In the finest tradition of ATS Fighters, xpert11 has volunteered to step up and debate this topic.

There are no points on the line and this is for practice only.

The topic for this debate is "The United States is the only Super Power and should be policing the world."
xpert11 will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Maxmars will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit. Excess characters will be deleted prior to judging.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

Videos are not permitted. This includes all youtube links and other multi-media video sources.

Audio Files Will Be Allowed For This Debate.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

Opening Statement

First off my thanks to Maxmars , Memory Shock , and Semperfortis for either setting up this debate or giving me a chance to take part. I intend to save the guts of my arguments for the alternating replies . So instead I am going to offer the reader an outline of what I am going to put forward in this debate . In this debate I will examine the definition of Policing the World and examine the issues that are tied in with this debate .
Amongst what is known as global stability the following issues or situations if you like have or can be found .

1. Poverty and the related aid that is given to much of the world
   
2. Political instability with different causes
   
3. Global Institutions
   

The very perception of the notion of the US policing the world must be brought under the microscope . The US faces political instability in its own backyard in Mexico and Colombia . All of which will brings into question the geography element of this debate . More on this later . The failure of the League of Nations and Marshal Aid and the dangers of isolationism will be dealt with at different stages . Finally as the the worlds last remaining Super Power the US must be the leader in a global partnership in policing the world .

Disclaimer the facts opinions that I put forward in this debate are for that purpose only and don't necessary reflect my own views in any matter .

A few points to preface my opening remarks. I will reuse some of my original content, so if you are familiar with it already - it's not dejavu

My opponent has enjoined the concept of global stability into the debate regarding "policing the world" and thus added a new dimension to the potential argument. The list of issues proffered;

1. Poverty and the related aid that is given to much of the world
   
2. Political instability with different causes
   
3. Global Institutions
   

These issues, while certainly relevant to the task of "World Police," presume the office is accepted. I will gladly explore these in greater depth from the opposing perspective; but I feel the presupposition must be granted as axiomatic.

My argument is that the premise "The United States is the only Super Power and should be policing the world" is fundamentally incorrect on several levels that are precursors to accepting the issues of such a role in the world.
Detractions from the argument include what manner of 'super power' is required, and what constitutes 'policing.'

---------------------------------------------

But let's get on with the debate... here is my 'plagiarized' (from myself) opening from the original debate.

---------------------------------------------

I have great interest in this topic. I feel that my opponent and I, who will be studying the issue cooperatively from opposite perspectives, face a great challenge because of what we must contend with in terms of definitions.
First, and most importantly, we must concur on what the noun form of “The United States” really means. Our nation, customarily considered in the singular, is represented globally by one entity – the Federal government. However, as many here have recently been discussing openly, the Federal government has evolved into a singular entity which does not necessarily conform to the Constitutional Republic as it was intended. Thus, the “United States” really refers to the “Federal Government of the United States”, and not the actual population of the United States or their collective will. This virtual dichotomy becomes a schism for understanding.

Second, the term “Super Power” is (or can be) misleading and somewhat vague. There are too many ways to skew the notion of power to allow for an easily resolution to a definition. Economic, cultural, military, political, and diplomatic powers are all gauged differently, and if we are not talking about the same thing, we will end up in a pointless circular rift.

Third, ”Policing” raises some issues. As many can attest, policing is not a comprehensive union of the acts of law enforcement, peace keeping, or simply ‘cleaning up’. Policing, if taken literally, implies authority to impose and maintain control; such a definition also will color the debate, while simple law enforcement or peace keeping will change the debate direction as well.

With all due respect to those who may disagree, we have to ‘firm up’ the foundation of this debate. In my never-ending quest to avoid excess verbiage (stop laughing), I will try to make this as simple as my own limitations will allow;

Our global population has churned and gyrated extensively over the millennia, crystallizing into theocracies, oligarchies, republics, and loose confederacies. We have adopted totalitarianism, democracy, and anarchy. And time after time, throughout history, one ‘form’ of collective groups of people or another has proved incapable or unwilling to allow another to exist peacefully.

