Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Should we be the World Police? Who should be the World Police?

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 8, 2013, 11:04 a.m. EST by inclusionman (7064)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"The United States military … is not and, frankly, should not be a 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world,"

Can you believe our government said this?

I wish we acted this way.

Are we the police of the world? Or not?

Should we be the world police?

The world MUST be policed!! How do we police the world fairly?

117 Comments

117 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

How can we be the world's police if we keep conflating our national interests with our economic ones. There can't be world peace if we keep acting internationally for economic gain.

Would you trust a cop that was on the take?

[-] 5 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I believe the world needs police to protect from the bully that has been the US/West.

I do not trust police (or anyone immediately) but would not support disbanding my local police. Would you.?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Nope, I would not disband my police force either.

Though I'd love it if the economic regulators did their job with the same amount of non compromising zeal as my police force does their job.

[-] 6 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We definitely should spend as much on white collar crime as we do on muggings.

White collar crime does more damage, to people, & economy than small time thugs.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

We aren't the world police. We have never acted as the world police. The US does not aid any country that there is nothing to gain from.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Agreed.

That would indicate the world could use a police force to protect them from our bullying resource wars.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Or anyone else's bullying resource wars. It's a game between the US and China over here and US, China and Russia over there. Then there is the old guys UK, France or Germany over there making sure that they got theirs.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

indeed, The US may be the biggest but as you point out there are other Western Armies and China & Russia and then I'm sure smaller powers in smaller wars.

So I agree resource wars (ANY wars) are not just a US thing. No world police? World police? What form? Who controls? Too difficult? Too complex? let everyone fend for themselves? And keep our survival of the fittest model? (I don't like that option)

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Well, perhaps we are looking at it by too simple a definition.

The IMF, the world bank, and many multinational corporations act as the world police.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

These are very bad organization (IMHO). They are actually the westerm Oligarchs imposing rules and regulations upon weaker/smaller countries.

Seems to me some police/protection from these organizations is required.

South America suffered under the thumbs of IMF/World bank until socialists came to power and threw off that yoke. Iceland might have also beat them back.

IMF/World bank are more like con artists/loan sharks, than police.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

They decide which path countries take and whether basic needs are met. They hold significantly more power than say international courts. Mayhap we are just accustomed to our concept of police and right/wrong illegal/legal thing. Nobody says that the world police have to be good guys with a few bad apples. In this instance it would be a bad orchard.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

LOL. It would indeed be a bad orchard. I'm afraid I can't agree on that. In fact I vote to disband the IMF/World bank and create a better world financial model.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I do too.

Do you see that happening, though?

It isn't a question of desiring that they become the world police. It is merely recognizing that they decide the life and death of others currently.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree they decide the financial life & death of many countries. I believe it will change eventually. We will get around to the unfairness oftheir power/actions. Itis just an extension of the economic inequity of 1%- 99% but on a global scale.

Their time is gonna come. Don't forget we've been protesting the world bank for years.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I hope so. I'm watching Egypt real close and I hope they don't.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Egypt is such a risky situation. I have great hope and concern for the brave people who have struggled for so long.

You hope who don't what? Sorry, not sure what you meant.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I hope their time is going to come.

I

[-] 5 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yeah.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the profit motive is innately selfish

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Agreed! People over profits.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26865) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

An ugly TRUTH - it is what happens when the government is run for profit over people - by business - and not the public where it would be run for peace health and prosperity over world wrecking greed.

[-] 5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You gotta love the world police line. This is used to justify why it is that the US can't go in and do the right damn thing.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26865) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes - a false justification at that - and why should the world appoint the USA as the police in the 1st place?

If the USA is in fact the world police - then what is the world judiciary?

We do not live in a one ORDER/Rule world.

Though the corpoRATs would love to be that authority.

What a fucking mess.

If war was to be ruled out as an option for any country to take - then all members agreeing to that point should step in and halt actions such as in Syria or Palestine ( yep that is what every one is calling it ) or Israel or Niger or Mali or any place in the world.

