Should the US have become 'Policemen to the World?' Following WWII and as a result of our apparent military dominance, we have become so. But doesn't that go against the policy of non-interference? Is Russia now using that against us with its interference in Georgia?

From what I've read, Russia has said, 'If the US can interfere in Iraq's politics, we can interfere in the politics of any country which is a former SSR. And we have the right to do so since the former SSRs were our buffer zone against the West and, as SSRs, were a part of Russia.'

What gives the US the 'right' to interfere in other countries? What gives Russia the 'right' to interfere in other countries--or even provinces within Russia itself?

Is it all a test of military strength? If it is, are we going back to the Cold War where military might is answered by military might?

No one country should be a self appointed policeman. No country, no matter how high its ideals, can be trusted use power in such a way.

The only questions are, is the US a self-appointed world policeman, and if so, what are its reasons for doing so?


The right to interfere should be limited to interventions on behalf of national security. Of course, it possible to give justification to almost any interference, which will meet the criteria of "national security".

I am sure that Russia would say that Georgia is in their traditional sphere of influence, and that the welfare of people Russian ethnicity was at stake, and therefore interference and violence was justified. Georgians would say that national security in terms of territorial integrity was at stake, and therefore their actions were justified.

Its possible to justify US actions and any actions of any country using such methods. National interests and national security is a broad classification which can be used to justify just about anything.

At the end of the day, countries are sort of like people. They do whats in their precieved interests. IN the case of individual people we have governments which enforce laws and thereby constrain activity. In the case of nations, we have laws but no real government to enforce them. Sometimes collections of individual nations form a sort of posse and enforce laws they feel it is in their interests to enforce. Given my own suspicion of national governments and their intrusions into personal sovereignty it is no suprise that I would greet any supranational government with extreme suspicion.

The US is not the world's policeman. It is a nation with varied interests and the political-economic-military might to tend to those interests. That same might has allowed it, on occassion, to tend also to the interests of its friends.

It is not USA, but corporations, which speculate in the best moral principles and manipulate with public opinion in order to gain more power and money.
It is not USA, but human nature. Are you sure that all of us would be so humane, if we were in those money-bags's boots?
World's policeman? No, it is realization of absolute exemption from punishment.

Sort of how Russia is treating its neighbor Georgia at the moment right, Elena? Comfortable to do so because it is reasonably certain it will escape punishment?

I don't see the United States as the world's police. We are more like the hired gun. The vast majority of the conflicts that may have earned us the policeman tag come at the request of, or approval of, the police. At least in so far as you can call the United Nations or other entities the police.

No, we are not self appointed. We have entered into defense treaties with other countries. Other countries who believe it is in their best interest to have a defense treaty with us so that we may defend them in their time of need. I don't deny that we seek to serve our own needs with these treaties. It is a fact though, that these other countries wanting our assistance is proof that we are not self appointed.

When the shit hits the fan somewhere, that somewhere, as well as much of the rest of the world, often looks to the US to get involved. That is not us appointing ourselves.

I'm thinking Iraq.

It's just my opinion, but I can't find any evidence that Iraq requested our help.

We volunteered. That's just the kind of country we are.

No, but the UN asked us to step in for little Kuwait. You know, back when it began. Then the UN sent us back in years later, with minimal prodding.

I thought the US did the right thing helping Kuwait defeat the Iraqi invasion. They did so with the help of UN troops from several nataions.

Twelve years later, though, we were on our own, despite some modest help from the ever-diminishing "coalition of the willing." We were not at that time coming to the defense of another country, but attacking one.

I don't see the invasion of Iraq as a continuation of the Gulf war.