Does America deserve to be the “Police of the world”?

[Senkaku]

Interventionism is necessary if you want to keep the peace (and stay king of the hill).

Interventionism is a cancerous tumor; it is the violation of a nation's right to sovereign rule. Interventionist states are as vile and repugnant as Imperialist ones.

Sometimes you gotta fuck with people to get what you want, whether it be for selfish ends like American military or economic interests, or for humanitarian ones like stopping genocides. Sovereignty's all well and good, but sometimes states need to take action against one another, and trying to just plug your ears and pretend that's not reality is silly.

[Badb Catha]

I do not see the failure of the state as an inherently instability or economic categorization. In my view, a corrupt state is a failed state; and the United States is highly corrupt.

that's cool that that's your view but that's literally not what the term failed state means lol

The State's duty is ultimately to it's people; it's nation. If it is corrupt then it has failed in it's duty and is thus a failed state. Perhaps this does not fit the mainstream definition of "Failed State", but that is irrelevant.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Okay....then lets return to the previous question of in what ways is the most economically powerful state in the world, which is ruled by stable democratic republican system a failed state?

I do not see the failure of the state as an inherently instability or economic categorization. In my view, a corrupt state is a failed state; and the United States is highly corrupt.

Thats....not the definition of a failed state. There is certainly some level of corruption in the government, that is unavoidable. However the level of it is far lower tham many places. It is your opinion that it is a failed state, but it really isnt in reality. Somalia is a failed state. The United States is not.

By your definition of a failed state just having some degree of corruption, almost every single country is a failed state.

[Diarcesia]

As deserving as any other country that is militarily strong enough to undisputedly "police the world". It used to be the UK, then the US, and China is trying to be the next in line.

[Yusseria]

Interventionism is a cancerous tumor; it is the violation of a nation's right to sovereign rule. Interventionist states are as vile and repugnant as Imperialist ones.

Sometimes you gotta fuck with people to get what you want, whether it be for selfish ends like American military or economic interests, or for humanitarian ones like stopping genocides. Sovereignty's all well and good, but sometimes states need to take action against one another, and trying to just plug your ears and pretend that's not reality is silly.

You might have a point if most of the interventionism we engaged in wasn't such pointless nonsense that didn't come back to bite us in the ass years later.

[Senkaku]

that's cool that that's your view but that's literally not what the term failed state means lol

The State's duty is ultimately to it's people; it's nation. If it is corrupt then it has failed in it's duty and is thus a failed state.

I-

Perhaps this does not fit the mainstream definition of "Failed State", but that is irrelevant.

I mean, no, it is relevant, since the term "failed state" is understood to describe a specific situation, and you're throwing it around while meaning something completely different.

[Badb Catha]

I do not see the failure of the state as an inherently instability or economic categorization. In my view, a corrupt state is a failed state; and the United States is highly corrupt.

Thats....not the definition of a failed state. There is certainly some level of corruption in the government, that is unavoidable. However the level of it is far lower tham many places. It is your opinion that it is a failed state, but it really isnt in reality. Somalia is a failed state. The United States is not.

By your definition of a failed state just having some degree of corruption, almost every single country is a failed state.

The United States does not have "some level of corruption"; it is inherently, thoroughly corrupt and in the pocket of corporations. It has been this way since the 1980s. How anyone can continue to deny that the broken 'democracy' practiced by the United States is not highly corrupt is utterly baffling.

[Badb Catha]

Interventionism is a cancerous tumor; it is the violation of a nation's right to sovereign rule. Interventionist states are as vile and repugnant as Imperialist ones.

Sometimes you gotta fuck with people to get what you want, whether it be for selfish ends like American military or economic interests, or for humanitarian ones like stopping genocides. Sovereignty's all well and good, but sometimes states need to take action against one another, and trying to just plug your ears and pretend that's not reality is silly.

In the case of "selfish" ends, I will agree. The State has every right to pursue a foreign policy that will lead to it's continued protection and the defeat of it's enemies; the United States takes this too far, however, and it's foreign policy merely reflects the interests of it's corporate puppet-masters.

[Kowani]

Interventionism is necessary if you want to keep the peace (and stay king of the hill).

Interventionism is a cancerous tumor; it is the violation of a nation's right to sovereign rule. Interventionist states are as vile and repugnant as Imperialist ones.

There is no right to sovereignty.

[Senkaku]

Sometimes you gotta fuck with people to get what you want, whether it be for selfish ends like American military or economic interests, or for humanitarian ones like stopping genocides. Sovereignty's all well and good, but sometimes states need to take action against one another, and trying to just plug your ears and pretend that's not reality is silly.

