What does this mean to you?

macgyver06

So Long as Russia and China retain their own large military forces and haven't fully rid themselves of the instinct to throw their weight around - and so long as a handful of rogue states are willing to attack other sovereign nations, as Saddam attacked Kuwait in 1991 - there will be times when we must again play the role of the world's reluctant sheriff. This will not change- nor should it.

rebornFixer

I basically agree with it ... Assuming that this view is applied judiciously. Invading Iraq to find spurious WMD is an abuse of this doctrine, however.

macgyver06

reborncareerist wrote:

I basically agree with it ... Assuming that this view is applied judiciously. Invading Iraq to find spurious WMD is an abuse of this doctrine, however.

do you think with this mindset.. and this inherited idea that we are the ones that are responsible of playing this role... do you think this type of thinking could lead a country to act as sheriff to its own people as well as the worlds people...


to break it down, I mean

who is the Sheriff...

Is it the American people as a whole
Americas government
americas Military

a combination of the both..

i find it very confusing and poorly thought out.. and very vague.

MrBrian

reborncareerist wrote:

I basically agree with it ... Assuming that this view is applied judiciously. Invading Iraq to find spurious WMD is an abuse of this doctrine, however.

You mean attacking a country for it's oil. America took a gamble with the WMD thing, you know it was largly for the Oil, WMD was just an excuse and a way to trick scare stupid Americans into thinking they were gonna be gassed by saddam.

Also what's this reluctant sheriff thing? If anything, America is the bad cop, you know the one that takes bribes,kills anyone they want,lies,steals... that kinda cop.

slightofjeff

MrBrian wrote:

You mean attacking a country for it's oil. America took a gamble with the WMD thing, you know it was largly for the Oil, WMD was just an excuse and a way to trick scare stupid Americans into thinking they were gonna be gassed by saddam.

Also what's this reluctant sheriff thing? If anything, America is the bad cop, you know the one that takes bribes,kills anyone they want,lies,steals... that kinda cop.

I keep hearing we attacked Iraq for its oil ... I'm just wondering when we can start taking it. It would be nice right about now, before gas tops $5 a gallon. What are we waiting for?

Every morning, I check the front porch expecting to find the couple barrels of stolen Iraqi oil the government promised to give each citizen -- and nothing! What's the hold-up here?

MrBrian

slightofjeff wrote:

I keep hearing we attacked Iraq for its oil ... I'm just wondering when we can start taking it. It would be nice right about now, before gas tops $5 a gallon. What are we waiting for?

Every morning, I check the front porch expecting to find the couple barrels of stolen Iraqi oil the government promised to give each citizen -- and nothing! What's the hold-up here?

Yeah, The problem, America did not expect to lose the battle for it. Iraq did not fall over, it's people fought back and cut Americas legs off. That's why you don't have your barrel of Oil on the door step. Sorry bro.

slightofjeff

MrBrian wrote:

Yeah, The problem, America did not expect to lose the battle for it. Iraq did not fall over, it's people fought back and cut Americas legs off. That's why you don't have your barrel of Oil on the door step. Sorry bro.

dammit!!!! Well, are there any other people with oil we could steal from? I think Canada looks a little soft ...

MrBrian

slightofjeff wrote:

dammit!!!! Well, are there any other people with oil we could steal from? I think Canada looks a little soft ...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/01/11/canadian-oil060111.html

Shock and awe! Run Canada!!

Strangest Tribe

macgyver06 wrote:

do you think with this mindset.. and this inherited idea that we are the ones that are responsible of playing this role... do you think this type of thinking could lead a country to act as sheriff to its own people as well as the worlds people...


to break it down, I mean

who is the Sheriff...

Is it the American people as a whole
Americas government
americas Military

a combination of the both..

i find it very confusing and poorly thought out.. and very vague.

just for laughs now...don't go getting your panties in a wad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ9ku_wInw

blackredyellow

macgyver06 wrote:

So Long as Russia and China retain their own large military forces and haven't fully rid themselves of the instinct to throw their weight around - and so long as a handful of rogue states are willing to attack other sovereign nations, as Saddam attacked Kuwait in 1991 - there will be times when we must again play the role of the world's reluctant sheriff. This will not change- nor should it.

I think that it's funny that in the same paragraph the author is basically criticizing Russia and China of having a large military and having the thought of ever using their power, then goes on to say that we must play the world's sheriff... And how often in the last 50 years have we shown to be reluctant in doing so?

MrBrian wrote:

Yeah, The problem, America did not expect to lose the battle for it. Iraq did not fall over, it's people fought back and cut Americas legs off. That's why you don't have your barrel of Oil on the door step. Sorry bro.

Actually, the US Military walked through Iraq... there was just absolutely no forethought as to what to do after we eliminated Saddam's regime.

rebornFixer

I agree that the "sheriff" notion is vague, and rife with opportunities for abuse. Maybe that is not the best choice of words. I also want to make it clear that I am not an American, lest someone accuse me of anything. Anyhow, like I said, maybe sheriff is not the right concept. The basic argument that the U.S. might need to use its military might in a global context is something that I think is fundamentally true ... Isolationism does not work. If the U.S. is going to spend so much on defense, if it is going to be a world power, part of its responsibility should be to use its power as a deterrent against abuses that might take place elsewhere in the world. Unfortunately, some of the US's actions of late have made this idea difficult for many to stomach. US intervention is now synonomous with oil grabbing, Arab killing, hidden motives, unilateral invasions, you name it. Maybe there was ALWAYS this shady side to US intervention ... But its worse now.