As time passed, several national experiments have proven more effective, and more lasting than others. Ultimately, a large-scale “king of the hill” game has been played by an increasingly smaller body of ‘executive’ representatives of groups of people who have delineated borders and claimed ‘statehood.’ Key to that ‘statehood’ is a notion of ‘sovereignty’; that among themselves, people choose to be answerable only to the state of which they constitute a ‘citizen.’ The choice is one made freely (ostensibly) and their membership in the body of citizens is founded in an acceptance of the form of governance of the land. We are all well aware that such is not always the case, and that entire communities of peoples have been trapped or virtually imprisoned by their self-proclaimed leaders. And we also see that some of these governments are prone to execute all forms of offenses towards neighbors (or even their own people) which defy any definition as ‘benevolence.’

If we refuse to entertain the reasons why governments assault each other, if we surrender to the notion that all nations are like children on a playground, if we believe that we can rightfully adopt a ‘righteous’ superiority to other nations, irrespective of their cultures and political ideologies, then we would have to accept that people, generally speaking, must be “kept in line.” Therefore a global ‘cop’ is required.

That’s a lot of ifs.

But granting that (for the moment,) we have to examine what it means to be the global cop. It means that we must be ‘accepted’ in the role, empowered to impose the will of the ‘lawful’ over those who someone has determined is ‘unlawful.’ Police are not judges, and must be directed to carry out their actions – again, in theory.

That being said, we cannot afford to ignore the global conduct of our sovereign neighbors. Certainly their conduct will eventually impact on our ‘sovereign’ citizens – or their interests.

But I can’t subscribe to the theory that ‘we’ as in the United States of America, are the defacto authority, duly empowered to apply unilateral ‘law enforcement.’

For the sake of the argument, I will concede our power as being equal to some, greater than most. Such a position is filled with treacherous pitfalls, especially once any other nation or group of nations declares that ‘we’ shouldn’t have that authority – at best, or simply ‘seized’ the authority - at worst. Many fascist states and organizations have assumed that authority to their detriment and in many cases, eventual downfall. That could lead to the very conflicts we are trying to police. Such a position could more easily start a war, than end it.

Also, policing is a continuous activity. Can we really consign our future generations to a global role they may not wish to assume? How do we lay down the mantle of police authority, should that time come?

The United States of America is not dedicated to the proposition that the globe is our domain to control and maintain.

Perhaps if the world somehow agreed that they wanted such a service from us, I would be inclined to accept the possibility, but that is clearly not the case, nor do I believe it ever should be.

Perhaps if there were a single global government, each nation, would concede the role to an outside agency. But then, the US would be little more than a branch of that government, beholden to a leadership and direction coming from ‘above’ and ‘beyond’ our cherished concept of sovereignty.

Until such a massive and earth-shattering paradigm shift happens, each nation and her closest neighbors should be responsible for their own conduct, and face consequences locally, without the prospect of another nation, driven by foreign ideals, and foreign ideologies, imposes their concept of ‘order’ on the world.

Denying the role of global police, enforcer of freedom and justice, and keeper of international peace and harmony does not automatically mean we can't help those in need, or defend those principles we hold as central to our national ideals. It just means that we require the extraordinary element of consensus before we apply our might upon others. Which seems only fair, since other citizens of the world should have as much say as any other in deciding whether people need to kill and be killed over matters of state.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you everyone for revisiting the debate....

First, the forms must be obeyed…,

Socratic Question.

Is it acceptable that global instability overflows into the US and if not what should be done about it?

It is not. The only thing to do about it is stop it from overflowing into our country. Not being dense, just pointing out that doing so does NOT mean policing the world.

If you’re suggesting we should act preemptively, I would suggest that no political leader I know of has a crystal ball I would trust. What about letting the sovereign people of any given nation resolve the matter internally? At what point to we go in guns’ a blazin’? Who gets to decide when it’s time to invade another nation?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a basic fundamental at work here. Every neighborhood has the presence of law enforcement in the form of the police and by the same token they wouldn't want the next suburb over to go without a police presence. This comparison works well in the global context of this debate as well in terms of why the US should police the world.

Generally speaking, I accept the following definition of police:

Police are agents or agencies, usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to ensure public and social order through the legitimized use of force.

In modern times, such empowerment is granted as a mandate from the people, legitimized through open acceptance of the form of governance their ‘executive body’ oversees. The necessity of the use of force demands oversight by a trusted body, such as the executive government, to ensure no abuse or corruption renders said ‘policing’ into a criminal act – or an act not in keeping with the will or intent of the people themselves. To expend resources and expose human lives to the force of policing and its immediate consequences must be a conscious choice taken by the people as a whole.