You might have a point if most of the interventionism we engaged in wasn't such pointless nonsense that didn't come back to bite us in the ass years later.

Most of it isn't. Second Iraq? Stupid, and it ruined any chance of Afghanistan turning out alright. The Balkans? Very successful, if a bit late. First Iraq, very successful. Vietnam? Mismanaged and turned into a debacle. Korea? Didn't get everything we wanted, but I'd qualify it as a pretty solid success, especially since it also led to us sticking up more for Taiwan. A lot of our Cold War interventions in Latin America were mixed, since they nominally beat back Communism but were also, you know... profoundly fucked up. World War Two was obviously a success, and World War One was a military success that we failed to support an adequate political solution to. The Spanish-American War was a gigantic success and basically put us on the map as a real great power, but the following insurgency in the Philippines was a mess.

There's lots of examples, and there's certainly plenty where we've failed, but I think characterizing "most" of it as "pointless nonsense" is silly and betrays either laziness or a lack of adequate information. The United States usually intervenes for fairly clear reasons when it chooses to, and then it's a question of whether we achieve our goals, fail to achieve them, or get partway there, or lose sight of them halfway through, or whatever.

[Senkaku]

Sometimes you gotta fuck with people to get what you want, whether it be for selfish ends like American military or economic interests, or for humanitarian ones like stopping genocides. Sovereignty's all well and good, but sometimes states need to take action against one another, and trying to just plug your ears and pretend that's not reality is silly.

In the case of "selfish" ends, I will agree. The State has every right to pursue a foreign policy that will lead to it's continued protection and the defeat of it's enemies;

I would humbly suggest that genocidaires and human rights abusers are the enemies of all civilized people, and thus foreign policies that lead to their defeat are leading to the protection of any state prosecuting such policies and the defeat of the enemies of all of humanity.

the United States takes this too far, however, and it's foreign policy merely reflects the interests of it's corporate puppet-masters.

You say shit like this a lot, but you're always terribly vague- who exactly are our "puppetmasters" and what are the interests that they're pursuing? Specifics, please, not just "the plutocrats" or "the banks" or whatever.

[Badb Catha]

Interventionism is a cancerous tumor; it is the violation of a nation's right to sovereign rule. Interventionist states are as vile and repugnant as Imperialist ones.

There is no right to sovereignty.

There is. Every nation has a natural right to rule itself; to deny this is villainy on a grand scale. The spirit of every nation yearns from freedom from oppression; let them enjoy it without the yoke of foreign rule strangling it.

[Yusseria]

You might have a point if most of the interventionism we engaged in wasn't such pointless nonsense that didn't come back to bite us in the ass years later.

Most of it isn't. Second Iraq? Stupid, and it ruined any chance of Afghanistan turning out alright. The Balkans? Very successful, if a bit late. First Iraq, very successful. Vietnam? Mismanaged and turned into a debacle. Korea? Didn't get everything we wanted, but I'd qualify it as a pretty solid success, especially since it also led to us sticking up more for Taiwan. A lot of our Cold War interventions in Latin America were mixed, since they nominally beat back Communism but were also, you know... profoundly fucked up. World War Two was obviously a success, and World War One was a military success that we failed to support an adequate political solution to. The Spanish-American War was a gigantic success and basically put us on the map as a real great power, but the following insurgency in the Philippines was a mess.

There's lots of examples, and there's certainly plenty where we've failed, but I think characterizing "most" of it as "pointless nonsense" is silly and betrays either laziness or a lack of adequate information. The United States usually intervenes for fairly clear reasons when it chooses to, and then it's a question of whether we achieve our goals, fail to achieve them, or get partway there, or lose sight of them halfway through, or whatever.

That's great and all, but I'm referring to more modern examples.

Iraq Pt 2? A profound fuck up that we suffered the repercussions of for years. Libya? Probably the most pointless fucking case of interventionism that even our Secretary of State at the time admitted she didn't even understand. "We came, we saw, he died." Ring any bells?

We would have probably repeated that same fuck-up in Syria with our support of the rebels had they not been so thoroughly stomped by Assad and the Russians.

[Badb Catha]

In the case of "selfish" ends, I will agree. The State has every right to pursue a foreign policy that will lead to it's continued protection and the defeat of it's enemies;

I would humbly suggest that genocidaires and human rights abusers are the enemies of all civilized people, and thus foreign policies that lead to their defeat are leading to the protection of any state prosecuting such policies and the defeat of the enemies of all of humanity.

Vile though these characters may be, it is not up to the rest of the world to stop them. The people must find the will and resolve to destroy these villains themselves; if they do not, then they will never truly rule themselves.

