Now I know that the Monroe Doctine, set forth by President Monroe in 1823, made colonization of the Western Hemipshere by the countries of Europe an act of agression towards the United States, but does that really mean that, today, the task of establishing and maintaining a worldwide state of peace is the sole responsibility of the US? Personally, I find that World Peace, while being a very excellent thing to strive for, is impossible. Obama has just said that he supports our attacks on Libya, in the attempt to remove Qadaffi from power. I agree, yes, that Qadaffi must relinquish his hold on Libya. However, is the US Armed forces meant to police the world? Because it’s not just Libya that is ruled by a despot. There is Yemen, there is Iran, there is China, North Korea, a few African countries are under the thumb of despots and warlords. Is the removal of said despots the first step in establishing “World Peace”?
I know, I know. I made a similar post about a month ago, but this isn’t the same. I’ve had time to think, and I’m asking questions that I feel should be asked, and should be answered.
Not really sure what the relevance of the Monroe Doctorine has to the rest of your post.
Well, it was a statement my father had once made. He said that, “The Monroe Doctrine tells the world that we are its police force.”
Well, if we’re not to be the world police, I wish the Navy would stop running their “Global Force for Good” advertising.
Yeah, you do raise a valid point. I wouldn’t really call us a “world police”, more like, a “world nanny” We clean up one mess, and 5 minutes later, there’s another one.
I’m beginning to think this wasn’t such a good title. Not very drawing to the eye.
Libya and the US are both members of the United Nations, which has passed a resolution ordering a no-fly zone over Libya.
I am not an international law expert, but I believe that gives any UN member state with the means to do so the jurisdiction to participate in this effort.
Ah, of course. the tired old UN Joint Resolution argument. Personally, I couldn’t care less about that brain trust.
The United States is a superpower and must suppress evil around the world as its moral duty. Fuck soverignty.
It couldn’t possibly be the disjointed nature of the OP, right? 
What does this mean, exactly…a Right? AFAIK, nations don’t have any Rights…they have abilities and the decision whether to use them or refrain. Who grants nations the Right to do stuff? What, if anything, are the limitations on this Right?
Actually, if you are talking about the “Roosevelt Corollary”, we basically granted to ourselves the ‘Right’ to intervene anywhere in North, South and Central America to prevent European expansionism into what we considered our sphere of influence. What gave us the ‘Right’? Well, nothing really…we had the ability to do it though, so that’s pretty much all the Right we needed at the time. There is, afaik, no additional corollary that gives us any similar ‘Right’ to ‘maintaining a worldwide state of peace is the sole responsibility of the US’…to the extent that we do this it’s because (again), A) we have the ability to do so, and B) it’s in our best interest to do so. It’s really that simple.
Doubtful, and even if it was I don’t see the US unilaterally doing so for a variety of reasons that boil down to ‘it’s not in our best interest to right every wrong in the world’. When the US does intervene you can be sure that the folks in charge of our government have made the selfish calculation that it’s in our best interest to do so. Now, many citizens might not agree with that assessment, obviously…
-XT
Perhaps your parents should put a lock on the sugar bowl.
No. And fortunately for you, the US hasn’t been the sole nation involved in such peacekeeping activities. Problem solved!
What do you mean by “Right”. It supposes some superiour authority. What authority are your referring to that is above the American people (or the institution representing the American people)?
No, the Monroe Doctrine told the world that America was full of it.
I have heard the Monroe Doctrine re-stated as “America for the Americans - the rest of the world too”, but it was supposed to be a joke of sorts. Your father actually took that restatement seriously and considered it an appropriate policy?
Dial it back please.
That’s certainly a valid point of view. It’s not one I share but I acknowledge it.
Get me: I’m like a world in which we could always do so but the scale required is simply beyond out means at this, and any other, time.
To unilaterally begin deciding which governments are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is to open the door to evil. Such decisions would invariably become politicized and more about what works best for various US (or multinational) factions. I’m certain someone out there could come up with a reason for bombing/invading/disrupting ANY nation if put to the test.
Far better, or at least wiser, to consult and work in cooperation with, God help me, a coalition of states that decide to make these decisions and that such decisions should be held in broad consensus and rare. Otherwise abuse is as predictable as the sunrise.
It was just a suggestion.
I can’t see a better use of American military might in foreign policy than to provide air and artillery support to a democaratic revolution against a horrible dictator like qaddafi.
If we decided to do seomthign like that for an organic revolution that sprang up in iraq under Saddam hussein, I’d have supported it.
I’m generally pretty OK with the use of missiles and bombing campaigns that are morally defensible and if you don’t lie to me to get me to go along. For example. If we had decided to bomb teh crap out of Saddam hussein while he was gassing teh Kurds, I’d be OK with that. If we decided to bomb Saddam hussein because we were tired of enforcing the no fly zone, then I wouldn’t be OK with that.
Boots on the ground have to clear a much hgiher hurdle.