In terms of maintaining and improving global security the US has and will work in partnership with its allies. Such alliances or acts of diplomacy are at the heart of the matter.

I feel in saying this you have abandoned the premise of your argument that the US is the specific Super Power which should be policing the world. Diplomacy and allegiances are at best tools of national convenience; law and order, on the other hand, appears to be a universal cultural imperative when those two social elements interact we always seem to get ‘politics’ – the lowest form of show business.

I find that without universal consent, we will simply be entering an endless struggle between those who object being policed by the US, and the flesh and blood of the US personnel facing that objection every day, not to mention the cost in the moral fatigue that drains any nations’ innermost strength and resolve.

Further, we generally perceive law and order as ‘moral’ (by definition), no? Morality however, is not universal, and there is a valid argument to the effect that imposing your morals on someone who doesn’t share those moral values is an immoral act.

These ‘elements’ seem to render the object of being responsible for law and order in the world as entirely unachievable by the nature of the mix of ideologies that currently exist in the world.

The common good that is represented by global security otherwise known as the US policing the world for this involves more leg work that doesn't involve dropping bombs then not. I will deal with the institutions that I mentioned in my opening statement later on.

I will have to disagree with the statement that the ‘US policing the world ‘ is representative of ‘the common good’; even if that is the intent. Unless there was only one nation on the planet, the term ‘common good’ would be oxymoronic. Is there ever an instance where every group is equally served by the application of authoritative force? I am unaware of any historical precedent of such an event – except maybe, in myth.

At this stage it is necessary to examine the globe it self. No place on earth is immune from either instability or its flow on effects. To illustrate my lets take a look at the US own backyard and the situation in Mexico. A civil war or extreme level violence exists in parts of Mexico. If the US was to do nothing and it has already failed to adequately police its own back yard then the violence will spill over the US border .

That does not necessarily follow. There have been many instances where internal turmoil has not ‘spilled over’ into other neighboring countries.

Granted, effects are always felt; but the two are not the same; your making it sound like if we don’t violate Mexican sovereignty and use force to subdue the offenders (whoever they are) they will simply begin fighting here in the US as well. Of course, that would be suicidal for them; but it is what you seem to be suggesting.

All of this is perfectly acceptable to my opponent because Maxmars maintains the steadfast notion that the US shouldn't police the world.

You make that sound like a bad thing!

Mexico is not another planet in the Solar System it is just as much apart of the globe as the US.

Agreed.

Often the US and other nations military and civilian personal , just US or other nations personal by themselves have a presence at the invite of the a democratically elected government . Afghanistan and East Timor are two widely varying examples of what I described. Today Afghanistan provides a central point where by the US and other nations are engaged in policing local and global security on all the levels I have described.

The Afghanistan campaign is a ‘coalition’ effort to eliminate a borderless non-entity they loosely categorize as ‘terrorists’. Not a single nation using its power to police ‘the world’.

Historically an example of the US working with its allies to provide security is NATO. Founded formally in 1949 to provide mutual security for its members. NATO was able to act in its own collective interest when its members took part in the Korean War under the banner of the UN.

In my opinion, the Korean War and those after that era were primarily about ‘containing’ the “red menace” – Maoist and/or Marxist communism. It was the boogeyman de jour, and the prime excuse for dumping billions into the military-industrial complex.

NATO combined with the Marshall Plan other wise formally known as the European Recovery Plan ensured a big part in the economic recovery of Western Europe and thus security in the region.

Again, not about law and order, not about good will…, it was about an ideological conflict. Those nasty ‘pinko’ commies had to be stopped! So we dumped billions into Europe, which was something the Soviets couldn’t match at the time.

Post War only the US had the economic capacity to implement such a policy or if you like community policing. Before those two pillars had taken place in forming the Truman Doctrine the conditions in Europe lent for a communist take over. Soviet intension's were made clear by the lack of democratic elections in countries occupied by Soviet Troops , blockade of Berlin and later the Berlin Wall all showed the Soviet Union true colours.

The Soviet perspective, of course, seems to have been different.

They would say (at the time) that they were not occupying those countries, but protecting them. The wall was a security measure. They saw the capitalistic exploitation of people happen again and again as Americas multi-continental ‘non’ empire grew. In fact, it had become evident that the American Federal Government had begun to actually promote and support commercial exploitation world-wide – but not distributing the wealth to its people, instead continuously investing in war and war machinery.

