The World Police

[CoraSpia]

Maybe we'd be best just getting rid of them entirely.

Or restrustcuring them. If there are no governments, then no security

No security? Don't threaten me with a good time.

[Sundiata]

China will save us from the menace that is America.

China? Traditional values? No.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

You see, that's a drone strike on a random population center. I've never heard of the US drone striking anything equivalent to a shopping mall. I could be wrong, I'll admit that, I've just never heard of it as of yet.
Also wish to point out that the USA hates terrorists maybe more than anyone else, the Feds would more than likely work to get rid of any terrorist.

We definitely bomb large public events with drones and this is well-known. The US government has admitted it redefines "enemy combatant" to make the campaign appear more ethical than it is.

If the terrorists first violate countries national sovereignty, I believe it's within reason to go after the terrorists. Obviously, you can't stomp on the regional government, I think that it's important you work with them, but if the government of that area also sponsors or harbors the terrorists I believe it's the right of the nation that was attacked to strike back. Still not an excuse to carpet bomb whole regions, that's wrong. So long as you're trying to not kill civilians, I find it to be ok.

What you "find to be okay" is an act of war under international law.

So is harboring terrorists which have attacked a nation.

[CoraSpia]

We definitely bomb large public events with drones and this is well-known. The US government has admitted it redefines "enemy combatant" to make the campaign appear more ethical than it is.


What you "find to be okay" is an act of war under international law.

So is harboring terrorists which have attacked a nation.

Uhm...no, no it isn't. Harbouring terrorists can trigger a nations self-defence rights under international law, however it is not an act of war. The bush doctrine violates international law as it draws no difference between the terrorists operating in a country and the country itself, giving the united states justification to itself to use disproportionate force against neutral parties. There is a clear difference between attacking a terrorist group in another country and attacking the country itself.

[Bienenhalde]

Actually, for most of us, it's the other way around. USA is the world's bully. They go around exporting their shitty culture and try to erode traditional values, and they invade and/or destabilise countries for resources and to shove their retarded ideology on us.
So on the part that it's a bad thing, yes. It's a horrible thing. If course, I'd rather choose the greatest country in the world over them. China will save us from the menace that is America.

You think the country that is sending millions of Muslims to atheist indoctrination camps is better than the US?

[Bienenhalde]

Unfortunately, the UN is weak and corrupt because tyrannical dictatorships have too much power in the UN administration and effectively block any serious attempt by the UN to stop human rights violations. Which is why it has been necessary for the US to serve as the world police instead. And considering that the US is a wealthy country with the world's largest military, and largest economy, we have a duty to help the people in the world who are not as fortunate as we are. Unfortunately, since the election of Trump as president, our democratic institutions have seriously been eroded, and the ideal of trying to do the right thing in international affairs has been replaced with a sort of ruthless, cynical "America First" realpolitik. As an American, I want more moral leadership for my country, but at the same time, I can understand why the rest of the world doesn't trust us anymore. Indeed, I would like to see the European Union develop its own military capabilities so that they can effectively defend themselves without relying on the US. I would even like to see the European Union displace the US as the main military superpower. But that goal is a long way off, and for the moment the EU will probably need to cooperate with the US to defend themselves against Russian and Red Chinese agression.

[Punished UMN]

Unfortunately, the UN is weak and corrupt because tyrannical dictatorships have too much power in the UN administration and effectively block any serious attempt by the UN to stop human rights violations. Which is why it has been necessary for the US to serve as the world police instead. And considering that the US is a wealthy country with the world's largest military, and largest economy, we have a duty to help the people in the world who are not as fortunate as we are. Unfortunately, since the election of Trump as president, our democratic institutions have seriously been eroded, and the ideal of trying to do the right thing in international affairs has been replaced with a sort of ruthless, cynical "America First" realpolitik. As an American, I want more moral leadership for my country, but at the same time, I can understand why the rest of the world doesn't trust us anymore. Indeed, I would like to see the European Union develop its own military capabilities so that they can effectively defend themselves without relying on the US. I would even like to see the European Union displace the US as the main military superpower. But that goal is a long way off, and for the moment the EU will probably need to cooperate with the US to defend themselves against Russian and Red Chinese agression.

The reason the world doesn't trust the US anymore is more because of people like you than people like Trump. Also that's not the UN being "weak and corrupt", that it doing what it's supposed to do. The UN is meant to represent the interests of all countries as a forum of discussion, not to promote a particular system of government dictated by the Western powers.

[Stellar Colonies]

...

try to erode traditional values

...

Elaborate.

[Plzen]

I mean China murdered it's own citizens in cold blood in Tiananmen in November of 1989 for peaceful protest. If they're willing to do that to their own people, even when those people are being non-threatening, what will they do to foreign dissenters? They already threaten the families of the Chinese diaspora if they speak out against the regime.

We are talking about a country's role as world police, so internal policies are irrelevant to the discussion, and I do not accept the premise that a country that is more democratic at home will necessarily be more democratic abroad. Free and open elections were no barrier against European colonial powers doing unspeakable things in the colonies, and free and open elections still aren't a barrier to the United States killing hundreds of thousands of people in places like Iraq.

You really think that if they could remove governments in opposition to Chinese influences from power that they wouldn't do so? Not only would they, but they'd show the exact same reckless disregard for the lives of the people living under said governments and prop up Duvalieresque figures without a care.

I fail to see how this makes them worse than the Americans. The United States also has a tried-and-true history of overturning or destabilising hostile regimes and propping up some extremely colourful characters as client dictators.