Printable View
Well, the USA has been doing this, off-and-on, for the better part of a quarter century (despite rejecting the official title). Since it hasn't been a ringing success across the board, I think we should consider other nations for the position.
Suggestions for who should take up this role?
How can we make the position effective?
Or have we progressed beyond this to a level where mutual restraint among nations will preserve the peace?
Somebody should force Lichtenstein and Andorra to shoulder their share of world security. Freeloaders.
It'll be Malta, sneaky little :daisy:.:furious3:
I vote we give Dave a Super Soaker© and have him take up the task.
:balloon2:
There's a couple of things we can do, but we gotta choose:
- we hack into all the important international supercomputers of the world... politics, military, etc., but ESPECIALLY military. Then we unleash loads of atom bombs onto the whole world so there's nothing left, and then you have your peace, dammit :smash:
- we let China take over
- we let "terrorism" take over
- the UN will finally start to get balls
- everybody suddenly starts to do philosophy for some strange reason and achieves inner peace and with that outer peace, as they all get rid of their primitive instincts and urges
- we all urge NASA and the American government to release any information on alien discoveries, and we start to engage in war with those aliens, so that the world will be in peace with each other but at war against a common enemy
- ....fill in whatever you like as options :P
:laugh4:
You couldn't give the job away, Seamus.
Instead of just letting the whole US do let's just have Texas do it. With Chuck Norris and the Texas Rangers policing the world nothing can go wrong.
Ahmedinajad captures 15 brits, SMACK! roundhouse kick to the face
Kim Jung Il tests a Nuke, SMACK! roundhouse kick to the face
Swiss invade Leichtenstein, SMACK! roundhouse kick to all their faces
Norris is a washout, man. He's down to advertising gyms in sales channels.
But you always have Jack Bauer, no ?
I'm thinking polar bears should take on the title. For a start they'll need to move onto firmer ground soon, so they may as well pay rent in a manner which benefits humanity. Secondly being polar bears they'll have a good supply of Coca-Cola stashed away from all the winter commercials they were forced into to make ends meat, thus they can be kept on 100% vigilance 100% of the time in a caffeine fuelled state.
Plus the fact that when issued their specially made kevlar body armour no one is going to mess with a caffeine high polar bear. Plus they can swim so can infiltrate all those sneaky countries which have coastlines... :yes:
Kim Jong Il: Finally we have our Nuclear weapons ready, now no one will stop us, mwahahahaha!
*Shoots one of his flunkies*
Kim Jong Il: Next time laugh louder!
*looks up at security screens*
Kim Jong Il: Hey! What the hell is that giant white thing doing next to my bomb? I really need to stop feeding my scientists, they're really putting on weight.
Flunky: Urm, glorious leader, that's not one of our scientists. Its a polar bear.
*Kim Jong Il shoots flunky in the leg*
Kim Jong Il: I know that! What do you think I am stupid or something? Hey, what the hell is that bear doing? Wait... what the hell its stealing my damn bomb! Stop it! Stop it now!
*Polar bear commando smashes through door, disembowelling several nameless henchmen.*
Kim Jong Il: Awww, crap. This is because I fed Hans Bricks to the fishes isn't it?
*polar bear eats Kim Jong Il before washing him down with a bottle of lukewalm coke.*
In my opinion it would work brilliantly on all counts.:yes:
:laugh4:
Ugh, Korean food tends to give me gas. :no:
On a serious note, I'm sure Vladimir would be thrilled to be the World's Police Officer. And you just know that Eastern Europe would LOVE to see that happen. They still can't get rid of the ill effects of Russia's imperialism.
Blech.
Azi
I say Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland for "Vikings for Peace" and patrol the world as World Police.
They have longboats to get into those tricky waters, and then the fury of good old northmen.
It's to bad you can bribe them off with the nearby Catholic abbey.
Don't you dare outsource the job, you fatcat corporate capitalist anti-American something-person! Think of the nation!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
:balloon:
25 years? Try +50.