Personally, I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.

Note I chose the example of Cold War Europe because it is possible to follow the trail of successful policy implementation to a successful outcome.

All of these ventures, involved multi-national efforts. Not a single world police.

-------------------------------------------------------

Socratic question:

Is America a super power? If so, in what way; what can we do that no other nation or group of nations can't do?

Socratic Questions

Are all nations capable of resolving issues of a external or internal nature ?

When the US provides aid such as training overseas police forces does the US not in the very least indirectly police the world ?

All nations are not capable of resolving issues of an external or internal nature. But then, what makes them a nation? Perhaps, and I will understand if you disagree, what makes them a nation is their purposeful decision to try. Being a sovereign state means taking the nation in a direction without unrequested or unwanted foreign interference. The hallmark of freedom is sovereignty, personal and national alike.

While there are many political and selfish reasons to assist nations in the preparation of their military and law enforcement capabilities, this is not directly policing them, since they are the one's undertaking the effort, facing the risk, and dealing with the consequences. It is akin to teaching a man to fish, rather than simply giving him a fish; to paraphrase the old adage.

Answer to Socratic question

I am going to split the question and answers up as follows .
Is America a Super Power ?
Yes the USA is a Superpower .

If so, in what way; what can we do that no other nation or group of nations can't do?
Only the USA has the capacity to influence global security in a manner that improves the situation. Other nations can contribute because it suits there best interests to do so and makes the US role easier . Diplomacy can open up avenues where by the US can police the world . The US can also go routes that don't involve Diplomacy when that method has run its course or is ineffective .

I highlighted part of the first sentence because I would like to expand on it. Isn't it more likely that other nations will not agree with what 'improvement of the situation' is? We may all agree that Saddam Hussein was a despot who's control of the Iraqi nation was more akin to organized crime than a mandate of its people, but then, those people did not ask for us to occupy their country and displace his regime. And the cost in wealth and lives was hardly adequate cost for the net result - that is my opinion - I recognize that, but it seems that when you count the dead and wounded, the corrupt business practices of the defense contractors, the wanton disregard for human rights of the 'hired soldiers' we brought in; the surrender of our most sacred principles of not torturing people, the humiliating and unnecessary stripping of rights from the American people, and so on; how can we call this 'policing' a success? Korea was a 'police' action, Viet Nam was a 'police' action.., Iraq started as a 'police' action.... these are not shining examples of success - but instead are near national embarrassments.

The only question left is what role do Global Institutions such as the UN play in the US role policing the world?
The answer is somewhat complicated by the nature of the UN . But the issue of when the US and its allies should step in at the objection of those who only have an interest in further global instability or mass killings . My opponent speaks of morality and connects it to the different ideology's that exist . The principals of democracy including the variations such as a Republic which shares some of the democratic values found in a democracy are not an ideology. Neither is stability. So it cannot be said that different ideology's clash .

Since it is the best interests of nations that support preventing and providing national security it can still be said to remain at the heart of the matter.

I am trying to maintain a generic approach to this aspect of the debate. Ideologies vary widely, for example:

'We are God's "chosen" people'
'...the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'
'If you're eye offends you, pluck it out'
'Come out from among them and be ye separate.'
'Religion is the opiate of the masses'
'A woman's place is in the home.'
'Do as you will, shall be the whole of the law.'
'We are stewards of the Earth'
'Children should be seen but not heard'
'A child, once conceived is a living person'
'One man, one vote.'
'A man's first duty is to the sate.'
'Love thy neighbor'

and one of my favorite's

'Guide them by edicts, keep them in line with punishments, and the common people will stay out of trouble but will have no sense of shame. Guide them by virtue, keep them in line with the rites, and they will, besides having a sense of shame, reform themselves.'

Note that some of these stand opposed to one another, and have in fact caused conflicts that costs human lives and destroyed property.

The problem with the argument that preventing Mexico problems is that if the US was to offer any kind of aid to assist the Mexican government the US would still be policing the world . Aside from the fact it cannot be denied that Mexico is apart of the globe , another factor is at work . Largely to the people of Mexico there country is there world in the same way the USA is home to Americans . So the US has to police the world just preserve its own national security . Improving border security would only go so far because eventually all walls fall down or a breached.

