Is the U.S. entitled to be a "sheriff"

[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.

 

[OzAurora]

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..................

 

[A_Wanderer]

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.

 

[OzAurora]

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

 

[A_Wanderer]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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).

 

[Soul Always]

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.

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Is the U.S. entitled to be a "sheriff"

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.

 

[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.

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

 

[anitram]

Of course they are not "entitled." Nobody is entitled to anything.

 

[Klaus]

While reading this i had to think of Bad Religion's American Jesus

"...I feel sorry
For the earth?s population
?cuz so few
Live in the u.s.a.
At least the foreigners
Can copy our morality..."

 

[TylerDurden]

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.

 

[A_Wanderer]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

Whoa, where have you been? Where is your evidence that everyone wants democracy?

No one here is saying they want a two tier system, that's crap.

Democracy is not perfect, it's not the cure to all evils.

Have you seen what's going on today, there are people working from within the realm of democracies that are trying their hardest to take away the things that make democracy work.

 

[OzAurora]

I think that into this equation of 'democracy', one must be aware of whether or not said 'human rights' which constitute democracy are universal or culturally prescribed and one must not fall into a situation where one subjects their ethnocentric views whether forcefully or pasively onto another entity.........

 

[STING2]

One day people will have to accept that 'democracy' won't work everywhere, and stands less chance of working when forced.

Democracy stands no chance of working when leaders as ruthless and powerful as Saddam are in control.

 

[STING2]

Whoa, where have you been? Where is your evidence that everyone wants democracy?

No one here is saying they want a two tier system, that's crap.

Democracy is not perfect, it's not the cure to all evils.

Have you seen what's going on today, there are people working from within the realm of democracies that are trying their hardest to take away the things that make democracy work.

Democracy is not a cure all for everything, but countries that are democracy's tend to value human rights more and are less likely to engage in unprovoked war against their neighbors than Non-Democratic countries.

Most of the World is moving toward capitalist based global economic system in which all countries are governed by democratic governments. The countries with the highest standards of living today have these economic and political systems which is why most of the world wants to develop along those lines. Bin Ladin and Al Quada of course represent the strongest resistence to this new world and would of course like to take the entire Planet back to the way 7th century Arabia was.

 

[BVS]

Democracy is not a cure all for everything, but countries that are democracy's tend to value human rights more and are less likely to engage in unprovoked war against their neighbors than Non-Democratic countries.

Ironic given the current situation of the world.

 

[STING2]

Ironic given the current situation of the world.

Really? Here are the 15 Conflicts around the world that are or could be considered a "War".

Columbia "Insurgencies"
Congo "Congo War"
India "Assam"
India "Kashmir"
Indonesia "Aceh"
Israel "Al-Agsa Intifada"
Ivory Coast "Civil War"
Liberia "Civil War"
Nepal "Maoist Insurgency"
Russia "Chechen Uprising"
Sri Lanka "Tamil Uprising"
Sudan "Second Civil War"
Uganda "Civil Conflict"
United States "Afghanistan-Insurgents"
United States "Iraq-Insurgents"


How many of these "War's" involve two or more democratic states fighting each other? How many of these "War's" were started through the unprovoked action by a democratic State?

 

[TylerDurden]

I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. I never said anything about democracy as being 'bad'. Yes, in a perfect world, the whole world would be democratic. Yes, everyone wants freedom, stability etc etc. Yes, democracy is the best form of government for this. What I mean is, you may be too used to 'our' democracies. Look at our (basicaly) 2 party systems. One leans a little left, one leans a little right, one usually has an image of supporting the wealthy, one the working class etc etc. Same stuff all around the 'west'. We don't have tribal lines that would be followed. We don't have religious lines that would be followed. We don't have racial lines that would be followed. See what I'm getting at? You could throw 'democracy' into many countries, leave it to them, and it will still turn to chaos. That's not racist. Thats the way the world is. Replace 'Republican' and 'Democrat' with two racial groups, two religious groups or two tribal groups who have a long history of fighting. Think it will work out nicely with long debates about tiny % points on taxes?!?

 

[STING2]

I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. I never said anything about democracy as being 'bad'. Yes, in a perfect world, the whole world would be democratic. Yes, everyone wants freedom, stability etc etc. Yes, democracy is the best form of government for this. What I mean is, you may be too used to 'our' democracies. Look at our (basicaly) 2 party systems. One leans a little left, one leans a little right, one usually has an image of supporting the wealthy, one the working class etc etc. Same stuff all around the 'west'. We don't have tribal lines that would be followed. We don't have religious lines that would be followed. We don't have racial lines that would be followed. See what I'm getting at? You could throw 'democracy' into many countries, leave it to them, and it will still turn to chaos. That's not racist. Thats the way the world is. Replace 'Republican' and 'Democrat' with two racial groups, two religious groups or two tribal groups who have a long history of fighting. Think it will work out nicely with long debates about tiny % points on taxes?!?

