Should America be the World's Policeman?

Their role is to put you in jail in order to keep the order. You do not talk to police. Before you respond to my comments, I want you to watch this video that explains it:


[video=youtube;6wXkI4t7nuc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/video]

And here's a good video also illustrating why I loathe cops. They are NOT on your side.

[video=youtube;njb6X-nmW2M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njb6X-nmW2M[/video]

There is a lot of corruption among them, and a lot of them are just bullies.

 

Bro, I understand the 5th. I understand and object to checkpoints (if they have them where you are) , and I fully understand that Obedience is not patriotism.

But lets be real about the purpose, function, and reality of the police.

 

You didn't watch the video, did you?

And did you know there is a constitution free zone in America?

 

What do you mean "the" video?

I watched them both.

Ive worked with cops since Clinton was POTUS.

Seen what they see.

Not what you read.

There are constitution free zones everywhere.

Welcome to the world.

 

`
In a manner of speaking, the U.S. becoming the "worlds policeman" is a misnomer. Our military is not stretched out to promote such altruistic idealisms as "peace." Quite to the contrary, their goal is to secure American corporate assets around the globe. The U.S. military has become thralls of the corporations. War are being fought and innocent lives taken to maintain corporate profitability.

 

It's possible, as China would most likely just leave the world alone.

 

ISIS is a good example of people we CANNOT tolerate. Openly hostile and belligerent who want to bring the war to us. Syria and Ukraine, even Libya are good examples of people we should leave alone, however they act toward their own people and in their own territory is their right as a sovereign nation. We should not act even if they are "destabilizing the region" or "threatening our 'interests'" in the area. The region should stabilize itself and our interests have an obligation to protect themselves or stay out of dangerous places

IMO America has the best ideology and we should promote and advocate it everywhere and anywhere we can, WITHOUT COST TO ANYONE. That is impossible, however, and a moot point because of that.

Yes and no, literally. The world did benefit, quite a bit, but whether it will all be worth it is still to be determined. If the world is destroyed because of it, and that may yet happen, obviously not.

That is a main reason that jerktard in the video is so bollocks. American interventionism may indeed have raised the world GDP or whatever. But how much did it cost us? and how much is still to be paid?

(and how much of that GDP increase is DESPITE rather than BECAUSE of our policies?)

 

Sorry no terrorism has been endemic to the Middle east for longer than the US has been a country. Terror, in any case, has been a perfectly legitimate military tactic at least since the days of the Assyrian Empire. Our current issue is with how it is currently being employed.

 

UH then please explain why China is currently building all these wonderful new offensive weapons systems.

 

One step toward a more vibrant world economy is to take another look at how money is created, by whom, why and what alternatives exist.

http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...etary-policy-central-american-revolution.html
Is it historically accurate that monetary policy was central to American Revolution?
I am wondering if the following article is basically accurate or largely inaccurate historically?


http://rense.com/general66/nobeyb.htm

 

the left is against any form of violation of rights, including being offended, when it pertains to them. Virtually every university has very strong abortion programs, information campaigns, but will not allow pro-life messages to be posted anywhere.

If a small pizza parlor says "no, we likely wouldn't cater a gay wedding' it is a violation of rights for every gay person in the world, despite the fact most gays have far to much class to cater a wedding with (*)(*)(*)(*)ing pizza. This allows for and encourages death threats; which is OK because the cause is just.

Any animal rights protestor is immediately given free legal counsel upon being arrested, however the cops who arrested him have to be immediately punished because he said the cop was rude or something. And there is the final irony, innocent until proven guilty is only allowed movie stars who get arrested for drugs and their ilk, everyone else should go directly to jail while "the poor" collect $200 for passing stool

 

If…… a new "Volunteerism Hour" is created and used to partly finance film and artistic projects that address real problems that people are having………….. in theory …. volunteerism by people who believe in certain events coming to pass in the near future…….. could become a large part of an economic recovery.

I read that volunteerism is nearly thirty percent of the North American economy. If it was more organized……… programmed into a database…….. measured through a "Volunteerism Hour"of some type…. then it could be increased and potentially become half of our real economic output?!

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...mageddon-could-bring-world-out-recession.html
Artistic Hollywood style "Armageddon" could bring world out of recession?!

…A serious attempt to replicate "Armageddon" would create a minimum of two hundred million jobs in China, India, Russia and Mongolia alone....... not to mention the number of jobs this would generate in Israel and the surrounding nations.

Revelation 9:16


"And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them."

China now holds so many American dollars that any possible way to cooperate at a higher level seems to be worthy of consideration.

One of the "stages" is the Jerusalem Third Temple complex. Without conflict a film is boring and we all know that lots of conflict surrounds the idea of rebuilding the Third Temple. Two logical years for this to happen are 2030 (only fifteen years in the future) and also 2070.

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...ay-least-expensive-way-stabilize-climate.html

Rebuilding of Jerusalem Third Temple may be least expensive way to stabilize climate?

 

Absolutely correct.

When you "act" like Vietnam, the relatives of the people you kill will indeed hate America as mush as political rhetoric will create hate for "gooks" and "*****" etc.

And if you don't, those whose interests are at stake in having the US invade will hate you.

 

I strongly advise you read some documented history of the United Nations.

Military spending will not likely bankrupt the US, it is the only real growth industry you have.

 

No.

(Because almost every comment or opinion I've experienced, tells me is it NOT the actual 'will' of the people, for us to play that role.)

- - - Updated - - -

But it can/has hobbled this nation's overall well-being.

