America as a police nation

Remove all ads!

I am doing a persuasive speach for my sophmore english class, and I decided to do it on America as a police nation, and I also decided that I dont think America should be a police nation like we are now. It seems like it makes people look down on us, it wastes our resources that we could be useing to fix our own problems, and other contries afairs are realy none of our business unless they directly affect us or our allies. Plus our soldiers die in conflicts that we get involved in such as the Vietnam war. And as for the whole war with Iraq thing, I don't think it is our business to mess with them untill they actualy do something to hurt us or our allies, but on the other hand, Vietnam has broken treaties with us, and they are trying to produce nuclear weapons, so I think we should get involved, or at least prioritisze them above Iraq. So I was wondering what you all think about the way the United States acts like the police of the world. Both sides of the arguement would be helpful for me when I write the speach.

[ January 10, 2003, 00:43: Message edited by: Thauglor ]

 

What do you mean by police nation? Do you mean a *police* nation as orwellían termes where the police is everywhere and dissent swiftly punished? Or as I understood your post, the US acting as world police?

 

I mean how we "act" like a police nation. I didn't mean it literaly. Kind of like we are the police of the world. We go and try to stop this nation from making these weapons, and patrol those borders to stop these people from fighting, and enforce all kinds of no fly zones to stop people from getting aircraft where they want them. Stuff like that.

 

America has become pretty interventionistic recently, if that's what you mean. America is much more willing to use it's military to enforce what they see as their national interest than other nations.

I don't want to live in a weak (strong countries such as china can employ an element of deterrence at least) country whose interests too strongly conflict with the US. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time then can be reason enough to catch a bomb.

As for a police country internally I'm unsure: On the one hand there is strict gvt obediance that makes people accept very harsh measures such as curfew for youths - on the other hand there is a distinct distrust against the government in general, on the extreme right especially. A people that obeys to its gvt but distrusts it at the same time ...

Compared to old europe america is to some point much less free (take the curfew for example), in some other points freeer (even open celebration or even strict denial of the holocaust are under *freedom of speech* there, both would be criminal acts in germany).

[ January 10, 2003, 11:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Yeah.

I wish the States would stay out of other people's business too.

I hate nosey people. And nosey governments are even worse.

 

I think that there is a real misunderstanding as to America's role in the Middle East. The borders of those counties are for the most part simply lines on a map. Historically there have been a number of attempts by various regimes to unify the region, as manny Arabs do not see any social reason for these lines to exist. These attempts are usually by regimes that care less about human rights, and they are usually enemies of the west. Western nations, (primarily America) have struggled to maintain a balance between these counties. When Iran attacked Iraq, America provided weapons to Saddam in an attempt to stop Iran. America did not give Iraq enough weapons to turn the battle and defeat Iran, they were simply enough to hold Iran back. As Iran was attacking with vastly superior forces, some of these weapons were biological and chemical in nature (weapons that Iraq did not use in entirety, and has never accounted for). At that time Iran was hostile to the west, and if Iraq had tumbled, it would have only been a matter of time before other countries were being attacked by Iran. If this were to have occurred, the largest supply of oil in the world could have been controlled by a hostile entity. This would have left the world hostage to a regime that would gladly cut of this supply of oil, even though it would have hurt its own peoples welfare by cutting off it's only source of cash to pay for food and medicine, just to damage America and it's allies.

As far as attacking Iraq, it is a known fact that Iraq has prohibited weapons. These weapons were documented in 1994 by UN inspectors. Iraq will has not provided any documentation of the disposal of these weapons (which is a material violation of the UN resolution). Eventually Saddam will use these weapons, either against America, it's allies, or one of Iraq's neighbors. Iraq is also providing weapons to terrorists and homicide bombers. How does anyone know that Iraq will not provide biological or chemical weapons to these same people?

As far as taking care of N. Korea. Unfortunately America has to take the full blame for this issue. Our former, and last impeached President (Clinton) appeased the dictator and even gave Kim Il the technology that he is using to blackmail everyone now. Unfortunately, that same President cut so much of our military, and put us in such a dire economic situation, that we cannot address N. Korea and Iraq at the same time. The fact is, our current President will not negotiate with anyone while under threat (and rightfully so). There is some justification for a debate as to which threat should be addressed first. However it would be nice if the rest of the world would step up to the plate, stop demanding handouts from America, and show some initiative by going over and taking care of N. Korea while the Brits and Americans take care of Iraq. Most of the rest of the world doesn't share our views on Iraq anyway, so it would be nice if they would either show some backbone and declare themselves Iraq's allies, or step out of the way and SHUT THE H#LL UP! Unfortunately this won’t happen because it doesn’t cost them anything to bad mouth America, and they get to feel stronger about themselves by making America look weaker. America will still continue to funnel part of its GNP in cash payouts to any country in the world who will promise to play nice, even when they are stabbing America in the back diplomatically. Oh well, we Americans are the stupid ones who think we can buy our allies.

