The US has no business meddling in the affairs of others.
The world obviously needs policing, and only the US is up to the task.
Then there are those who try to have it both ways, randomly switching between the two. Such as: the current US administration.
My thoughts:
The world needs a competent and trustworthy policeman.
No one needs an incompetent and/or untrustworthy policeman.
In the long run, the world should learn to police itself.
In the short run, there’s nobody right now who is in a position to police the world.
In the medium run, the US needs to get its own act back together. Then – and only then – we can talk about policing the world. A country that can’t or won’t secure its own borders is not going to secure, for example, Iraq.
You may dismount from your high horse, sir. Both Republicans and Democrats do this. And both Republicans and Democrats supported the first (second) foray into Iraq.
We have committed to blowing more stuff up there because we owe it to the Iraqi people after having invaded, knocking over a dictator, and giving them a shot at responsible statehood (which they didn’t really do so well with). Amazingly, the Islamic State is far worse than Saddam himself was.
Republicans are not in the driver’s seat right now. Haven’t been in quite a while. Blaming Bush at this late date is just pathetic. May as well blame it all on Eve for biting that damn apple.
US has its hands in EVERY cookie jar on the planet outside of the ‘axis of evil’ so policing the world is in reality just the US protecting their overseas assets.
The fact that Americans think it is an altruistic measure is as laughable as thinking their overseas wars are started to promote democracy.
Its to keep the money flowing, as a lot of that money flows back to the US.
Other countries don’t have a stake (read: $$$$) in other countries so they see no need in meddling.
There is definite truth to the statement hat “national interests” means very different things to most countries than it does to the US. I think only the UK and Russia probably are on the same page as us in this regard.
“We bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan because, you know, national interests.”
And the one before that. Clinton bombed the Serbians, but did nothing in Rwanda. Bush attacked Iraq, but not North Korea or Iran. The early American presidents struggled whether to support the French Revolution, a fellow democracy, or our British trading partners. American foreign policy has always been a balance between getting involved or minding our own business. One problem that any administration faces is the pendulum of public support. When Washington was president, Americans were united in opposing any involvement in foreign wars. When the French revolution began, Washington kept the US neutral and people thanked him for it.
By the time John Adams was elected, Americans were clamoring for the US to support democratic France in its new war with imperial England. Jefferson was among Adams’s loudest critics, but when he became president, he did nothing to help the French republicans when their government collapsed. He famously bought the huge Louisiana territory from Napoleon.
American foreign policy has always been a balance between getting involved and minding our own business. Arguably, our policy isn’t so much a balance as it is a pendulum swinging back and forth, since the public itself goes back and forth. For example, a new poll shows the American public supports Obama’s airstrikes against ISIS, for now. That could easily change, especially since the same poll shows opposition to the use of any ground forces.
[quote]Americans back President Barack Obama’s decision to begin conducting air strikes in Iraq, but strongly oppose sending American ground troops to fight the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans in the new poll supported Obama’s authorization of air strikes against insurgents in Iraq, while 24 percent said they oppose the move. A similar percentage said they would approve of the use of drones. The air strikes brought a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, with 66 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans supporting the move. Independents expressed less positive opinions, with just half approving.[/quote]
It’s worth noting that the best decision the U.S. made in its last great crusade was to holster its delusion prone messiah complex and go home.
1964:[quote]If we quit Vietnam tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii and next week we’ll have to be fighting in San Francisco.[/quote] President Lyndon Johnson
Today:
[quote]There are Vietnam beach resorts within just a few miles of almost every location in the country. This is a long thin country with more than 2,100 miles of coastline, and that does not even include a few thousand offshore islands. You will find a beach resort in Vietnam fairly nearby even if you are in the region of the northern mountains that is no more than about 200 miles wide.
Vietnamese luxury beachfront lodging is a relatively new concept. In fact, the tourism industry itself only began during the 1990s when the country first opened up to Western tourists. But great strides have been made, and new Vietnam beach resorts are being built all the time as visitors from the United States and Europe begin to discover this enchanting country.[/quote]
There’s clearly a need in this troubled world for someone to protect the weak from the strong but it’s equally clear at this point that an hallucination prone superpower with a messiah complex filling that role is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
The U.S. government is a declining imperial power struggling to hold onto resources such as oil, and maintain the petrodollar as the international unit of exchange. It manages its own population in the same spirit that it exploits political divisions elsewhere in the world. The rhetoric of democracy and human rights is a farce.
And yet, the results were far worse under Saddam in terms of numbers tortured and killed. ISIS is a threat but I think that it will take a little more time before the Kurds and Shias in particular and even the Iranians and Kuwaits who were also invaded agree with THAT statement.
Hold onto resources such as oil? Someone had better read the latest figures on oil and gas production… and how the fracking/shale revolution is, er, a revolution…
And yet, the results were far worse under Saddam in terms of numbers tortured and killed. ISIS is a threat but I think that it will take a little more time before the Kurds and Shias in particular and even the Iranians and Kuwaits who were also invaded agree with THAT statement.[/quote]
Saddam had a lot longer to wreak havoc than the Islamic State has.
And when it has and does then we will revisit. Until then, my statement stands. ISIS is no where near killing as many Iraqis or neighboring countries’ citizens as Saddam.
Er… That’s the reason Fred says we need to wait until they’ve had the same amount of time to make a valid comparison/contrast.[/quote]
Processing…
I see. I didn’t get what his point was because he phrased it as “the results were far worse under Saddam.” I thought it was a counter-argument that Saddam was actually worse, but now I see that’s not the case.
I don’t think you do. You assume that because ISIS is so brutal now, that they would remain as brutal throughout their existence if permitted to stay on as long as Saddam was.
Do I need to explain why such an assumption is not reliable?