We need to go in different directions... as soon as possible.

 

Because they don't want the history of being stomped by foreign powers to ever repeat again?

I wouldn't want us to stop developing new weapons either, even if we don't meddle.

 

We couldn't be the world's policeman even if we wanted to. Trying to be is a fool's errand.

 

The first problem with this dudes rant is his "assumption" that the US are the Good Guys/ acting to promote good. This is the "necessary illusion" needed to justify the 1 trillion dollar/year spend on the military oligopoly.

He claims "the UN has failed abysmally at keeping the Peace" So have we ?

US foreign policy is not about "keeping peace or freedom". It is singularly (or 97% so) about maintaining economic hegemony.

There was a time when it was worthwhile for the US empire to project power to maintain its economic hegemony. The reason it was worthwhile is because the return on investment were lower than the costs of projecting power.

Every empire in the past faced this same dilemma. A technological innovation led to military superiority which led to economic hegemony. The downfall of these previous economic empires be it the Roman, Spanish, or British, was that technology spreads. As technology spreads the cost of projecting power increases.

The British with the gatling gun could take over an entire African nation - fighting back with sticks and stones. Decades later when that African nation built turrets and put machine guns in them (technology spreads), one gunship was no longer enough. You had to send an armada which is expensive and you were going to take many casualties.

The cost of projecting power increases as technology spreads. Trying to maintain that projection of power is what bankrupted the previous economic empires.

We are facing a similar dilemma. The cost of projecting power has increased to the point where it is well beyond ridiculously expensive and the return on investment is really low, if not negative in many cases.

Case in point - Iraq: The previous war had decimated its military 10 years previous and there had been military sanctions ever since. This country was fighting back, comparatively, with sticks and stones. Even so this war costs many Trillions of dollars. Money that could have been spent building our infrastructure and put towards economic innovation.

This fellow goes completely off the rails when he talks about somehow protecting the world against Russia ? We do not, nor can not, police the world in any military sense, from Russia.

The big failure of US policy is the lack of recognition of the massive change to the global chessboard. In the past if your economy went down the tubes you just attacked your neighbor and took his stuff. This is no longer possible (in any realistic sense) if your neighbor has nukes.

This is a first in world history. The military has always been the strongest piece on the global chessboard with economy a close second. Economy is now the strongest piece on the board !

Ignoring this fact, by wasting too much money on military and spending too little on "economy".

Continuing to try and project power at ever increasing costs with ever decreasing return on investment is harming our future security through neglect of putting resources towards the real war of the 21st century which is economic.

We are shooting ourselves in the foot and everyone else seems to recognize this fact but us.

China could easily be putting 30% of their income towards their military (and they are starting from scratch compared to us) but they don't.

Trying to be the worlds Police in the way that we are currently doing it is killing us.

 

Imo it is time to come to grips with reality

After wwII
We were an imenseky do inant military and economic power. That dominance is hard to comprehend today
We could spend money and intimidate nations at our leasure

However, today we are no longer in that positionl. The typical narrative to explain this change is some failure of our nation or its leadership. The assumption being that our dominance could and should continue forever.

The reality is not that the us has failed. It is that the rest of the world has suceeded!!!
We are no longer surrounded by post colonial third world countries, or banana republics, or countries digging out from the rubble of the war.

Instead of dominating the world, we now have to compete with it.

In sone sense this is what we "said" that we wanted. A world of free nations with vibrant economies alltrading in a world market. The idea being that such a world would be inherently more peaceful and stable.... Since people would have their needs met, opportunities available, and enough skin in the game to make it unappealing and unnecessary to use war to meet goals.

And over all, that strategy has mostly worked.

But that all happened under the security blanket of pax americana
We were more or less the world policeman of last resort
No one could be sure of their position if they got too far out of line

But nations no longer want to defer to some pax americana
And as we become less economically dominant
We simply cannot fund the costs of being the world policeman and remaib competitive

Imo we need to accept our shifting role i the world
Rather than dwelling upon a possibly glorious but vanishing past

 

So your premise is that China is building artificial islands, hundreds of miles (further than other nations who claim the region) from China, coincidentally in an oil and other resource rich coral reef-to protect itself from foreign invaders?

 

OK, if not the arms industry what? Technology? You don't have the bright collar graduates now. Manufacturing? Oops, China has the market.

My friend I hear this all the time, it is part of the anti-American rhetoric of Canada's socialists, America is a big bad colonial power bully, dealing arms, the only country ever to deliberately kill with nukes, nyah, nyah, nyhah. But the answer to what should replace it is always lacking. Just as the anti-pipeline socialists shot themselves in their own ass forgetting this province is dependent on resources, and thousands of high paying jobs were at stake, to call for an end to the arms industry in the US leaves a huge economic pit, one that would pretty much cripple the trade deficit.

There is never an adequate answer to what direction to take where the US can compete on the world stage.

 

Gotta love those socialists. If the US were bullies we would have invaded Canada after WW2. There was nobody to stop us, we had nukes and nobody else did. Canada is resource rich ya know.

 

Yeah, I'm going to have to with the biggest fault is the assumption of that America is the good guys.

no. All modern wars is not about morality. America meddles in other countries for the sake of profit.

That is not the good guy

 

Well, figure something out... and stop with the INSANE notion that all we can benefit from is war/death.

 

You know without war we wouldn't have the Constitution that would give the right to express that kind of opinion, don't you?

Also, a lot of technology that you use now were invented by the military for use in war.

Such as this very internet. It was primarily meant to be used to kill people.