Collin

The US should not take on the role of world police. Reborncareerist, I think the US took on this role just to be able to rob, murder and rape this world and gain wealth and maintain its powerful position. Well fuck that.

macgyver06

the words written at the beginning of this thread are from a person (man or woman) that has participated or is still in the presidential race of 2008.

Commy

macgyver06 wrote:

So Long as Russia and China retain their own large military forces and haven't fully rid themselves of the instinct to throw their weight around - and so long as a handful of rogue states are willing to attack other sovereign nations, as Saddam attacked Kuwait in 1991 - there will be times when we must again play the role of the world's reluctant sheriff. This will not change- nor should it.

Sherrif or bully?


And if this is true why hasn't the US played "sheriff" against a country that can defend itself? Why is it always the little guys-where diplomacy and UN action could easily have taken care of the problem?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

macgyver06 wrote:

So Long as Russia and China retain their own large military forces and haven't fully rid themselves of the instinct to throw their weight around - and so long as a handful of rogue states are willing to attack other sovereign nations, as Saddam attacked Kuwait in 1991 - there will be times when we must again play the role of the world's reluctant sheriff. This will not change- nor should it.

I think the US should lay off from excessive toking on the sheriff bong for a while.

Or not....it's your great great grand children's tax dollars, and guaranteed life of serfdom you're wagering as collateral.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

slightofjeff wrote:

I keep hearing we attacked Iraq for its oil ... I'm just wondering when we can start taking it. It would be nice right about now, before gas tops $5 a gallon. What are we waiting for?

Every morning, I check the front porch expecting to find the couple barrels of stolen Iraqi oil the government promised to give each citizen -- and nothing! What's the hold-up here?

US oil barons are running the show...they're getting rich from it regardless.

The concept of no bid contracts has been taken to the ultimate.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrBrian wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/01/11/canadian-oil060111.html

Shock and awe! Run Canada!!

Agreed. As well, the majority of US oil does not come from the middle east by any means.

A lot of people seem to think it does.

my2hands

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Agreed. As well, the majority of US oil does not come from the middle east by any means.

A lot of people seem to think it does.

thats right...

he still stands

What makes this country inherently better than other countries that allows us to declare ourselves "sheriff?"

This question cannot be answered honestly, without talking about some bullshit ideals, morality, values, etc. that make us supposedly superior to other countries (when of course the real answer is that we are protecting our interests... money, oil, land, power).

These qualities cannot be objectively measured, so if we take this stance doesn't it automatically qualify Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Venezuela, etc to take the same stance? Why should we surprised if their axis of evil is the U.S, Britain, and Israel?

Abookamongstthemany

he still stands wrote:

What makes this country inherently better than other countries that allows us to declare ourselves "sheriff?"

This question cannot be answered honestly, without talking about some bullshit ideals, morality, values, etc. that make us supposedly superior to other countries (when of course the real answer is that we are protecting our interests... money, oil, land, power).

These qualities cannot be objectively measured, so if we take this stance doesn't it automatically qualify Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Venezuela, etc to take the same stance? Why should we surprised if their axis of evil is the U.S, Britain, and Israel?

Great post!

he still stands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Great post!

Gracias

So was it McCain that said this (the original post)???

I can't imagine Obama would talk about the U.S. policing the rest of the world. I can imagine him doing it, just not talk about it.

Abookamongstthemany

he still stands wrote:

Gracias

So was it McCain that said this (the original post)???

I can't imagine Obama would talk about the U.S. policing the rest of the world. I can imagine him doing it, just not talk about it.

I don't know who said it...I read threads from the end to the beginning sometimes so someone might have said who and I just missed it.

And yep, I agree with your assessment, both would do it but only one would go around selling it...at least not on the campaign trail, anyways.

macgyver06

he still stands wrote:

Gracias

So was it McCain that said this (the original post)???

I can't imagine Obama would talk about the U.S. policing the rest of the world. I can imagine him doing it, just not talk about it.

there are more than two people in this presidential race.

he still stands

macgyver06 wrote:

there are more than two people in this presidential race.

Are we playing 50 Fucking Questions here?

yes I am aware there 2 majors (one of which will get elected unfortunately) and 4 minors, and probably some other people running as well that I don't know of.

oooh ooh was it Chuck Baldwin?

Cosmo

macgyver06 wrote:

So Long as Russia and China retain their own large military forces and haven't fully rid themselves of the instinct to throw their weight around - and so long as a handful of rogue states are willing to attack other sovereign nations, as Saddam attacked Kuwait in 1991 - there will be times when we must again play the role of the world's reluctant sheriff. This will not change- nor should it.

...
Who died and appointed us as the World's Sheriff? And couldn't it be argued that Russia and China 'throwing their weight around' is the same thing as our 'pre-emptive policy' of crisis negotiation? If Russia did the same thing we did in Iraq, would it be viewed by Americans as a blatant act of aggression... or a justified use of force?
Let fucking ass Russia or China go in and play World Cop for a while... if they want to. So far... the U.S. is the only country stupid enough to pretend to be the World's Sheriff.

DriftingByTheStorm

slightofjeff wrote:

I keep hearing we attacked Iraq for its oil ... I'm just wondering when we can start taking it.

We didn't attack Iraq to TAKE the oil.

We attacked it to STOP Iraq from SELLING it ... IN EUROS.

Saddam was going off the dollar.
Just like Iran claims it is doing.

If you understand anything about the USD, and the fact that its only real value on the world market is as a guarantor of oil, then you understand the hubub.

If you DON'T understand that, then its easy to see the confusion.