If we pursue a preemptive strategy and enter Mexico, invited or otherwise, both we and the Mexican people must agree that it is necessary. Mexico has it's own government charged with keeping law and order and protecting its' citizens. If they fail to do so, will they require our policing forever? We cannot assume that the role is thrust upon us without recognizing that we are presuming we are worthy of that charge. And what happens when those we police, disagree?

----------------------------------

Policing the World means applying force to maintain an order that is desired by the controllers of those police. Who will control the police? Based on what values and morals? Seeing as how there are no 'universally' accepted ideologies in the world, are we not ensuring a future of violent struggle by choosing the arrogant path of policing?

Also, how do we pay for the job to get done? Will we 'tax' the world for compensation, would we be automatically entitled to such compensation even if the beneficiaries of that 'policing' never wanted us there in the first place? Who will determine if we overstep our privileges, or completely abuse them?

None of these rhetorical questions can be definitively answered, as each instance would be unique (presumably), but the point I am trying to draw out is that not just anyone can walk into your house and say "Do as I tell you because I am a policeman." They must be officially empowered with that authority. The US has no such authority and not even the UN blithely doles out the authority (except in one cleverly orchestrated precedent-setting instance - Kuwait.)

We cannot and should not be policing the world. It is an endless task, with no measurable success possible, costs lives, and provokes conflict.

Closing Statement

By policing your own backyard you are policing the world this fact is unavoidable .
I have provided specific examples of how the US policing the world has been beneficial to the rest of us . Instability will remain as will nations desire to have the US police the World . Historical it has been shown that Western Europe undoubtedly benefited from the US policing the world . Today nations still chose to co operate with the US in policing the world because dealing with the causes and preventing the spread of instability is in there best interest as well . All of which make it for the common good .

Even when the US is involved in military conflict it has been or is at the invite or with the permission of democratic elected governments . Also Maxmars argument about sovereignty cannot taken seriously due to the that the US accepting humanitarian aid undermined its sovereignty according to the logic on offer .

In terms of aiding other nations in terms of civilian aid and or military the benefits are clear and any failure to do so would clearly pose a threat to both to global security . Naturally global security is tied in with the US security interests . People complain about the US policing the world because they have not seen consequences of isolationism . Finally the cost and morality of law enforcement in towns and city's is not questioned . So questioning law enforcement on a global scale in such a manner must be considered flawed thinking . In spite of my opponent claims Democratic values are not an ideology nor is the idea of stability .

I ask the reader to forgive me for not dealing with the League of Nations and anything else that I missed circumstances arouse not related to this debate that got in the way of things .

My opponent's efforts have resulted, I think, in a clear example of 'seeing what one wants to see.'

The United states is, unfortunately, no longer the Super Power it once was.

There is a difference between policing and international vigilantism.

People can contrive any excuse to claim 'righteous' causes.

History, when examined closely, clearly demonstrates that what was taught to us to be considered noble assistance, may not have been so; and in fact, seldom is.

I think relying on historical information to justify why the US should be policing the world is a mistake. We have rarely 'policed' anything. And even when we have, its seems to get invariable exploited by opportunists to the detriment of those we were helping, and for the 'benefit' of some invariably connected with the policing effort.

Unfortunately, entities such as our Federal Government have not proven trustworthy in this regard. In reality, rather than be an expression of the national purpose (as established in the Constitution), the federal enterprise has become a singularly 'commercial' tool. Increasingly, every action it undertakes is focused on the expansion of private financial interests.

Such exploitation opportunities that present themselves in places of unrest is PRECISELY what commercial opportunists pursue. Unless we can guarantee that the Federal Government is immune from such 'appearance of impropriety' we cannot allow them free reign to be the 'sheriff" come to town to bring order. There is less and less accountability is there, and as their potential for contriving 'secrets' grows, we can't be certain that they will not allow something to happen, in the name of profit, that 'blows back' upon us, or worse, upon our children.

And even IF we are naively to accept the noble proclamations of the 'world police', upon who's shoulders does the cost lie? Who will actually be dying in the effort? Along side the 'bad guys'? Our soldiers, and citizens.

I think such policing must be done by each state, If that is impossible they should issue a call for assistance. If the assistance is legitimate, untainted by exploitation and abuse of power; either political or ideological ; it will be a good thing.

Thank you xpert11. You have explored this subject cooperatively with me, and I think that regardless of the outcome, we both enjoyed the opportunity to learn much.

Thank you readers, and judges. Be well. Peace.

MM