It should be a police operation funded by all member countries - and all member countries should stop selling arms to other countries ( member country or not ).

And when something like Syria happens that conjoined force should operate together to go in and end the violence - not go in and watch from the sideline as things continue as before the united police force entered the area.

Major engines of destruction - like fighter or bomber jets and Tanks and armored personnel carriers and artillery should be targeted for immediate destruction prior to putting any boots on the ground - but the boots should be ready for immediate deployment after the hostile force (s) equipment has been engaged/destroyed. Secure the area - disarm all parties in the contested area.

Easy Peasy - Hey? ( if only )

But what the hell else to do?

If an area can be secured - then perhaps while a police presence is needed - then the areas infrastructure can be modernized ( green tech modernization ) to end the need for fossil fuel ( strife ) and to run water purification and sewage treatment and power generation for electricity and for clean social/work structure support.

Perhaps if conflicting sides can be given the means to be clean healthy and prosperous - maybe - just maybe - we can make good neighbors.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Isn't that what the UN peace keepers are supposed to do? Except that it doesn't because everyone is/was afraid of them having too much power.

Have you ever seen No Man's Land?

Damn, no English subtitles.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26865) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nope never saw that movie - I will now - thx for the link.

The UN up to this very point in time has been a dismal failure. They have failed to live up to the tenants under which it was originally formed.

There was never a combined force - separate forces that were never meshed for unified operation. A fragmented hammer that could not come to operational terms of agreement. Such as - hostilities break out - the two ( or more ) parties are told to cease and desist or be confronted by the peace keeping force. That force on deployment will target and destroy all military equipment in the contested area. In fact will destroy all equipment as having been noted in use to this point in time ( satellite network already in place and watching - "right now" ). But as a follow-up all the member nations will work together to resolve the reason (s) for conflict. If that means infrastructure - so be it - everyone fund and/or supply the need - but green tech that can be maintained by the area inhabitants. If it is a problem of land resources = food and water capabilities. Then that should be addressed ( permaculture - not monSatan or Dow chemical ) to address the deficiencies in a manner that will be self sustaining ( completely or with the least amount of maintenance needed ) once in place.

Religious persecution - one religion or sect fighting with another over beliefs - will be treated as crimes against humanity. Everyone to be able to worship as they see fit - IN PEACE - with all others.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

To an extent, it has done exactly as it was intended to do. The peacekeepers can only defend themselves and everybody gets together and condemns the actions of a nation-state. "The UN condemns the actions of Ethiopia's slaughtering of those living in the Gambella region in a land grab. Let's meet in two weeks to discuss further actions."

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26865) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yeah they all voice how terrible something is and state that it should stop - and then continue to lament for weeks and weeks and years and years and - DO NOTHING - nothing useful.

No Man's Land (2001) full movie, eng. subs

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Oh, you are awesome. Yep, that movie shows exactly how that peacekeeping thing works.

Lamenting, bribes, stalling. I'm fed up.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26865) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Except for the scale of the major fuck-up that is the UN peace keeping operation? They remind me so much of the fuck-up that was the USA involvement in the Vietnam war.

Commander you are on the scene - So - Shut the fuck up - While we who are thousands of miles away and are not in the slightest qualified to run a military operation - decide as to how you will be hindered and handcuffed in this operation that we really should have no part of. Fuck you very much for your cooperation.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26865) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Damn - I truly am not a violent person - but this shit makes me want to beat certain individuals with a stick.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Did you watch it?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26865) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (12830) 7 minutes ago

If you hit 1:16:22 or 24 on Why We Fight http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/why_we_fight/

Karen Kwiatkowski forbids her children to join the military. At the time, I had a lot of people who were pushing that......you have to let your son decide etc. and so on. What they really meant is that they didn't have a chance to indoctrinate my kid. You know, the kid was five and we are all ready starting. I saw that and said, "Oh, but I can." He is forbidden.