 

Darkwolf, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Oil. That's the threat. There exist, really, 3 major, tappable sources in the world: the Middle East, the Caspian Sea Basin, and the South China Sea. China has already claimed the South China Sea's oil and has ousted even legitimate claims by other nations to drill oil there. European nations, Russia included, have jumped on the prospect of tapping the Caspain Sea, and have the proximity and resources to do so. This leaves the U.S. still dependent on the greatest source in the world: the Middle East. Now, President Bush wanted to begin drilling off the coast of the state of Alaska so as to diminish our reliance on such an unstable area, but for ecological reasons, the people of the U.S. opposed this idea. As a result we have no choice but to get our oil and natural gas we need to run our country from, primarilly, the Middle East. The existence of a rogue nation in this area that is known to be hiding weapons and breaking U.N. mandates while holding a significant grudge against the West, I see, as does our current leader, as a threat to our national interest.

Imagine if you will, that suddenly Russia had a toppling of its government and the emerging regime was based on the concept that the rest of Europe was religiously or morally atrocious and "infidels". Now imagine this new Russia begins to muscle in and develop weapons in factories very close to the Caspian Sea basin, amassing forces in the area as if to flex its muscles. How would Europe react? Would the U.N. take measures to force Russia to withdraw some of its forces, would Europe still posture all high-and-mighty and talking of peace talks when it was their throat held to the knife? No. They would deploy forces, form coalitions, call upon their allies. They would mobilize to ensure the welfare of their economy, and thus, their people.

The United States is made to look like war-mongers because the rest of the world isn't feeling threatened nearly as much by Iraq's presence. So far, all the U.S. is doing in Iraq is establishing itself, sending forces overseas in case something DOES break out. To do otherwise, to wait as someone above mentioned "until Iraq hurts someone" is rather irresponsible. That's like being a cop and watching a man with a gun follow someone and shoot them before you arrest them. Until then, they hadn't commited any crime. Except maybe, brandishing a firearm [possessing weapons of mass destruction] and having the intent of killing someone [ignoring U.N. resolutions]. Do we really have to wait until he pulls the trigger?

Amon-Ra

 

The U.S. gets roughly 10% of its oil from the middle east (changes a bit every month) and about 18-20% of its imports from the middle east. Canada, Venezuala, and Mexico are more important as foreign suppliers for the U.S. Also, Nigeria, Algeria, Russia (and this'll increase), Norway, and the U.K. (yes, that's right at 5%) together are more significant than the Middle East.

You can get the numbers from the American Petroleum Institute :
http://api-ec.api.org/newsplashpage/index.cfm

The rest of the world is more dependent than the U.S. on middle eastern oil at this time.

 

Adding that the rest of the oilproducers in the world together are more significant that the largest regional conentration does not take away the importance of that very concentration.

And Darkwolf,
Iraq has attacked Iran with the encouragment of the western world, including the US who had a bill open with Khomeini after the siege of the US embassy and the tragic failure of the dillettantic Operation Eagle Claw (ask Donnie Rumsfeld, he was one of the US military-political leaders in that time). Saddam as a *standard issue* dictator seemed much less threatening than the mullahs at that time - Saddam was the right dictator at the right spot.

It is an amazing achievement that the iranians, troubled by the US arms embargo - most of their equipment (bought by the shah) was of US origin, were eventually able to drive Saddam back into his country and achieve a peace. When you say that the US supported Irak to keep agressive Iran at pace you're wrong. Iran seemed threatening and the ratio was that Iran with an enemy in his country would be to busy to cause more trouble in Lebanon for example. Iraq vs Iran was a western-arab proxy war. More about that conflict here .

You'll probably call me a liar so I'll give you this. Since it is meant as an info publication for US soldiers it might convince even you. Read the pages about *history*. "Hussein ... revisited an old dispute over the Shatt al Arab waterway and invaded Iran in September 1980". Operation Eagle Claw was executed 24 April 1980 btw. Coincidence? Now, the US have always been very relucant to adopt the strategy: My enemies enemy is my friend

[ January 11, 2003, 04:10: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Actually Ragusa, I either typed that poorly or you misread it.

