Should the US be a watchdog of world affairs?

It is indeed absurd to argue that the UN serves no purpose or is useless. And though that's what Federal stated, I think most knew not to take the statement literally.

He's simply seems to be argueing that the UN doesn't make an effort to act for the priniciples it embodies and enforce it's resolutions.

There is a great deal of support for this. And federal has demonstrated several examples.

I'm not saying that the US does a better more responsible job. The US on more than one occasion acted selfishlessly choosing to intervene only when they stand to profit. But were it possible that the US in the future acts more responsibily. Would you support the US acting as a watchdog and working to make sure that UN resolutions including the ones it violates get enforced.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

It is indeed absurd to argue that the UN serves no purpose or is useless. And though that's what Federal stated, I think most knew not to take the statement literally.

In other words, we should disregard what he said -- and instead assume he meant what you think he meant???

Quote:

He's simply seems to be argueing that the UN doesn't make an effort to act for the priniciples it embodies and enforce it's resolutions.

Actually, if you read what he wrote -- rather than what you want to pretend he wrote -- you will see he said a awful lot more than that!

Quote:

There is a great deal of support for this. And federal has demonstrated several examples.

And there is plenty of support for the UN.

Quote:

I'm not saying that the US does a better more responsible job. The US on more than one occasion acted selfishlessly choosing to intervene only when they stand to profit.

Interesting choice of words!

Quote:

But were it possible that the US in the future acts more responsibily. Would you support the US acting as a watchdog and working to make sure that UN resolutions including the ones it violates get enforced.

Well first of all, I don't think the US can "act more responsibly" without compromising its own interests -- which I do not think any politician will ever do.

But more than that, there are some countries that have violated dozens upon dozens of resolutions.

Would you really have us go in and beat those folks up?

And do you suppose any American president would do that, if it meant acting against a "friend" of ours -- or do you suppose it might only act when dealing with someone who is not such a friend.

The concept of us being a watchdog for the world repulses me -- and I am an American. I cannot imagine what it does to non-Americans.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

Frank, It would most likely make them feel safer. Look at the reception US forces get when they enter a region. Liberia for example. The people of Liberia know what the US stands for and what the US won't put up with from aggressive forces. That's why our forces received a warm welcome. Look at Iran's people after the earthquake. The people were happy to see the US forces come in and help them. These are not solitary incidents and it happens all over the world. People understand what the US represents and what role we play in world affairs.

The left would want everyone to believe that we are imperialists that have only our best interests at heart. They are partially right. we do have our own interests at heart. Peace is in our our best interests. Other countries having diplomatic governments are in our best interests. Other countries being free are in our best interests. The world not being threatened by terrorists is in our best interest.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Frank, It would most likely make them feel safer.

Okay. You might be right.

Let's test it.

Everyone here from outside the United States -- a vote please:

If you, like McG, think it would be a good idea for the US to be the watchdog for world affairs - if that would make you feel safer - please say so.

If the notion repulses you as much as it does me - please say that.

0 Replies

Yeah, let's use a sampling from the users of A2K... Rolling Eyes

Should I go to freerepublic and do a similar poll?

How about we use a sampling from the real world...

0 Replies

Quote:

]
If you, like McG, think it would be a good idea for the US to be the watchdog for world affairs - if that would make you feel safer - please say so.

If the notion repulses you as much as it does me - please say that.

THAT!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Yeah, let's use a sampling from the users of A2K...

Should I go to freerepublic and do a similar poll?

How about we use a sampling from the real world...

Ya know, I kinda figured you'd think my idea to be inappropriate.

But my guess is that if you did a sampling among the people's of the world outside the United States...

...you'd come one hell of a lot closer to my take on what their reaction would be than yours.

Just a guess -- that I acknowledge.

But....

0 Replies

LOL! The notion of ANY super-empire, replete in the belief that (heavens and principalities defend us!) it is possessed of the truth, the word and the light - and that it has the right, and the calling, to impose this right on the rest of the world, scares the bejesus out of me.

That being said, life is a complex thing, and there are times that the US has acted unilaterally pretty much - in Bosnia, for example - where I think it was right so to do.

To counter this, there are such horrors as Iran, Vietnam, Chile, the Congo etc etc etc etc where US policy has been a bloody, murderous, amoral shambles (in its literal meaning) - just like the actions of other super-powers before it.