It would be a better world if the thieves and liars went over to steal all by themselves. They would have to get their hands a little dirty. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


They send others - because they would not just get dirty - they would get dead.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26865) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (12830) 0 minutes ago

Yep. It's always like that. All wars are and they serve to benefit very few. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


Time for the people to say - FUCK YOU ASSHOLES - you got a problem with that exec? You can not work together? Then the two of you slug it out and hope not to get arrested for assault and battery and disturbing the peace and reckless endangerment of others.

BTW - you both need to clean up your environmental practices - as you can do that or face each other in prison out in the yard - for supremacy of nothing - as it is all being taken away from your fucked-up influence/control.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

If you hit 1:16:22 or 24 on Why We Fight http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/why_we_fight/

Karen Kwiatkowski forbids her children to join the military. At the time, I had a lot of people who were pushing that......you have to let your son decide etc. and so on. What they really meant is that they didn't have a chance to indoctrinate my kid. You know, the kid was five and we are all ready starting. I saw that and said, "Oh, but I can." He is forbidden.

It would be a better world if the thieves and liars went over to steal all by themselves. They would have to get their hands a little dirty.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26865) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - If one were to think about it - it has the sad trauma of the dysfunctional USA civil war as well - people who were related on different sides of an armed conflict for no good reason - nope they were there due to greedy assholes - now - some small things may differ - but it comes down to those in power forcing an issue by using the people around them to enforce their will. For What? Control/Power. Bosnia and Serbia more alike then different but for someones ambitions.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yep. It's always like that. All wars/conflicts are and they serve to benefit very few.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26865) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Me too. Thx

Awesome, Filbert

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Very specific. Excellent. I agree! Now. the deliberation of utilizing this effort must be specified also.

Thank you for taking this seriously. Ourn use of the military is criminal. We must employ rule of law that all peoples of the WORLD are a part of.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the UN

but the seats should probably be distributed by population

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I could accept the UN as world police if power was distributed fairly. As it is WE control the UN

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the US could not get the UN on board for the Iraq war

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The structure must be changed. First of all remove veto power by all perm members. Remove perm members of ruling body.

Much must be changed forthe UN to work properly.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

The UN Charter was written by the same group of men that instituted twin-party rule in the U.S. "Tragedy and Hope" has an excellent historical description that names names.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Twin party rule was established 100 years before the UN charter was written. You are grossly mistaken.

In any case both serve the monied interests of the planet and are in dire need for reform/recreation.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

If I am grossly mistaken, perhaps you would be good enough to enlighten me as to its establishment in the 1840s?

Most of the historical narratives with which I am familiar, trace the rise of financial and corporate influence to the Civil War and the post-war period to about the turn of the century. And it was very corrupt, no doubt about it. But I am specifically considering the institutionalization of this corruption at a later date...

And with regards to that institutionalization, one of the best places to begin is with the breakup of the Standard Oil Trust, institution of the income tax and Federal Reserve, and the rise of foundations as harbors for great wealth. More specifically, a long-term project financed by J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller in 1920-21, bore fruit at the beginning of the Second World War when some of the most active members of that project were integrated directly into the State Department as its Policy Planning Staff.

If you look at the members of that staff, you will find the men who conceived the UN and wrote its charter... As well as the Cold War.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The twin party, two party system (Dems & Repubs) was established in 1860 No other party has had any power since. That is 90 years before the UN was created.

Couldn't have been the same people thats all I'm sayin.

Your knowledge of history is great otherwise. And very interesting. I guess the point is things are pretty screwed up. I agree. We have much work to do.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

A lucid and detailed description of our political history can be found in "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time" by historian Dr. Carroll Quigley (Harvard).

Another interesting work is "Who is Running America" by sociologist Dr. Thomas Dye (UPenn); a series of books analyzing each administration from Ford to Dubya (GW Bush).

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Thanks so much.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

the US military is incapable of resolving an issue without also killing a bunch of civilians.

2010 was the highest level of civilian death in Afghanistan.

Iraq was the highest level of civilian death in recent war history.

