Sorry! said:
You are right there is no 'world policeforce' I wonder why America feels inclined to pretend it's that police force however by invading this country.
I would disagree on this bit about there not being any "world police force." There is no "official" world police force perhaps that is given such a name, but I would not want to see the state of the world if the United States was not present.
Yes it is hypocrisy to not allow these other countries to build WMD, but we should still try to sway them from doing it. A reason that they were persuasive about Iraq to the public was by saying they were going to sell them to terrorist organization which would in turn most probably be used against the American people.
Why should we allow ruthless dictatorships that oppress human rights and could cause serious harm to us the right to develop WMD?
That's like saying that if law-abiding citizens are allowed to own guns, then we should also allow the rapists, murderers, and so forth to own guns.
The only nations that you allow to develop WMD (that is, provided you can do anything about it) are the ones that are civilized and do not oppress human rights, and ruthlessly oppress their people, and could also be a threat to the Western world.
Nations like Iran, that may well be hellbent on nuking Israel and trying to create a second Holocaust, or North Korea, which for sixty years has been building up for the re-unification with South Korea and wants nukes as a deterrant so that when it decides firebomb the daylights out of South Korea and effectively slaughters all the American soldiers stationed there, along with killing a lot of South Koreans by bombing Seoul to smithereens, and the only thing the United States can do is nuke them back to do anything about it (as conventional bombing likely won't work in such an instance, plus NK is a wholly different animal from a nation like Iraq to invade or bomb), the NKs can say, "You bomb us, and we're launching at one of your major cities" (and if the NKs get a nuke that they can launch intercontinentally, this day will come, as this is what NK has been preparing for, for decades, unless they are stopped somehow), you do not allow such nations to develop WMDs out of some notion of "fairness."
That's like if the Nazis were to re-emergence to power in Germany at some future point, you wouldn't allow them to develop WMDs.
Sorry! said:
My comment you quoted was specifically towards a 'world police force'. It wasn't a 'why did America attack' but a 'why does America feel the need to police the world' What makes it feel that that should be it's job?
America only feels it needs to "police" the world in the sense that:
1) It is necessary for the security of the Western world, and
2) There is no one else on the planet that can, or will, do it. You think the EU could front a 200,000 man force, move it halfway around the world, and then sustain continued operations for year after year?
Europe (EU), for one, couldn't do this, as they lack the ability. Most of the Euro nations put less than 2% of the NATO-mandated minimum of 2% of GDP into their militaries, and what they do spend is usually on the salaries and benefits of the soldiers, as opposed to on training and equipment.
Most also do not have the ability to ramp up their defense spending. They have invested too much of their national economies into their social welfare states (which themselves are expensive enough as it is, and deeply in debt for different nations), plus their peoples, having been cocooned and protected for so many years by the United States and the UK, do not have the will or spirit for any such actions. There have been attempts to create European Rapid-Reaction Forces, but they have all went nowhere.
The EU peoples will not sacrifice their entitlement social welfare states in order to pour more funding into defense (especially when they have a big nation like the U.S. that handle the defense for them).
As it stands, the only other nation aside from the United States that still has a warrior culture and the ability to actually project force, is the United Kingdom, and even for them, right now, they'd have a hard time pulling off something like the Falklands again.
Sure, multiple nations aid in the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are the loyal sidekicks to the U.S. None of them could really go at such an effort by themselves.
The only nation with the capability to defend the Western world, whether that be standing up to the Soviet Union to stop them from taking over all of Europe, or sending large numbers of troops into a place like Afghanistan to prevent the area from becoming the equivalent to terrorists of what a raw steak sitting at room temperature is to E. Coli, and also to prevent Pakistan from possibly falling to radical Islamists (which would be an utter catastrophe), to invading a nation like Iraq if the need should ever arise, is the United States.
The U.S. tends to be damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. If the U.S. was to truly become isolationist and stop caring about the rest of the world's affairs and possible dangers, the EU would be crapping bricks. On the other hand, when the U.S. decides to act to handle such issues around the world, then it gets accused of imperialism, sticking its nose where it shouldn't, and so forth.
The U.S., as President Obama said in his Nobel Peace Prize speech, has played a key role in underwriting global security for the past sixty years.