Canada give more oil to the U.S. than all of the middle east combined. Venezuala and Mexico each provide more oil as well depending on the month.

I think people commonly assume the U.S. gets most of its oil from the middle east when in reality some months the U.S. gets as little as 5% from that region.

The effect on the U.S. if the mid-east was threatened would be roundabout.

 

But the US have intense business relations with asia and europe. Another oil crisis would lead to a sharp increase in prices, and ruin US export to asia and europe - as well as US imports from there - that and an oil crisis would have a very negative impact on world economy and since a lot of US companies are global players there is a serious US interest in a stable middle east.

 

Maybe I should have been a little more clear, yes we only get 10% annually imported oil from the Middle East, but that doesn't change our future holds in that region. First of all, if 10% of our oil imports were severed, do you know how drastic of a change that would cause? We would have to either overstep our share in other regions or tap our oil reserves [which despite our HUGE consumption [[or in fact, directly because of it]] is only the 12th largest in the world.]

The United States consumes around a third of all of the oil produced daily in the world and produces far far less. Known world oil reserves, barring the introduction of new wells or findings [you'd think we've drilled just about everywhere worth drilling], will be all sucked dry by the end of this century at our current rate of drilling and consumption [which barring technological advances and alternative forms of energy, will only accelerate]. Who then, will we turn to for oil?

Can anyone tell me what countries are the top 5 in terms of proven oil RESERVES? Who is going to have oil once its all been sucked up from under the ground?

I'll list them for your edification:
1) Saudi Arabia
2) Iraq
3) United Arab Emirates
4) Kuwait
5) Iran

Combined they have around 700 billion barrels of oil in reserves [and those numbers never cease to increase due to their low consumption], compared the U.S.'s 25-30 billion [which remains relatively stagnant thanks to our high consumption]. What's going to happen when a nation that consumes 1/3 of the oil only has about 2 percent of what is left in the globe?

What do they all of these countries have in common? They're in the Middle East. Together they make up around 65% of the world's current oil reserves, and when the proverbial sh*t hits the fan, they're gonna be the ones with the power. Now can you see why the U.S. has a vested interest in keeping its foot in the door in the Middle East? In keeping stability in the region and making sure that people who are hostile toward the U.S. aren't allowed to produce weapons of mass destruction?

As oil wells come closer and closer to drying up, Middle Eastern countries are going to become more and more tight with their oil reserves, and military aggressions [which can already be seen with Russia in the Caspian and China in the South China Sea] are going to begin. The U.S. is making its presence known, in part, to ensure that in the future it has a say in what goes on with those oil reserves. I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow, but the administration and businesses of the U.S. are looking ahead at the future of the oil industry and realizing it is bleak unless they stick there nose where other people might think it doesn't belong.

Amon-Ra

[ January 11, 2003, 00:15: Message edited by: Amon-Ra ]

 

See, I just disagree with the doom and gloom predictions.

First, according to the most recent Brookings studies world oil production won't even begin to PEAK until 2040 at least so the idea that the tap will run dry within a century doesn't jibe with this.

Second, I hear all the time (not necessarily here) that the U.S. uses half of the worlds oil. Not true. North America uses about 26% so even with Mexico and Canada thrown in it isn't even 1/3. These numbers come from the geology department at Penn State University. What confuses people (or more likely is twisted by people) is the fact that the U.S. uses a disproportionately high amount of gasoline.

Third, there is this idea that once production abroad begins to decline that the U.S. will not be able to function and will go hostile rather than reduce consumption or find other energy sources. This is historically inaccurate. In 1972 the U.S. imported about 28% of its oil and in 1977 that number skyrocketed to about 48%. Then of course oil supplies drastically decreased and there was a huge oil shortage in the U.S. Imports declined to less than 28% and conservation and alternative energy production skyrocketed. As foreign oil started to become available the U.S.' use of it once again began to rise. All of this information is available from EIA.

You see, the U.S. is a flexible capatalist society. It uses oil because it is currently cheaply available in abundance. When it's not, the U.S. will find something else to use. I actually think this will be a good thing with short term heartache outweighed by long term environmental and efficiency benefits.

Here is a good paper debunking the myth that the U.S. oil consumption isn't responsive to price changes (read supply changes.)
http://netec.wustl.edu/BibEc/data/Articles/oupcoecpov:9:y:1991:i:1:67-72.html

There are a lot of great papers on the subject out there on the econ-papers site and most of the authors are happy to send them to you.

In short, the U.S. will handle a shortage in oil like it will handle a shortage in sprockets -- it's supply and demand baby. I look forward to the day when the U.S. and the world is forced to use alternative fuels -- the technology is already there in some cases and damned close in others but there isn't much of a reason to change from an efficiency stand point at the moment, one day there will be and I applaud that.