In Libya, the rebels they backed committed the same atrocities that Gaddafi committed, and the bombs killed more civilians than were already being killed.

Not to mention, a lot of this shit is blowback from previous US war mistakes, even Hilary Clinton said that. So to think this shit won't lead to more future blowback is irresponsible and insane.

Thinking the US is even capable of policing the world is a joke. Our US military is used and abused by war profiteers for corporate profits, and that's the truth. Not only that, but we can't afford it, and it steals from programs that should invest in education and more.

"Don't let anyone make you think that God chose America as his divine messianic force to be the police man of the whole world. I can hear God saying to America that you are too arrogant, and if you don't change your ways I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power, and place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name." - Martin Luther King

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I do not support the US being the World Police.

I want to end the "survival of the fittest" US/West bullying of the planet for the limited resources.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Another anti war (pro jobs) group. Please support them.

http://www.jobs-not-wars.org/

[-] 0 points by RobertHod (1) 1 year ago

We can't afford it. It's not lawful. Americans do not want to do it. No one want us us to do it. It causes war and strife fostering a world of fear whereupon humanity neglects the task of sustainability.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree the US should NOT be the police. But some protection (FROM the US) from bad players in the world IS needed.

How should that be provided?, Who should control it? Allowing the current model of the strongest doing whatever they want is no way to "run a railroad"

[-] 0 points by RobertHod (1) 1 year ago

Such decisions in this environment of an unconstitutional nation cannot be well made. After some serious change purifying the environment of the democracy, then the "control" issues can be addressed.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Very good. Let the purifying begin.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

No.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No police? What about crimes between countries?

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

We commit a substantial number of those crimes. We are not objective, but are instead self-interested internationally.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yeah we're pretty screwed up. But we are not the only bad players. If a process/force is not setup then the strongest (US/West) will always just do as they please.

This is the reason I pose the question.

How to protect the world from us and from any other bad players?

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Depends on your point of view and how you define "bad player"...

One method of achieving your goal (protecting the world from the strongest) is a collective security organization. The UN currently serves that role politically and imperfectly (due to structural issues).

"Police power" is a function of governance, thus by default what you ask for is world government.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"world government" is dirty word. I do not say that.

You mentioned "my goal" Do you not share the goal of a secure world from bullies (us or other bad players)

How to define bad players. Good point certainly the US should not be the judge but some judging must occur, and I support a fair court forthat purpose.

I'm willing to support existing world courts if they are reformed to be fair, same with UN. These institutions simply serve us, because we are the strongest.

My preference (our goal?) is to remove the "survival of the fittest" model from the planet

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Theoretically a world police force for nations sounds like a good idea. The problem is practical application.

For example, where do the troops for this force come from? The equipment? Who funds it? How much power is required? (Will this force be capable of policing dominate nations? $$ Including the U.S.? $$$$$) These are not insurmountable problems, but they are critical issues from the standpoint of who controls them and what they can accomplish.

This is the problem with the U.N. peacekeepers; they cannot act without implicit approval of the dominate nations. Without taxing power and an independent source of troops and equipment, such an international force is at the mercy of its member states' annual funding decisions and desire to participate in an action.

One particular point, a world court and a force capable of policing nations militarily are two different things, although interrelated.

Am not particularly sure why "world government" is a "dirty word"... And, wether you say it or not, it is what you advocate if you wish to create an independent force capable of policing the world's military powers.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I want to end the "survival of the fittest" US/West bullying of the planet for the limited resources. Call it what you want. I'm only posing the question.

The UN & current world court institutions must change drastically to allow for fair representation/influence. Currently the US/West, banking Oligarchs control it all.

The Idea is to remove that model in favor of a model that serves the 99% (of the planet, not just western monied class)

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I understand what you desire, and for what it's worth, I too think it desirable. But what I think about it does not matter in the face of reality.