The US has been policing since 1950, and argueably 1945. Under Truman we defended So. Korea, opted to let the French back into their former colonies that thought they had been fighting for their freedom during WWII (of course the French paid the price for it, and 50 years later remain a 3rd class power), and had the OSS reorganized into the CIA. Oh, he had a doctrine named for him to - that even Reagan followed.
Under Eisenhower? Geesh, we were sending in the Marines in So. and Central America every time someone said Commie. And, in the Mid-East every time the CIA said we could control a region by assassinating, ousting a leader through military coupe or other fenarias (sp) modes (reference the outting of a democratic leader in Iran). Ike really liked using them thar Marines. He also took over the responsability for Vietnam after the French defeat there and began the long road there of the US military. He was also responsable for planning of the Bay of Pigs - which was a fubar from the go.
The US use to have the USSR to explain its world police actions, now we gots 'terrorism'. There is no end to our enemies and our paranoia. Policing has a tendency to do that, you know?
Hard to kick the habit, you mean ? :smoking:
America, O America... art ye not of dirtie imperialiste nature? :P
It's the policy that makes 'em act like they have been acting. Conservaties, CIA, etc. The social decay that threathened/threatens America: it requires an enemy, a war, to counter it. And don't forget the profits of war and those who participate therein. War, commerce: fine political tools for power.
Actually, the U.S. has been playing the role of international police officer since the 1800s. It was used to keep Europe out of North and South American afairs, justify the Spanish American war, and annex such world threats as Hawaii. In fact, the concept goes back to 1823, and the Monroe docterine.
I say let Sealand become Le Jeandarme Mondial. Sealand shall become the new World Superpower.
Let the Kiwis, do it.
We'll send our black sheep to all the troublespots, we'll also challenge terrorists with a Haka, to a game of Union.
Shhh, don't say that, KBR will find out and then they will tell Halliburton who will get there no-quite-ex-shareholder to suggest that they liberate it from you... :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Lol!:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Sorry, but you're confusing imperialism; which could apply in part to some of the military actions I used as examples - but were primarily used to contain Communism, with 'police (policy) action'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910
I agree, that the Truman doctrine is an extention of Monroe's - but, prior to Truman's the USA was an isolationist nation intent on staying out of European, Asian, and Africa affairs. This is not to say that the US did not employ Imperialistic tactics - invading Mexico, and then there was Teddy Roosevelt - at times, but until WWII we were content to supply the armies of the world and reap the rewards without risking the involvement of our military.
Agression is not an American characteristic. It takes alot to get us riled (Pearl Harbor, 9/11), but if the premise for getting us riled is wrong - the majority are quick to call it quits. Cutting and running may not be a part of our spirit, but an orderly withdrawal is. Reference Vietnam - which was never to happen again - and probably wouldn't have had our glori-ass leader had adhered to the Powell Doctrine (only attack when absolutely necessary, and when one does - do so with overwhelming force).
Regardless, Bush has proven that without the approval of a majority of the worlds' nations - no one can police a troubled area.
Actually, what makes me steamed about Iraq is that it's quite possible we could have done a decent job, if we hadn't gone in undermanned. As an author pointed out, our leaders made nothing but worst-case assumptions about the Iraqi regime, and nothing but best-case assumptions about the occupation. A strange combination.Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
With a coherent battle plan, enough troops (see the Shinseki appendix) and an actual plan for stabilization, we might have been okay. Also, it would have helped if the administration had made a meaningful attempt to unify the nation, rather than use the war for partisan gain.
I don't think our biggest blunder was not getting Lichtenstein and Andorra to sign up.
I humbly accept this duty and vow to...wait, I'm not Russian!Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
Oh and Lemur. You're referencing the guy who made us wear the beret and wanted to get rid of tanks. :inquisitive:
I'll do it. I'll need all the poorly trained, trigger-happy conscripts you can throw at me and lots of vodka. A recipe for success I feel.
And the man who was bang-on right about the needed troop levels, as borne out by counterinsurgency experts and, uh, recent history. I'd say that's a decent cover for the berets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Australia seems to want to play both good cop and bad cop in the South east Asia/pacific region. maybe it should be a few nations with reasonable standing enough to help when needed and carry a big stick when required...
:idea2: