policies might be considered a world bully or terrorist or something to that effect, running around stomping out any country that doesn't uphold Sharia law or isn't ethnically pure enough or isn't implementing the correct interpretation of Marxism or whatever. They'd be the world police, though the term might not fit as well.

[Phmcw]

Actually it is. The use of torture is prohibited, period.
And when you're coercing information through force, you're using torture. Nothing hard to understand there.

Nothing illegal with using "mercenaries" which are really more like glorified rent-a-cops in the context of Iraq.

You are aware that you have as many mercenaries in Iraq as soldiers? And that those mercenaries aren't liable of their actions?
On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34, the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. Straight from the wiki.
Also I would certainly have a problem with rented cops.

Also, GWB being some conspiratorial elite Illuminati guy? He was a raging moron, he's probably out clearing brush on his ranch right now.

And yet he somehow became the president of the US.

Its war and the enemy during the occupation wasn't a legitimate army with none of the protections afforded by treaty.

False, re read the Geneva convention.

The USA acts like a "world police" because it goes after tyrannical or criminal regimes.

No they don't, they goes against troubled regime they don't like, which is not the same thing, and as they demonstrated with Chile,  have no claim about overthrowing democratically elected ones, or like he demonstrated countless time, have none either about influencing democracy through coercion or lobbying. Just like every other country on this planet.

[Montague]

Actually it is. The use of torture is prohibited, period.
And when you're coercing information through force, you're using torture. Nothing hard to understand there.

Nothing illegal with using "mercenaries" which are really more like glorified rent-a-cops in the context of Iraq.

You are aware that you have as many mercenaries in Iraq as soldiers? And that those mercenaries aren't liable of their actions?
On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34, the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. Straight from the wiki.
Also I would certainly have a problem with rented cops.

Also, GWB being some conspiratorial elite Illuminati guy? He was a raging moron, he's probably out clearing brush on his ranch right now.

And yet he somehow became the president of the US.

Its war and the enemy during the occupation wasn't a legitimate army with none of the protections afforded by treaty.

False, re read the Geneva convention.

The USA acts like a "world police" because it goes after tyrannical or criminal regimes.

No they don't, they goes against troubled regime they don't like, which is not the same thing, and as they demonstrated with Chile,  have no claim about overthrowing democratically elected ones, or like he demonstrated countless time, have none either about influencing democracy through coercion or lobbying. Just like every other country on this planet.

Pinochet really wasn't much worse then that cretin he ousted. You could also argue he stayed in power democratically, we won the majority in the plebiscites by some slim margin. Allende would have been disastrous for that country, and the politics that guy adhered to amounted to tyranny, despite what leftist rhetoric might have said otherwise. Chile would have been another imploded socialist shithole like so many other countries around the world right now. Then you'd have people on the internet arguing that somebody should have intervened before it was too late. Look at Chile today, its really not doing that bad compared to its neighbors and the rest of the world.

Anyways, you are right, it was done primarily for the self-interest of the US, simply because a foreign-aid dependent Chile was not in US economic interests. The anti-communist stuff is passe in terms of US foriegn policy, it probably was something Chile could have sorted out on its own. The US doesn't go into functional, stable nations with governments that respect human rights. It always intervenes in shitholes and countries on the precipice.

You are aware that you have as many mercenaries in Iraq as soldiers? And that those mercenaries aren't liable of their actions?

Technically, they are not mercenaries, because they don't act as soldiers in the country. They simply guard property and individuals. They don't assault military objectives, kick down doors, or besiege anything. They stand around and make sure nobody sets their primary on fire. They are really just security guards and they do indeed answer to the Iraqi government as well as their employers. Blackwater was kicked out of the country entirely by the Iraqi government for being belligerent shitheads far beyond what their security guard duties required.

False, re read the Geneva convention.

Ok they have some of the protections, but the guys in Gitmo are stateless actors who are really in a murkier category then outlined in article 4 of the Geneva convention. The Iraqi insurgents got dumped in Iraqi prisons, which is really worse then Gitmo anyways.

And yet he somehow became the president of the US.

Dumb ass people vote too and merit rarely has anyplace in who gets into the presidency or any other official office. To be fair, he barely won the elections. So, you assert GWB masterminded these plots to make himself and his lackeys rich by perpetuating a war... but to what end? He was already rich before and today he still isn't doing anything very ambitious. He's on his stupid ranch clearing brush. His other lackies are doing similar bullshit, writing books and whatnot. I don't see how they really achieved much.

[Kogan Loloklam]

@Zrk2:
To clarify, I wasn't asking for a history lesson. I'm perfectly aware of the historical background leading to today's political situation.
What I fail to see is how a nation pursuing its own interests is being the justification for assuming moral high ground that branding itself "world police" entails.

Oh, that was your argument?

Yea, There is no justification for taking the moral high ground. I'd just as happy to see Russia or China doing it myself. The problem is, they probably wouldn't, unless you can view them in hindsight. The US may have installed puppets all over the world, but both Russia and China have a much more current annexations of territory than the US. Russia in World War 2, China a few years later. The UN would be a good choice, but again they aren't able to be an effective deterrent against all those petty tyrants wandering amok. The US might not be the best choice, but tyrants fear her enough to not be too stupid. Mostly they fear that America will cease supporting them, but fear is fear, and it generates at least some order in the world.

[Zrk2]

I would much rather it stay America. They buy more oil from us than they do from Saudi Arabia, and we're sort of too bloody close to them for them to let anything bad happen to us. I'm OK with this.

[Phmcw]

What we've got right now is mostly a feudal world, with Russia, China and US as big kings, European countries, India and Brazil as major players and every one else that pledge allegiance to one of them.
Justice is scarce and there is no world police (The US and Europe are kind of benevolent, if you are lucky and don't fall on one of the shady part of our government, and the other don't give a shit about what you do).

Nor can there be one: Iraq and Afghanistan are there to remind us that military occupation is hard and costly.

Montague : You're seeing the US through pink glasses. I'd advice you to investigate French foreign policy first, so here is no emotional attachment and you can see how shady the action of a big democracy can be first hand. Start with this guy.

[scriver]

: USA and the world police - continued from Egypt&Lybia thread.

Why is it so hard to spell Libya correctly.

[Il Palazzo]

: USA and the world police - continued from Egypt&Lybia thread.

Why is it so hard to spell Libya correctly.

An honest mistake, and thanks for pointing that out.

[Kogan Loloklam]

What we've got right now is mostly a feudal world, with Russia, China and US as big kings, European countries, India and Brazil as major players and every one else that pledge allegiance to one of them.

A Feudal world. It certainly does sort of look like that. Either way though, order is brought to the world. It may be a brutal and oppressive order, but it still is order. This helps the world as a whole become better, though a better system would certainly do more for it than what we have now. The problem is, Fudal kings never give up their power. Look at what they've made in the past. The UN. The League of Nations. Other ineffective groups.

Just watch, we'll get something real from some random part of the world that isn't a "King". It'd be funny if Rwanda was responsible for starting a "world police" setup that works

[Siquo]

Without the US and its diplomatic, economic and military supremacy backing it up, the United Nations and NATO would be basically powerless.

not to be anti-american or anything, but america's economy is a wee bit fucked up, so that's one thing you can move off the list.

Fucked up but still important. Most of the world cannot afford for the US to go bankrupt. China owns large amounts of US, as does the EU and the Arab world. If the US govt defaults, they're the ones who lose, and they won't let that happen. There's debt to be paid *evil grin*