The reality is that international politics will remain a force and dominance oriented "game" until the mostly likely bad actors either renounce their use of force (unlikely), or an independent and objective power arises that can compel them to become better behaved (which will be yet another war to end all wars). Right now, the U.S. has committed to dominating the entire world, exemplified by our staking claim to strategic areas of the Eurasian landmass. Insofar as the U.S. spends almost twice the amount of all other nations combined on war, plus our technological advantage, who can successfully challenge our power if we exercise it?

And that is my point: Before we can "fix" the international system, we must gain political control of the one nation most likely to start a war -- us.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And then we can deal with a truly fair world police force.?

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Would be a pleasure...

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Then let's get political control of this country. Do you have a plan/proposal.?

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Withdrawal of consent to be governed under the Constitution... It's a start.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/keep-searching-for-ways-to-screw-the-corrupt-syste/

"...till by their own consents they make themselves members of some politic society..." -- John Locke

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

My plan.

https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment

https://movetoamend.org/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/proposed-constitutional-amendment-claims-money-speech/story?id=18468467

I'm not smearing your effort. I believe honestly it is inspired by ALEC, as such I cannot support it.

If you don't want to talk with me I understand.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

It's not that I do not want to talk with you, but rather that the discussion would seem to serve no useful purpose. You continually refer to this as an "ALEC inspired effort", and all I can tell you is that it is not -- but there is no way to prove a negative assertion. On the other hand, you "believe" in your assertion absent any positive proof to support it, and no amount of argument, rational or otherwise, is likely to dislodge a belief.

This single political issue to which you cleave is merely one among many and, frankly, further discussion of it will provide little or no additional enlightenment, except on your part, unless you're willing to discuss other issues and aspects of the proposal. My primary purpose is not to convince you to support this, altho I would certainly like to do so, but to find logical or Constitutional flaws in the arguments, as well as any unanticipated problems which might arise in implementation.

Would it help to say that the original idea for this proposal arose many years ago, after the election of GWH Bush and before the election of Clinton? That the kernel of the proposal was the "None of the Above" choice on Nevada ballots? That much time and effort was expended to insure the widest possible Democratic participation while protecting, to the greatest degree possible, the Constitution and our rights? That we considered the possibility of a complete breakdown in the substance of Constitutional governance, including indefinite suspension of our civil rights and martial law, might be circumstances under which this effort labored? That this is designed to deliberately de-legitimize our national government and the twin-parties in the eyes of the nation and world? Most likely not.

Altho I rather doubt ALEC actually wants an Article V convention, and instead will attempt to use the route you yourself advocate, I do not consider your effort "ALEC inspired". Rather, I think there are few Constitutional choices available and you've decided to support the means you best believe will achieve your ends. For myself, I do not see that Congress will necessarily cooperate in your effort. Moreover, as I stated previously, CU is merely the tip of the iceberg...

But nonetheless I wish you well and hope your effort successful, with one caveat: The great danger we face is that Congress will adopt a modified version of the MTA amendment, which will not fully address or solve our problem, that will be pushed hard by the MSM and ratified with much hoopla and festivities -- thereby creating a hollow victory and lulling us back into a false sense of security.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I don't support this ALEC inspired effort to increase the oligarchs control of the peoples government.

Sorry. Any other plans?

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Too bad you remain committed to attempting to smear, with guilt by association, a serious effort at progressive change.

Perhaps you ought describe your plans -- thus far I've seen nothing noteworthy that you propose -- nothing that might have a practical effect in any case. Just enthusiasm and idealistic posturing. And, if I am mistaken, why not set me straight in excruciating detail? If not, I'll simply presume you have nothing substantive to offer and consider our conversation at an end.

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (188) 1 year ago

There is still the problem of WTC Buildings' collapse and 9-11 Attacks that have never been officially investigated. How can "we" act as world police when the crimes of the century occur in this country and remain uninvestigated?

911 Education

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fUT7XgLiTY&list=PLf5qT0tQoem00hpvMBFsr0-kRHYC9GMpG

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I do not think we should necessarily be the world police. I do not think the 9/11 attacks are the "crimes of the century" either.

