The World's Watchdog

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miserissima
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Miserissima said:
Inspired by a quote from Seamus in the Ukraine thread:

“What nation seems to be under the delusion that it has some God given right to intervene anywhere ?”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11744674&postcount=305

What do you think? To paraphrase, what nation has the right to self appoint as the watchdog of the world?
Click to expand...
The United States has long relished that role; but I’d like to see someone else clean up the world’s messes once in a while.

Nobody has the “right” to appoint itself the world’s policeman, but nations get involved to protect their interests, etc…
 
Reminds me of Cain’s response. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Uh, you’re kinda supposed to be!

There are two major abusive errors powerful nations make on the world stage:
  1. Isolationism
  2. Imperialism
Both are equally bad, IMO. What’s bad about isolationism? Ask anybody knowledgable about history what effect the isolationist Mandarins had on China back in the day. Most historians agree that isolationism after WWI is what enabled Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin to run amok in their respective zones of influence.

I tend to think we’re closer to imperialism than isolationism, but that doesn’t mean we can simply disconnect. We no longer live in a world where what happens elsewhere has no effect here. Isolationism is a dangerously naïve fantasy.
 
Miserissima said:
Inspired by a quote from Seamus in the Ukraine thread:

“What nation seems to be under the delusion that it has some God given right to intervene anywhere ?”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11744674&postcount=305

What do you think? To paraphrase, what nation has the right to self appoint as the watchdog of the world?
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the nation and what it’s watching.

I do not believe the U.S., for example, has any desire to be the “watchdog of the world” for the sake of the role. But there are many threats in many places, actual and potential, and the U.S. does pay attention to them and acts (until 2009) in the perceived best interest of the nation.

Certainly interventionism can have negative motivations. One might think of TR’s role in fomenting revolution in Honduras and the creation of the nation of Panama in negative terms, despite the fact that the Panama canal benefitted a good part of the world.

On the other hand, the Brits very nearly ended Suttee and the rule of savage local rulers in India. The French appear to have (at least for now) saved Mali from being ruled by Al Quaeda. Indeed, one could accuse the Vatican of “intervening” in the Soviet Empire by supporting Solidarity. The U.S. prevented Moro rule in Palawan, Sulu and Mindanao. The Aussies aided East Timor gain independence.

So interventionist policies are not necessarily bad just because they are interventionist.
 
Just because recently I seem to relish being attacked…

I don’t think any nation ought to be the watchdog of the world. I don’t think it solves any problems. I think private charity and private interests can help far more.

I think the US considers the world its interest or we wouldn’t have bases in gross amounts of other countries. I would personally be insulted if someone had a base in my home, to make sure I did what they determined I was supposed to.

I think isolationism and imperialism are both bad, but isolationism isn’t what let to WWII, it was WWI.

Probably the best of all possible (?) worlds:
“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none.”
Thomas Jefferson
 
When you are the “Big Dog” on the block and none of the other dogs want to challenge you…you are “in charge”.

Can anyone here on the forum suggest another country that the world would feel comfortable about…being the “Big Dog”???
 
I don’t think any country by itself has the right to act as the world’s watchdog. And the U.S. had only intervened according to its own interests, not necessarily the best interests of the country involved.
 
UbiCaritas15 said:
I think the US considers the world its interest or we wouldn’t have bases in gross amounts of other countries.
Click to expand...
I agree. I do think that some of these bases are important, though; as refueling stations and as a means to project our military eleswhere as needed. And needs DO arise. Some of these bases are total “money-sucks;” but others are needed. Like our naval bases in Japan. We need to keep China honest.
I would personally be insulted if someone had a base in my home,** to make sure I did what they determined I was supposed to.**
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s that simple. To use the Japan example again, I think they (their government) would rather us be there than not. They are definately afraid of China.
I think isolationism and imperialism are both bad, but isolationism isn’t what let to WWII, it was WWI.
Click to expand...
AGREED. TOTAL isolationism is bad, but I think we could use a little more ‘detatchment.’ I do not think that isolating ourselves from the rest of the world would make the followers of a particular ‘religion of peace’ any less hostile towards us; but as I said before: we waste far too much money on ungrateful backwater banana republics that hate us.
Probably the best of all possible (?) worlds:
“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none.”
Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
I think in the 21st century, alliences are badly needed. Even the United States cannot ‘go it alone.’ We need friends, and allies. That’s just the way the world works nowadays.
 
rfournier103 said:
I don’t think it’s that simple. To use the Japan example again, I think they (their government) would rather us be there than not. They are definately afraid of China.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I believe the Kuwaitis, Bahrainis, and Omanis are quite happy to have US bases to protect them from Iran.
 
Sunbreak said:
I don’t think any country by itself has the right to act as the world’s watchdog. And the U.S. had only intervened according to its own interests, not necessarily the best interests of the country involved.
Click to expand...
You mean like encouraging Egypt to be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood or encouraging Syria to be taken over by other Islamic radicals?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top