It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Is it acceptable that global instability overflows into the US and if not what should be done about it?
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.
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.
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.
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 .
All of this is perfectly acceptable to my opponent because Maxmars maintains the steadfast notion that the US shouldn't police the world.
Mexico is not another planet in the Solar System it is just as much apart of the globe as the US.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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 .
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.
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.
My opponent claims that if a government was to invite the US to train or assist its police force and other civilian assistance that a country is not sovereign.
Under my opponents rational any humanitarian aid from International sources the US accepted in the wake of Hurricane Katrina would have undermined that country's sovereignty . My opponents notion that teaching a man to fish is selfish is contradictory.
In the Philippines the US military with the permission of the Philippine government offers medical aid and infrastructure aid to Muslims . ... So much for US aid being unwanted by those who receive it .
... If the US was to do nothing Mexico could become a failed state then the spate violence would flow into the US would turn into a flood . Think of the current problems only ten fold and on US soil .
Soviet Union; Had the US not initiated what I have described already Europe excluding the UK would have fallen to Communism.
Walls are ... to prevent the flow of ideas from Western Europe to Soviet occupied Europe . The people of Eastern Europe were never given a choice if they wanted to be enslaved by the USSR or not.
Afghanistan was a haven for the perpetrators of 9-11 and other terrorist attacks . Had the US and its allies not under taken regime change there would have been more terrorist attacks around the globe and on US soil.
The Philippines provide a useful microscope of what the benefits of the US policing the world can be . Had the the US government refused to aid the Philippines another terrorist haven would have been on offer.
.... Since those who remember when the isolationists had there way are growing fewer and fewer people who remember how close Britain was to defeat while the US idle stood by has some what led to this topic even being up for debate.
Now I will deal with a few other matters . Iraq is still open book although it be noted that the Iraqi people could have elected a government that kicked out the coalition presence but they haven't done so.
The reader should also note that in Korea and Vietnam respectively the Communists were the aggressors.
The Mexican government is the elected Representatives of the Mexican people and they have not refused US aid . If the Mexican people do not want US aid they would have been some signs of it by now.
Preemptive action against Mexico rather then US aid is just assumption from Maxmars to throw the reader off the idea that the US has to police its own backyard.
No one questions the cost of having law enforcement in there neighborhood or the next town over.
Perhaps Arthur Hendrick Vandenberg the Republican Congressman who was a died hard isolationist and then become a supporter of the US policing the world and remained so until his death helps to prove the merits of the US policing the world and the folly of those who think other wise.
Vandenberg had become a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1929. A modified internationalist, he voted in favor of United States membership on the World Court; but the situation in Europe moved him towards isolationism. Also his experiences during the Nye Committee hearings on the munitions industry, of which he was the Senate cosponsor, convinced him that entry into World War I had been a disastrous error. He supported the isolationist Neutrality Acts of the 1930s but sponsored more severe bills which were designed to renounce all traditional neutral "rights" and restrict and prevent any action by the President that might cause the United States to be drawn into war. He was one of the most effective of the die-hard isolationists in the Senate. Except for advocating aid to Finland after the Soviet invasion of that country and urging a quid pro quo in the Far East to prevent a war with Japan over the Manchuria-China question, his position was consistently isolationist. In mid-1939 he introduced legislation nullifying the 1911 Treaty of Navigation and Commerce with Japan and urged that the administration negotiate a new treaty with Japan recognizing the status quo with regard to Japan's occupation of Chinese territory...."
From Wiki entry (I like this guy). Read up!