Is the U.S. entitled to be a "sheriff" - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-27-2004, 01:13 AM   #1
The Fly
 
sarah_U27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 159
Local Time: 01:25 PM
Is the U.S. entitled to be a "sheriff"

Does God approve of the U.S.'s *strong* climactic work in Iraq, as well as other countries in the past. What do you think of "freedom for the people"~~should the U.S. push freedoms on others. (Especially at the expense of U.S. and allies life-blood). Should the U.S. be considered as a "sheriff" for the world" . . . Why? Why not.

Personally, I think the U.N. has done a lousy job . . . this is history.
__________________

__________________
sarah_U27 is offline  
Old 04-27-2004, 02:26 AM   #2
Refugee
 
OzAurora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,612
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Firstly I guess that in response to your question, one has to work out whether or not they believe in God and therefore whether or not said God disaproves or not of the actions of the US. I for one dont believe in 'God' so I guess the only person to wage disaproval on the actions of the US is myself. Given that Australia has troops who are in Iraq at the moment, this is a topic that is questioned all the time here. I personally dont believe that the US should be doing what they are doing and more importantly I dont believe that Australia should be playing any part in these actions. I believe that Australia has come of age as a nation and no longer needs to be chaperoned on the world stage by either the US or Great Britain. We have a federal election coming up this year and the topic of our troops being in Iraq and the role that our country played in the 'coalition of the willing' will be one of the main focus points of the election.

I do believe that the US do things when they either have a stake in the country or will be gaining something from their actions. I have to question their motives as throughout the world at the present moment, there are a number of countries under the rule of tyrannical dictators such as Zimbabwe, The Solomon Islands and Madagascar to name but a few. So, I ask, 'why is it that the US has not stepped into these situations, are the inocent people of these nations, less deserving of help than the people of Afganistan and Iraq???'

From the way I see it, the US has no vested interest in these countries, therefore they get no help, so I do see it wrong that the US should act as 'world sheriff' for either the political, economic or strategic gain of a few men in power. And it disgusts me that our Prime Minister sees it fit to place Australians in this equation..................
__________________

__________________
OzAurora is offline  
Old 04-27-2004, 03:56 AM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:25 AM
Just because removing one brutal dictator won't remove others is no reason not to remove the one. If we are going to make the world any better we will need to attack each and every despotic regime. The methods of action depends on the situation, in Iraq we have tried sanctions, we have tried assasination and we have tried containment but no method was providing a real peace this is why war was inevitable and also why the brutality of the war is much less than that of prolonged containment. Zimbabwe and Solomon Islands are different situations alltogether, for one thing there is not a Saudi Arabia motivating the actions and the humanitarian needs are also not as great. They demand a different engagement which is not immediatly war.

Australia fits in as a middle power. New Zealand can get away with sitting on the fence because they have protected trade with Australia, Europe broadly has its own economic protections but Austalia on its own cannot expect to remain economically stable if it doesn't take positions on issues and follow them through. Its basic international relations and it is why we act in our national interest by going with the US.

The USA is the only power that may ensure democracy can spread around the world. The absence of another superpower offers a great opertunity because there is no longer a need to back so many dictators to head off soviet intervention. Remember the Status Quo is NOT PEACE, to ensure a just peace we must adress the problems and to work the problems we must use ALL tools of diplomacy.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2004, 07:33 AM   #4
Refugee
 
OzAurora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,612
Local Time: 06:25 AM
sorry Wanderer, but I really do think that you need to enrol yourself into a modern day politics course, I don't have the time or energy to go through what you just wrote, but what you have said sounds so much like the political rhetoric spewed forth by those who consume a diet of Howard/Bush fear mongering whilst remembering the good ol' days of Cold War proxys and dominos................

read a bit broader
__________________
OzAurora is offline  
Old 04-27-2004, 10:49 AM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:25 AM
It is difficult to post my entire set of views and that last post was really very poor. I will try clarify my position here.