Well, I think you oversimplify the two party system in the USA and other places. There are all kinds of groups that link themselves to different parties for their own reasons. People are always accusing the Republicans of being to alligned with the "Religious right".

More to the point, the United States has experienced plenty of political upheaval in its history and democracy continued to work. The USA had century's of racism a civil war, just to name a few things.

In fact, the United States clearly shows that people from a wide variety of backgrounds and beliefs can come together to form a stable government that works.

Is South Africa "Chaos" at the moment? Is Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union "Chaos" at the moment?

Democracy takes years to develop where it has yet to exist before, but racial, religious, and other differences are definitely not "show stoppers" when it comes to developing democracy. It can make the task more difficult and longer, but eventually, provided the right support, it will work.

 

[Saracene]

Democracy takes years to develop where it has yet to exist before, but racial, religious, and other differences are definitely not "show stoppers" when it comes to developing democracy. It can make the task more difficult and longer, but eventually, provided the right support, it will work.

Yeah, but what if these racial, religious and other cultural differences are completely incompatible with the very idea of democracy, and major cultural overhauls are required to get anywhere near it? And what if, further more, people are extremely unwilling to let any of these differences go, if they feel that they are indivisible from their cultural identity? Years to develop? Centuries to develop, more likely.

Regarding former Soviet Union, and Russia particularly, it may not be a war-torn chaos, but it's not particularly stable either and certainly not a working democracy even if it may wear democracy mask.

 

[TylerDurden]

Well, I think you oversimplify the two party system in the USA and other places. There are all kinds of groups that link themselves to different parties for their own reasons. People are always accusing the Republicans of being to alligned with the "Religious right".

More to the point, the United States has experienced plenty of political upheaval in its history and democracy continued to work. The USA had century's of racism a civil war, just to name a few things.

In fact, the United States clearly shows that people from a wide variety of backgrounds and beliefs can come together to form a stable government that works.

Is South Africa "Chaos" at the moment? Is Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union "Chaos" at the moment?

Democracy takes years to develop where it has yet to exist before, but racial, religious, and other differences are definitely not "show stoppers" when it comes to developing democracy. It can make the task more difficult and longer, but eventually, provided the right support, it will work.

Democracy works when countries are economicaly stable and the people are happy to spend their time arguing over exposed breasts on national tv, taxes, presidential military service etc and when even 'big' issues like abortion, gay marriage and foreign policy, for most, are not interesting. We are comfortable. We choose between 2 parties who either agree with us on these tiny to large issues, or don't. Zoom out and both sides will look similar. They're not extreme parties. It's just the details.

Head down to Africa (not South Africa, which despite it's issues is still pretty 'western') and pick a country that ranks somewhere at the bottom of the world in wealth. A country dominated by two racial/tribal groups. One has power currently and rules over the other (think of Iraq under Saddam). Hand them democracy. What lines do you think the two parties will take? What do you think the people will argue over policiticaly? Think about Iraq, what if the political parties were the Shi'ite Party, Sunni Party and Kurd Party. Think they'll spend forever debating over the details of health care? Not suggesting that's the way Iraq will go, just showing that some countries have very clear dividing lines that have nothing to do with where you stand on social security, health care and abortion, and even under democracy they'll still divide under those lines. It won't be truly democracy, just another fight for power.

The countries need the economic stability, the comfort, or 'happiness' first.

So, I agree with the earlier post about trade bringing it on. Fair trade. Bring the countries at the bottom up. Democracy will come in time.

 

[anitram]

Interesting you pick South Africa. Have you been recently?

Johannesburg is a MESS. There are something like 2 million people living in shanty towns who moved in after Mandela was initially elected, who have no access to clean drinking water, proper electricity, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and so on. The crime rate has skyrocketed. If you have been there recently you will know of the "red light rule" on the road - that is, violent crime there is so bad that if you are standing at a red light (in your car) and you see "suspicious activity" or people milling about, you are by law permitted to run the red in order to escape from being a victim or robbery or carjacking. You tell me if this is not some kind of chaos. Furthermore, as is tradition there, when you go and park your car at a parking lot, there will be people there whom you will pay in order to "watch" your car - a desirable thing if you want your tires to be there upon return. It's mostly an easy way to make money, but you can also elect not to pay and gamble with the outcome.

 

[Sherry Darling]

Sting has it almost right. I've read studies about this precise question for my classes, and the stats show that demoncracies tend not to go to war *against eachother*. All bets are off about democracies going to war with nondemocracies, or as he points out, non-democracies warring with eachother.



sd