USA- Policemen for the world?

[Easy E]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ast/index.html

Not that I have a problem hunting down al Qaeda (hey, is that the only word that doesn't follow Q with a U?), but what exactly are we defining our role in the world as?

And in other news, I await the Korea II conflict announcement, in order to remove WMDs from another aggressive country.

[IrishHand]

First of all - the war on terror must be winning. The Saudi bombings killed 20 people at the cost of 9 bombers. Their ratio is going down the toilet since 9/11 - perhaps they'll realize they can get better results by just shooting a gun at a couple of people on the street in a drive-by like civilized criminals do. Don't worry - they'll learn the American way yet.

In answer to your question - it only makes sense that we'd want to invade N. Korea too. I mean - it's only been what? 50 years since they last demonstrated obvious aggression despite a military which could occupy the whole of S. Korea within a week. Truly, they present a grave and immediate threat to the US. Then again, there are still any number of undefended nations in the Middle East eagerly awaiting liberation and occupation, so maybe N. Korea will just have to wait their turn.

Irish

PS. "Qaeda" isn't our word - it's either a foreign word or a proper noun, either of which disqualifies it. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[andyfox]

The U.S. does indeed intend to remain the world's policeman. For a terrific exposition of the details, see Andrew Bacevich's American Empire.

[Easy E]

The original article that I linked didn't say anything about Americans being killed (at least not the beginning portions that I read).

So, Bush wasn't reaching out as far as I thought he was, policing Saudia Arabia.

I'll have to check the book out, Andy- looks interesting.

[Chris Alger]

"Policeman" implies one who at least arguably enforces some law. As in the case with Cuba, the Domincan Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Vietnam and Kosovo, among many others, the US not only had no legal basis for attacking Iraq, but did so in direct contravention of the UN Charter, a treaty that supercedes any resolution purporting to "authorize" military force. U.S. Const., Art. VI. Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

"in order to remove WMDs from another aggressive country"

How do North Korea's development of nuclear weapons make it "aggressive" compared to the US?

[TAFKAn]

"How do North Korea's development of nuclear weapons make it "aggressive" compared to the US?"

I don't know how naive you have to be to think that the North Koreans building nukes is not an aggressive threat, but the Great Leader's son Kim Jong Il is as insane and unstable as they come.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but was the North Koreans who invaded the South with the aid and support of the Chinese. The U.S. did not instigate hostilities on that peninsula.

I assume from your rhetorical question that you don't think the U.S. should be using its influence to deter other nations from developing nukes? I'm curious, what exactly do you think would be good about countries such as North Korea developing nuclear arsenals? I myself can't think of any positive ramifications.

[Chris Alger]

"but the Great Leader's son Kim Jong Il is as insane and unstable as they come"

Your hyperbole has no basis. The family dynasty has maintained itself in power for over 50 years. In the 1990's North Korea initiated a series of unprecedented diplomatic overtures, including the first inter-Korean summit, negotiations to achieve mutual diplomatic recognition with Japan. "In addition to improved relations with Seoul, Pyongyang has moved rapidly forward in improving ties in much of Asia with Europe, and even with the U.S." Hisahiko Okazaki, Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific, 11/10/2000. Hardly "as insane and unstable as they come."

"[it] was the North Koreans who invaded the South with the aid and support of the Chinese. The U.S. did not instigate hostilities on that peninsula."

So one attempt to unify a divided country by military force 53 years ago makes it "aggressive" by comparison to a country, since then (1) built and maintains 35,000 nuclear warheads and the means to deliver thousands of them anywhere on earth; (2) has unapologetically initiated the use of military force against more than a dozen countries, mostly defenseless ones, resulting in more than a million deaths; (3) is spending billions annually to build a first-strike nuclear weapons system; (4) now proclaims, as a matter of policy, that the threshold for using military force has been lowered; (5) refuses to even consider a mutual non-aggression pact with N. Korea, even if it means N. Korea's compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and the 1994 nuclear freeze pact. Yet you conclude that N. Korea is the more aggressive of the two countries. On what grounds?

"you don't think the U.S. should be using its influence to deter other nations from developing nukes"

No, I think it shoudl be but isn't. The US is using its "influence" -- such as its open threats to use force wherever it likes -- to encourage other countries to build as many nukes as fast as they can.

"what exactly do you think would be good about countries such as North Korea developing nuclear arsenals?"

I don't think it's good at all. It's very bad. It's one reason that US policy is insane.

[Easy E]

"in order to remove WMDs from another aggressive country"

How do North Korea's development of nuclear weapons make it "aggressive" compared to the US?
-----

You're not too good at tongue-in-cheek, are you?

[Chris Alger]

No, and if you think so than a few facts about how North Korea has historically been more aggressive than the US should come easily. Maybe read my reply to the post above.

[MMMMMM]

Chris I really think you're comparing apples to oranges to some extent here.

North Korea hasn't attacked a dozen countries (or more) precisely because it couldn't. What they have managed to do, since they could, is starve and enslave their own people, sending even mere dissidents and suspected dissidents' entire families to the gulag.

How many countries do you think North Korea might have attacked had our roles been reversed? Maybe more than we have?

On another point, just how are we going to verify their compliance should they decide to honor their former commitment if we were to provide a non-aggression pact with them? They cheated us once, and quite easily, so?...

I think the only answers are probably surgical strikes or regime change (though I'd like to be wrong). Actually come to think of it regime change would be a good idea--not least for the million(s) Kim has starved and will continue to starve if left alone. And unlike the cases of Afghanistan or Iraq, the new government could simply be an extension of the current South Korean government which is perfectly capable of handling the job and assimilating with the North Koreans--most of whom have lived such insular lives that they really have no idea how prosperous the South is compared to them.