I feel that since the end of the cold war we are presented with a unique situation where there is a global system with inherent instability that lacks will to support it that we had during the cold war.

I think that all nations are motivated by self-interest and during the cold war it was in the United States interest to eliminate communism and ensure the sucess of the liberal democracy (US self interest because it is much more stable global system and economic engagement is easier within the framework of global capitalism). This active self interest driven engagement with the world did often necessitate backing dictators for the so called "greater good" of fighting communism but now it is over there is no longer a real purpose for them to exist. Dictatorial regimes should not have any place in the world today (even in the war on terror) and if there is a real intention to "win" the war on terror (its not a millitary battle it is an intelligence and political one) it must be done by removing dictators and ensuring the sucess of peaceful democratic governments in the long run through any and all means available.

I do not believe that the cold war was the good old days but I strongly believe that the fight against communism was right however the choice of battlefields was not. The "war on terror" is different and I belive that it is a sideshow to the real issue, the real issue is that we are in a period of transition and the threat of terrorism is blowback from the cold war and the lack of a proper peace. We are unfortunately living in a Pax Americana type world where the US is forced to play the global policeman, this was not something that the US asked for and it is not something that is sustainable. We need to find a true and just peace in the world where people have a right to live without the threat of violence hanging over them. How to attain this peace is the question, I do not believe that diplomatic engagement alone can solve all problems, there are limits to how much you can give when dealing with dictators and sometimes millitary force can bring a positive resolution. It is not good that war is an answer but when confronted with the choice between brutal conflict with a positive resolution and the greater brutality of inaction war is a distinct option that should be considered. War brings suffering but it can also prevent greater suffering. We must not settle with things the way they are if we expect the world to get any better. After the 20th century we must realize that real peace is a necessity, how to attain that peace is where people disagree.

I ask you this question, how many terrorists are generated within liberal democracys? What is the reason for this figure? What would a world where everybody was free to lead their lives the way they wan't to be like? and Is the world better off and safer without the presence of Saddam Hussein?

I do not wish to ask in a confrontational way as I am simply seeking a real response to a real question. Is the US a "sheriff" because nobody else is willing?

P.S.: I just want to state that I think Bush and Howard give overly simplistic views of the world for domestic consumption that totally gloss over the reality of the situation, I don't like their conservative politics or the dishonest attempts to link independent issues like Iraq and Terrorism (specifically Al Qaeda, I know that Saddam actively supported palestinian and global terrorism). I also don't think that leaving Iraq will solve anything at all, it will only lead to a humanitarian disaster for the Iraqi people and create the conditions for a big terrorist attack in the west (when I say big I mean >100,000 deaths), if 9/11 was blowback for Afghanistan and US Bases in Saudi Arabia I hate to think the scale of pulling out of Iraq's concequences. When the job is done would be an Iraq where there is a clearly elected government with control over its security forces that can maintain sovereignty over its territory.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2004, 11:05 AM   #6
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,648
Local Time: 01:25 PM
I think "spreading democracy" is just as much a self-interest as eliminating communism. I'm not saying I believe in keeping dictators in power, but I question a forced democracy.

Sheriff's are elected positions, not assumed positions.

There are moments where we are asked and there are moments we are not. Don't fool yourself the moments we act without being asked we are acting for our own interests it has nothing to do with wanting to "spread democracy". The interest may be financial, political, etc. it may eventually do good for some under horrible conditions, but it's not the first priority.

We'll see how our latest sheriffing actions pan out over the years. The only thing I can say when acting without immenent threat the sheriff should have investigated more and called for more back up.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-27-2004, 11:22 AM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:25 AM
The reality is that the US has an interest in "spreading democracy" if it results in a more stable economic partner (i.e., we can then sell stuff to them).
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-27-2004, 01:52 PM   #8
Acrobat
 
Soul Always's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 312
Local Time: 12:25 PM
Re: Is the U.S. entitled to be a "sheriff"

Quote:
Originally posted by sarah_U27
Does God approve of the U.S.'s *strong* climactic work in Iraq, as well as other countries in the past. What do you think of "freedom for the people"~~should the U.S. push freedoms on others. (Especially at the expense of U.S. and allies life-blood). Should the U.S. be considered as a "sheriff" for the world" . . . Why? Why not.