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (188) 1 year ago

Excuse me, 3000 deaths in one day is the largest death toll by mass murder affecting the US so far in the 21st century - are you from the future?

Implausible theories proposed by government "experts" cannot withstand scientific rigor -

911 Aftermath Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZku5KQneL8&feature=relmfu

The failure to investigate this as a crime is most troublesome - botching the investigation of a crime of this magnitude disqualifies the US as the world police!

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The US should not be the world police. There have been millions slaughtered all over the planet. This century even, and many deaths were US deaths. Many others "affected" the US as well.

9/11 was horrible. I believe the whole truth is still unknown, But let's not create more of it than we already have.

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (188) 1 year ago

Create more what than we already have? When will the "war" on terror be over?

New Drone Games

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMh8Cjnzen8&list=PL8067BFE4709E6222&feature=plpp_play_all

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

War on terror MUST be declared over ASAP. So it will be over when an overwhelming number of people protest, and pressure the politicians to end it.

No sooner.

Let's not create more death I meant.

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (188) 1 year ago

Are psychopaths designing the future of war? Today personnel in remote trailers control UAV via satellite. Tomorrow drones could be controlled by droids; not necessarily American droids and drones.

Google and Microsoft may have allowed state secrets to be pirated, enhanced and weaponized by the competition.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Ok. Good reasons to protest/pressure for an end to the drone strikes & a declaration of the end of the war on terror.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

those in control of the US government

still got to invade Iraq

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (188) 1 year ago

The invasion wasn't justified by the evidence. There were worldwide protests against the Iraq War by millions of people.

Mr. Blix, the Swedish diplomat who led the United Nations body that scoured Iraq for traces of Saddam Hussein’s banned weapons program, used the word “absurd” on several occasions to describe American arguments for going to war. He also described Britain, the United States’ main ally in the invasion, as “a prisoner on the American train.”

Hans Blix On The Iraq War

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/world/europe/28blix.html?ref=hansblix&_r=0

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Australia was the same. Despite vocal protests in all major capital cities, our PM went against public anger, and joined the "coalition of the willing".

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (188) 1 year ago

Three Stooges vs Australian 911 Truth Architects and Engineers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkzdV_NDI4E&feature=youtu.be

[-] -1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Are we the police of the world? Or not? no

Should we be the world police? no

Are you VQkag???

answer the question,

solidarity

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I think we HAVE acted as the world police. And I object to that. So I agree with you we should NOT be the world police.

I am inclusionman

I do believe the world needs police to protect against US/Western bullying. It would be the best strategy to avoid wars.

Do you agree? If so, what form should that world police force take.?

[-] 0 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

who will bully us. we have twice the worlds' combined military strength. We should police terrorism here at home. Abroad, we don't need to be everywhere. Let's focus on our homefront, and

building alliances with all nationalities through peace and mutulal support.

all around the world we should go in with NATO, not unilaterally.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No one bullies us. We bully the planet. Right?

This world police force would have to keep the US/West Oligarch owned armies from perpetrating more resource wars.

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the UN should be the world police

the seats should be determined by population

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

naw, just bullies with self("national") interest

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You mean no police just let bullies run wild? Or is that sarcasm.? I think we have the bully (USA) model now!!

That's what I'm trying to avoid.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Go sign up and join the war then.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

What war? Who said war? You wanna go to war? I'd rather prevent war?

You haven't answered any of the questions posed by my post.

Should there be a world police? I say of course. That is how we prevent war!!! Right?

What form should the world police take? What would be fair?

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Piss off VQ.

Name one nation that is currently a real threat requiring "world police".

Forget Iran and North Korea. The propaganda machine creates threats.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

So no police?

Just let the bully that is the USA run roughshod over the planet?

[-] -3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

The fourth reich IS riding roughshod over the planet.

It's not the USA. It's the oligarchy. World banksters. Control centre is AIPAC.

Go preach your BS elsewhere, kag2.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The US/West military is controlled by the Oligarchs. You can't fool me.

We need a world police force to protect us from them, and prevent their wars for resources.