 

Ragusa,

You are quite correct, Iraq did start the war with Iran. However it was (from the article you linked) in fear of an agressive Iran, they call that a pre-emptive strike (something similar to what America will probably be doing to Iraq in the next 45 to 90 days), so you can either apologize for the ignorant fool comment or be one yourself.
Unfortunately for Iraq, they picked a fight with someone they could not beat, and in fact were looking at being completely conquered themselves. Believe me, if America would have wanted Iraq to win that badly, they would have.
Iraq and Iran's roles were switched after the first 2 years of the war. In the article that you linked, we can see that instead of being satisfied with taking back their own borders, Iran began an invasion of a totally defensive Iraq, who was wanting nothing more than to negotiate peace while the Iranians massed troups for an invasion. The Iranians just would not be satisfied with defeating Iraq and taking back its land. Iraq was in such a desperate situation that even 4 to 1 kill ratios were not acceptable. They resorted to chemical and bio weapons, many of which America provided. Iran even went so far as to gather 500,000 men (some reports are closer to 1 million) for a final push into Iraq. You no doubt have read the rest yourself, but for others reading this, Iraq finished out the war playing defense, just trying to cost the Iranians enough lives that they would have to give up. And the fact that Iran was able to push back, and almost conquer Iraq without any weapons except the ones left by the Shah is not true, the Soviets were still "unofficially" selling weapons to both sides, sorry that I can't provide proof, right now I do not have the time to search the internet, but it is common knowledge thta the Soviets were already having economic difficulties of their own, and they didn't care where the cash came from.

Now if you think for even 1 second that Iran would have been satisfied to just take Iraq, you are the fool! History, as you well know from your own, is full of examples of countries doing nothing about a conquerer, hoping that the conquerer would be satisfied, or unable to continue making war after taking one more country over, the overused policy of appeasement.
It is not in America's interests to have a unified Arabia. Even if it was unified under a government that we were allied with, we know that alliances with Arab countries shift like the sands that region is so famous for.

As far as keeping Iran from causing problems by encouraging a war with Iraq, so F'ING what if we did. What were we supposed to do, allow Iran to keep punching us in the mouth and do nothing? And before anyone says "fight your own fights", we would have, except that if we had, the yearly high temperature worldwide would probably have been about 5 degrees centigrade due to the nuclear winter that would have occured after the war escaleted into a full nuclear exchange beween America and the Soviets. (Ragusa, you and I wouldn't have had to worry about the temperature though, as with the number of warheads aimed at the US and Europe, we would have been DEAD, or never born depending on your age).

And as far as that comment about never learning that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Let me give you a list of our experience with that.

France. They were the hero's of the American Revolution (Rebellion, depending!). Have had to bail them out of 4 wars, and now they stab us in the back every chance they get.

Soviets. WWII would have been a lot tougher (impossible?) without the Soviets, but hey we almost destroyed humanity in a nuclear arms race, and did set back the societies of the world in many areas (like space exploration) by about 30 years.

South Korea. Stabbing us in the back today for the N. Korea issue.

Afghanistan. Let's see, we backed the Taliban against the Soviets long enough to for the Soviets to quit and go home, and to put the Soviet Economy in its final death spin. Then they harbor the man who is responsible for 9/11.

Iran. Our oil allie against the evil empire! Gave them a modern society, a TON of money, and brought them out of the stone age. Then they kick us out, take our embassy hostage, and return themselves back to the stone age.

Iraq. Give them the means by which to make sure their little piece of the dessert stays their own. What do they do? They give money, aid and comfort to terrorists, and there is that whole Kuwait thing!

And the last one I will go into today, the country that my Grandmother left to come to America, (smart lady!) Germany! (Sorry Ragusa, this might sting a bit, but you will be better for it) Let's see, we bomb the h#ll out of her, lose about 1 million (I am sure that if I am wrong on that number, but someone will correct me, right Ragusa?) of our soldiers. So then what do we do? We save 1/2 of the country from communism in a stand of with the Soviets, loan them enormous amounts of money, rebuild their economy, rebuild their infrastructure, forgive enourmous amounts of the loans (I don't have time to research it, but did Germany repay any of that?), and how do we get repaid? HMMM, we thought that since the German's hated the Soviets, and that we gave them so much to help them rebuild that we would have another staunch friend like England. Instead they stab us in the back by selling nuclear, biological and chemical technology and equipement to anybody with the cash to pay for it. And there is the whole NATO thing.