You say shit like this a lot, but you're always terribly vague- who exactly are our "puppetmasters" and what are the interests that they're pursuing? Specifics, please, not just "the plutocrats" or "the banks" or whatever.

Corporations. I already said this in the post you quoted.

[Kowani]

There is no right to sovereignty.

There is. Every nation has a natural right

So, baseless argument.

to rule itself; to deny this is villainy on a grand scale.

Nice ad hominem.

The spirit of every nation

Something that doesn’t exist.

yearns for freedom from oppression; let them enjoy it without the yoke of foreign rule strangling it.

And a word salad.

[Badb Catha]

There is. Every nation has a natural right

So, baseless argument.

to rule itself; to deny this is villainy on a grand scale.

Nice ad hominem.

The spirit of every nation

Something that doesn’t exist.

yearns for freedom from oppression; let them enjoy it without the yoke of foreign rule strangling it.

And a word salad.

How can you deny the existence of a national spirit? Absurd.

[Kowani]

So, baseless argument.
Nice ad hominem.
Something that doesn’t exist.

And a word salad.

How can you deny the existence of a national spirit? Absurd.

That’s nice. It’s also not an argument.

[Senkaku]

Most of it isn't. Second Iraq? Stupid, and it ruined any chance of Afghanistan turning out alright. The Balkans? Very successful, if a bit late. First Iraq, very successful. Vietnam? Mismanaged and turned into a debacle. Korea? Didn't get everything we wanted, but I'd qualify it as a pretty solid success, especially since it also led to us sticking up more for Taiwan. A lot of our Cold War interventions in Latin America were mixed, since they nominally beat back Communism but were also, you know... profoundly fucked up. World War Two was obviously a success, and World War One was a military success that we failed to support an adequate political solution to. The Spanish-American War was a gigantic success and basically put us on the map as a real great power, but the following insurgency in the Philippines was a mess.

There's lots of examples, and there's certainly plenty where we've failed, but I think characterizing "most" of it as "pointless nonsense" is silly and betrays either laziness or a lack of adequate information. The United States usually intervenes for fairly clear reasons when it chooses to, and then it's a question of whether we achieve our goals, fail to achieve them, or get partway there, or lose sight of them halfway through, or whatever.

That's great and all, but I'm referring to more modern examples.

I think what you mean is you're cherrypicking examples that fit your narrative.

Iraq Pt 2? A profound fuck up that we suffered the repercussions of for years.

No argument there.

Libya? Probably the most pointless fucking case of interventionism that even our Secretary of State at the time admitted she didn't even understand. "We came, we saw, he died." Ring any bells?

Meh, I'm less sold on Libya being a giant disaster than Iraq- we didn't throw away trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives on it, we just wasted Qaddafi's army and helped get him killed. It's fallen apart in the meantime, but I'm not convinced that the outcome is that much worse than if we hadn't bombed him, given the brutality we've seen in Syria and that he was also beginning to use against the rebels. Certainly it hasn't been a tremendous success, but it's not been a gigantic problem for us in the way Iraq or Afghanistan (or now Syria) are, and having Qaddafi dead doesn't suck. The main issue is that it makes North Korea and Iran more nervous about denuclearization talks.

We would have probably repeated that same fuck-up in Syria with our support of the rebels had they not been so thoroughly stomped by Assad and the Russians.

I still think Obama punting on the red line was a mistake, tbh. If we'd helped secure a decisive rebel victory much earlier on (air support, more weapons, etc.), it's obviously not a certainty what the outcome would've been, but I think it might've been better than the years of slaughter we've seen since then.

Anyways, while America has certainly made errors in the Middle East in the 21st century, I think looking at our history, one can see that interventionism can produce very desirable and successful outcomes (and that non-intervention, whether it's in Rwanda in the nineties or the whole world in the thirties, can produce some very bad ones). It's never a sure thing, even when we have clear goals in mind, but I think maintaining the capability and willingness to intervene economically, diplomatically, and militarily around the world is very important- we know isolationism won't produce good outcomes for us or anyone else, besides our adversaries.

[Badb Catha]

How can you deny the existence of a national spirit? Absurd.

That’s nice. It’s also not an argument.

No, it is a question. One you have avoided.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Thats....not the definition of a failed state. There is certainly some level of corruption in the government, that is unavoidable. However the level of it is far lower tham many places. It is your opinion that it is a failed state, but it really isnt in reality. Somalia is a failed state. The United States is not.

By your definition of a failed state just having some degree of corruption, almost every single country is a failed state.

The United States does not have "some level of corruption"; it is inherently, thoroughly corrupt and in the pocket of corporations. It has been this way since the 1980s. How anyone can continue to deny that the broken 'democracy' practiced by the United States is not highly corrupt is utterly baffling.