And there have been tragic, well-intentioned mistakes - like Somalia.

0 Replies

Agree with Craven.

Yeh, the world is better off when the US acts as A watchdog of world affairs. Yugoslavia springs to mind.

But no, every time the US gets the idea in its head that it is THE watchdog of world affairs, it spells trouble for most of us. To my mind the Iraq war is an example of that.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

The U.N has for many years been a bloated, overpaid, underworked sucking tick on the rear end of the world.

CHECK -

In 1997, the grand total of UN expenditures - ranging from:
- the UN organisational costs, to
- all running peacekeeping operations (currently some 13 around the world, from Eritrea to East-Timor), to
- all activities of World Health Organisation, World Food Program, UNESCO, UNICEF, UNCHR (refugee camps around the world), etc

... ran to 10 billion US dollar.

A lot?

One B-2 bomber costs 2,2 billion US dollar.

The NY City Police Department annually spends 2,5 billion US dollar - five times the Kosovo peacekeeping budget.

0 Replies

Excellent summation, Our Dear Wabbit, so long as Mr. Justice O'Wiley doesn't screw the pooch for us on jury instructions, i think we have a win . . .

0 Replies

But B-2 s are good...they blow things up!

0 Replies

i understand your point of view frank. and to a degree i agree with you. it would be foolish if the US intervened upon other democracies or popular regimes.

in short, i fully support the statement that the US should never impose itself upon a sovergn democracy.

But would you agree that when it comes to dealing with ruthless dictators that commit ethnic cleansing, as in Bosnia, the UN has on more than one occasion failed to what is right simply due to bueracratic attributes of it.

So in similar situation, I fully back the US acting as a watchdog.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

i understand your point of view frank. and to a degree i agree with you. it would be foolish if the US intervened upon other democracies or popular regimes.

in short, i fully support the statement that the US should never impose itself upon a sovergn democracy.

But would you agree that when it comes to dealing with ruthless dictators that commit ethnic cleansing, as in Bosnia, the UN has on more than one occasion failed to what is right simply due to bueracratic attributes of it.

So in similar situation, I fully back the US acting as a watchdog.

Where are you from, Centroles?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Let's test it.

Everyone here from outside the United States -- a vote please:

If you, like McG, think it would be a good idea for the US to be the watchdog for world affairs - if that would make you feel safer - please say so.

If the notion repulses you as much as it does me - please say that.

I don't know where Centroles is from, but I mostly agree with him - and I'm from outside the US, so I get to vote, right?

I feel safer knowing that the US is still willing to act as a watchdog for world affairs, instead of retreating into isolationism.

Just sticking to my continent, Europe:

It helped us in WW1 and under Wilson.
It helped us in WW2 and during the Marshall Plan.
It helped both the Bosnians and Kosovars - be it rather belatedly in the case of the Bosnians.

I would feel a lot safer, still, if I knew that the US would consider itself "a" watchdog of world affairs, rather than THE watchdog, as if it were the anointed carrier of Truth. Because sometimes the US gets it wrong, too.

In the cases that it got it right and acted on it, it saved a lot of lives - in the cases that it got it wrong and acted on it, it cost a lot of lives. Sometimes a bit of both. Thats why I would like a US that was internationalist, rather than either isolationist or hegemonist. A US that uses its unparallelled power to achieve good in the world, while remaining aware that, sometimes, it doesnt know best, and therefore some reticence is in order.

That answer your question, Frank?

0 Replies

Thanks Nimh.

We'll keep countin' the votes!

0 Replies

A Farewell to Allies

0 Replies

Let me repeat the question asked by this poll:

SHOULD THE US BE THE WATCHDOG OF WORLD AFFAIRS?

Not one of you "critical" thinkers questioned the meaning or the use of the key word "watchdog". You immediately swallowed the hook and started swimming in all directions. Not even you Craven-----who will spend hours and thousands of words on the word "patriotism" but not one question about the word "watchdog" in the context of world affairs and possible use of American diplomatic and/or military power. I'm perplexed.

You didn't even ask----what does a "watchdog do":

1. Bark?

2. Bark and bite?

3. Yawn and go back to sleep?

Ok----go back to sleep everyone. Laughing

0 Replies

The only time I have spent hours on "patriotism" was when you imagined it in your head.

0 Replies

Should the US be a watchdog of world affairs?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know