The real lesson to that colloquialism is that if you only ally with the enemy of your enemy, you will never have any real allies!

I will not pretend that America is innocent in all of this. We prop them up, and yes, we demand that they become our puppets, and then we get all pissy because at some point we have to knock them down. That is why I am a Republican. The Democrats always note that the Republicans are almost always the ones that get us in wars. That is so short sighted. The Democrats (Clinton and Carter being the perfect examples) are usually the ones who appease all these little dictators, and the Republicans are the ones who finally have the guts to stand up to them.

[ January 11, 2003, 02:05: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

As a student of statistics, I've learned not to take studies at a glance. By the statistics I found at the E.I.A. the U.S. consumes around 26 percent of the worlds "Oil energy supply". But look a little closer -- sure enough, if you look at the bottom of this page: [to use the EIA's data at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t21.xls as you claim as proof] you will see a footnote that refers you to their definition of what constitutes "oil" in their study of supply and demand. They've thrown in: natural gas plant liquids, other hydrogen and hydrocarbons for refinery feedstocks, refinery processing gain, alcohol, and liquids produced from coal.

The claims that talk about 1/3 to 1/2 of oil consumption are talking about crude oil, vital kind for consumption. Whenever you hear someone talk about oil reserves, oil production, or projected oil production peaks, they are concerned about crude oil. Millions/Billions of barrels means barrels of crude oil.

Amon-Ra

 

Darkwolf,
poor old Saddam, after invading Iran Iraqs initial successes stopped and they went to the defensive - and Iran started to attack even though Saddam begged for peace. Indeed. You seriously blame Iran for doing so?

Imagine you were Iranian: After attacking your seemingly defenceless country for the sake of land and oil, occupying large territories, devastating your country and killing approx 100.000 to 200.000 of your soldiers and citizens the agressor decides he had enough and asks for peace: Still within your borders, after using chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) against you and so on.

Project your point of view on historical examples: Imagine Hitler asking Stalin for peace after stalling in Stalingrad. Or how about Japan suggesting peace after the battle of Midway? Would that mean that, after Stalingrad and Kursk - russia became the agressor in the east and america the agressor in the pacific after the battle of Midway? You can't seriously accuse a country that has been attacked for fighting on to eventually get rid of the enemy at their gates. That would be quite a peculiar point of view.

The iranians knew very well who their enemy was and what to expect from him. Saddam fell upon Iran as he fell upon Kuwait - only that Iran was a nut too hard to crack. You're aware you seriously suggest Iran should have accepted a loss of territory for a peace with Saddam (or put it that way: that Saddam should have been rewarded for his attack)? And go further, that the iranian resistance forced poor Saddam to use chemical weapons against Iran? How about that: Iran could have surrendered, that would have ended hostilities much faster
Consider the impact of the few thousand victims of 9-11 on american mentality and policy and you might understand how Iran could refuse Saddam's peace offers so easily and fight on.

For Iran the foreign policy option not to do anything might have been better indeed - after the Iranian revolution that country was anti-american, yes. And? Except for the support of Shiites in Lebanon they were remarkably peaceful for a rogue state. You're aware you justify the slaughter of a several hundred thousand iranians to distract Iran from worse? *cough*
Given american foreign policy has that mentality I can easily understand how countries like Iran became antiamerican.

[ January 11, 2003, 14:19: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Suuure DarkWolf, you CAN say that the Sovjets, the Iraq and the other countries are the only evil ones but USA is far worse. Here comes a few reminders.

1. USA is the only state in the whole world who have been convicted for state terrorism.

2. They shouldn't be allowed to attack Iraq becouse last time they lost 148 soilders, add three zeros and you are coming close to what Iraq lost, many civilians.

3. Should they be allowed to destroy whole nations just to find one, two or twenty terrorists? No. But this is what they did to Afghanistan and what they will do to Iraq.

4. I have never said that Mulla Omar, Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein are good. I just defends them.

5. If they finds out that any western country have a terrorist group, let say Germany, but they can't prove it to the goverment should they bomb Germany? NO! And they wont becouse Germany is a western country. Idiotical. They are fascists, fascists I tell you.

6. USA was as guilty to the Cuba-crise as Sovjet and Cuba. Remember their little nuclear-launchers in Turkey?

Conclusion:
USA is as bad as any "terror" country, if not even worse. USA...

...I HATE IT!!

/ma two cents

[ January 11, 2003, 13:51: Message edited by: Ivanji, son of Loki ]

 

I'm going to be bad here.

Ivanji :

About sums it up.