I am not going to deny there is corruption. But to say it is to the level that the United States is effectively a failed state is absurd.

Not to mention I do not see how carving it up along arbitrary ethnic lines is somehow going to improve things and not in fact just make things even worse.

[Kowani]

That’s nice. It’s also not an argument.

No, it is a question. One you have avoided.

I can deny it by pointing out regionalism/ separatism and intranational division worldwide, the existence of communism and anarchism, (you know, anti state movements) as well as the growing movement towards the postnational age.

[Yusseria]

That's great and all, but I'm referring to more modern examples.

I think what you mean is you're cherrypicking examples that fit your narrative.

Cherrypicking more relevant examples, sure.

Iraq Pt 2? A profound fuck up that we suffered the repercussions of for years.

No argument there.

Libya? Probably the most pointless fucking case of interventionism that even our Secretary of State at the time admitted she didn't even understand. "We came, we saw, he died." Ring any bells?

Meh, I'm less sold on Libya being a giant disaster than Iraq- we didn't throw away trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives on it, we just wasted Qaddafi's army and helped get him killed. It's fallen apart in the meantime, but I'm not convinced that the outcome is that much worse than if we hadn't bombed him, given the brutality we've seen in Syria and that he was also beginning to use against the rebels. Certainly it hasn't been a tremendous success, but it's not been a gigantic problem for us in the way Iraq or Afghanistan (or now Syria) are, and having Qaddafi dead doesn't suck. The main issue is that it makes North Korea and Iran more nervous about denuclearization talks.

Libya for years has been pretty much in anarchy. The so-called government of National Accord that the rebels created is probably the most perfect example today of a failed state. There's literal open-air slave markets in Libya now, not to mention the ISIS cockroaches running around.

Sure, I'm certain there would have been plenty of bloodshed had Gaddafi one. But at least in that case Libya would still have a functioning government and we wouldn't have ISIS running around fucking things up even more.

We would have probably repeated that same fuck-up in Syria with our support of the rebels had they not been so thoroughly stomped by Assad and the Russians.

I still think Obama punting on the red line was a mistake, tbh. If we'd helped secure a decisive rebel victory much earlier on (air support, more weapons, etc.), it's obviously not a certainty what the outcome would've been, but I think it might've been better than the years of slaughter we've seen since then.

There's no reason to believe Syria would be any different. It turns out that putting your faith in Islamist rebels who we don't know much about is not the best idea. We didn't learn that lesson in Libya for God knows what reason.

Anyways, while America has certainly made errors in the Middle East in the 21st century, I think looking at our history, one can see that interventionism can produce very desirable and successful outcomes (and that non-intervention, whether it's in Rwanda in the nineties or the whole world in the thirties, can produce some very bad ones). It's never a sure thing, even when we have clear goals in mind, but I think maintaining the capability and willingness to intervene economically, diplomatically, and militarily around the world is very important- we know isolationism won't produce good outcomes for us or anyone else, besides our adversaries.

I'm not an isolationist, but I also wouldn't call myself an inteventionist. I think we need intelligent and limited interventionism only when absolutely necessary. Neither Iraq nor Libya nor Syria were absolutely necessary or intelligent.

[Badb Catha]

The United States does not have "some level of corruption"; it is inherently, thoroughly corrupt and in the pocket of corporations. It has been this way since the 1980s. How anyone can continue to deny that the broken 'democracy' practiced by the United States is not highly corrupt is utterly baffling.

I am not going to deny there is corruption. But to say it is to the level that the United States is effectively a failed state is absurd.

Not to mention I do not see how carving it up along arbitrary ethnic lines is somehow going to improve things and not in fact just make things even worse.

How would it make things worse? And how is it "arbitrary"?

No, it is a question. One you have avoided.

I can deny it by pointing out regionalism/ separatism and intranational division worldwide, the existence of communism and anarchism, (you know, anti state movements) as well as the growing movement towards the postnational age.

I see the problem now: you view the world from a materialistic standpoint. That is unfortunate.

[Kowani]

I can deny it by pointing out regionalism/ separatism and intranational division worldwide, the existence of communism and anarchism, (you know, anti state movements) as well as the growing movement towards the postnational age.

I see the problem now: you view the world from a materialistic standpoint. That is unfortunate.

I work with what exists.

[Badb Catha]

I see the problem now: you view the world from a materialistic standpoint. That is unfortunate.

I work with what exists.

Then you will forever be unenlightened to the natural world and all the beauty of it that we mere mortals cannot see. You have my sympathy.