Personally, I think the U.N. has done a lousy job . . . this is history.
I believe that the U.S. does do a lot of good for God. But, God can't be blamed for the mistakes and human faults.

I think the U.S. should make the climate in the world a place where everyone can live.

I wish the U.S. wasn't a sheriff for the world. But, the world needs one, so someone's got to step up. It's like the wild west out there.
__________________
Don't look in the obvious place
The soul needs beauty for a soulmate
Soul Always is offline  
Old 04-27-2004, 02:17 PM   #9
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,648
Local Time: 01:25 PM
Re: Re: Is the U.S. entitled to be a "sheriff"

Quote:
Originally posted by Soul Always


I believe that the U.S. does do a lot of good for God. But, God can't be blamed for the mistakes and human faults.

I think the U.S. should make the climate in the world a place where everyone can live.

I wish the U.S. wasn't a sheriff for the world. But, the world needs one, so someone's got to step up. It's like the wild west out there.
The U.S. plays their part in both the helping of this world and destroying this world. There is not one country who is solely doing or undoing God's work. Countries act on their own interest, period. The reason it's like the wild west out there is everyone is walking around with a nuke strapped to their side and is looking out for number one, themselves, and the U.S. is just as much a part of that than anyone else.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-27-2004, 05:43 PM   #10
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 07:25 PM
I doubt that God is a political entity. Democracy is not the cure-all for the world's ills, and thinking that it is will cause no end of trouble. Just look around us today.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 04-27-2004, 06:07 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:25 PM
I do not believe that anything that occurs does not have a purpose.

That said, I wonder what the world would look like if we cut our military, stopped sending troops around the world for the UN and Nato.

Would the world look like a better place....maybe....

But everything that happens somehow will serve God's purpose.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-27-2004, 06:23 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 02:25 PM
Of course they are not "entitled." Nobody is entitled to anything.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-28-2004, 06:57 AM   #13
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:25 PM
While reading this i had to think of Bad Religion's American Jesus

"...I feel sorry
For the earthís population
ícuz so few
Live in the u.s.a.
At least the foreigners
Can copy our morality..."
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-28-2004, 07:06 AM   #14
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by najeena
I doubt that God is a political entity. Democracy is not the cure-all for the world's ills, and thinking that it is will cause no end of trouble. Just look around us today.
One day people will have to accept that 'democracy' won't work everywhere, and stands less chance of working when forced.
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 04-28-2004, 08:16 AM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:25 AM
To believe that some people cannot accept democracy is an inherently racist position. It sickens me that people wan't to create a two tier human rights system where the western nations may sit on top and preach moral relativism of why arabs/africans/asians cannot accept democratic principles. Democracy is not forced upon people. it is the will of the people. What do people want?, peace and freedom. What do people hate? War, Famine, Opression. Sometimes to ensure a just peace wars must be fought, to defeat tyranny and fight to protect a democracy is not forcing democracy upon people, it is a balancing act where you must keep a the democratic system from falling into despotism or chaos. Democracy is the ONLY system that grants people true freedom and to it takes a total clot who does not know how much people have and continue to suffer in the pursuit of it to say that democracy is not for everyone. Democracy is one of the greatest concepts that western civilization adopted and I would say one of the greatest in the history of the world.

Liberal Democracy means freedom of speech, freedom to earn wealth, freedom to worship and freedom to live without threat of violence. These are not simple western ideals, they are universal rights. The sooner we all accept mankind is at a point where our survival is dependent on mutual respect the sooner we may create a better world for all of us.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com