I think America very much got conditioned out of being the “world police”. Bad guy doing bad things 30,000 miles away? What are we supposed to do it? Dive into our military industrial complex and give a heavy tax bill to fix it?
The thing is, as someone in a privileged position, I’d argue the answer is yes. But I have to accept that lots of people say no, both for financial reasons, and for fears of having our military everpresent everywhere, even if they’re trying to do good.
But while spending might not make sense…spending to CREATE a genocide is a far more horrible thing that goes against everything I stand for.
Part of me wants to invest the US army into attacking Israel for its human rights abuses. I’m much more settled for a passive approach where the US at least stops helping them.
Of course, then the issue gets murkier when circumstances make the claim that most of these conflicts are in some way caused by actions of the big 3 empires.
The problem with the concept of a world police is that it’s a political thing, not a law and order thing.
A political world police is just as good as a political regular police would be.
Imagine, police would just do whatever the majority are saying instead of, you know, using evidence to get someone before a judge and continue to use evidence to get someone convicted or alternatlively let people go free where there’s no evidence.
ICE is pretty much what a political police looks like, and the US as the world police acted just like that.
Remember 911? Attacking Afghanistan might have maybe been somewhat justified, but attacking Irak, mostly because US troops were already there was totally not.
The “world police” was certainly not a successful thing and certainly not in regards to world peace. More often than not it was used to score points for the next national election.
I think America very much got conditioned out of being the “world police”. Bad guy doing bad things 30,000 miles away? What are we supposed to do it? Dive into our military industrial complex and give a heavy tax bill to fix it?
The thing is, as someone in a privileged position, I’d argue the answer is yes. But I have to accept that lots of people say no, both for financial reasons, and for fears of having our military everpresent everywhere, even if they’re trying to do good.
But while spending might not make sense…spending to CREATE a genocide is a far more horrible thing that goes against everything I stand for.
Part of me wants to invest the US army into attacking Israel for its human rights abuses. I’m much more settled for a passive approach where the US at least stops helping them.
Of course, then the issue gets murkier when circumstances make the claim that most of these conflicts are in some way caused by actions of the big 3 empires.
The problem with the concept of a world police is that it’s a political thing, not a law and order thing.
A political world police is just as good as a political regular police would be.
Imagine, police would just do whatever the majority are saying instead of, you know, using evidence to get someone before a judge and continue to use evidence to get someone convicted or alternatlively let people go free where there’s no evidence.
ICE is pretty much what a political police looks like, and the US as the world police acted just like that.
Remember 911? Attacking Afghanistan might have maybe been somewhat justified, but attacking Irak, mostly because US troops were already there was totally not.
The “world police” was certainly not a successful thing and certainly not in regards to world peace. More often than not it was used to score points for the next national election.