No preaching, just posing the questions around ending oligarchs wars for resources.

You have a better idea?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Creating a world police only helps to concentrate power, which is in direct opposition to Occupys goals of horizontal processes.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

So another vote for no police.

And then the US would continue bullying the planet. That seems to be a vote for more war.

Do you support disbanding police in your local community also?

[-] 0 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

in our neighborhood is one thing, because there are criminals that need policing.

all around the world is quite another. especially when we just show up guns blazing, killing without discrimination, because its "war" before we have been attacked.

if someone requests our help for a humanitarian effort, we should go in with NATO, not unilaterally.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Nato isn't a panacea. Seems to me Nato is just US/West Oligarch owned force who has bullied the planet with resource wars.

I'm talkin about a police force that would also keep the Oligarch owned US/West militaries in line.

[-] -1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

why not just wake up the American people? we are really at nature an isolationist bunch, in the hearts of the people.

We just need to stop all the undeclared wars of presidents who want to misdirect the public towards minimal threats. If we would be less dependent on oil, We would not need to battle for oil.

As far as Iran, Israel won't let them go nuke, I'm fairly certain, though that would really stir up things over there. We should stay out of it for now.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree: Wake up the American people! Occupy is doing just that! Thank you very much. It is taking longerthan we thought.

I agree stop all undeclared wars (end the drone strikes!!). Also end the phony 'War on terror" which is used to justify our resource wars!

I agree, we MUST use less oil. Give up the car! Give up eating beef!! Turn down the thermostat!! These actions will yield the biggest fastest results. Also implement greentech. NOW!

But there are other resources, and cutting our use does not eliminate the threat of resource wars. As the population grows, and climate change increases there will be more and more resource wars.

Isreal? Seems like they are part of the US/West Oligarch owned armies bullying the planet, No?

So while I agree with you none of that in fact addresses the world police question.

The World needs a force to police against the Oligarch owned armies.

What should that force look like.? Who should control it?

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

yes Israel now acts "proactively", probably unjustly, in many eyes, in supposed self defense. They ought to allow Palestinians a state, just like they have a state, in my opinion.

Resources of the world should be declared communal property, the commons, and all should have access to universal human rights: good food, shelter, water, jobs.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/-1-points-by-auargent-190-1-day-ago-what-do-really/

we should do away with borders and oligarchs. to keep the peace, all citizens of the world should allow for a 1-2 year service after free, guaranteed college, for humanitarian missions, that would be a un-military, without arms, but able to serve as a milita in limited fasion, for example against drug lords or terrorists, if necessary,...there should be no standing army, as provided in the constition of USA

All countries would be included into a non-militarized NATO, to ensure justice and universal rights of all men, and to implement just sharing of the resources for all people.

How will we transition to this? It just needs a majority of the worlds people that peace is better than war, that justice is better than injustice, that health is better than infirmity.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Well now that is much better. Well done. You've given it much thought and offered excellent ideas.

I think a standing UN army might be necessary for rapid response but I wouldn't insist. I think they will have to armed to beeffective. I might even suggest that the UN army shouldbe better armede than anyone else.

How and when they are used must be determined by the regions involved in any given incident.

Nothing is simple or will be simple but I'm pleased you appear to have taken it seriously.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

jobs are nor a privilege or resource but an obligation to keep resources moving so all are provided for

[-] 0 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

every able, moral person has a moral obligation to contribute to the good of society ...to pay it forward, to be a useful member.

some nature of work is intrinsic in human nature...we had to work to provide for our survival in the past, to hunt and gather, and make shelter and tools.

everyone I know like to work, well, not so much my marital unit .... who prefers to mooch and annoy, the type appears on the reality TV show Survivor, that wish to be a queen, and above work.

probably many jobs will be done by robots and technology in not too distant future, a hundred years, what will people do then? hopefully develop art and achieve some higher purposes, and watch that the robots don't get too smart.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

everybody think everybody gots to work the 40 hour clink

or else you're a fink

[-] 0 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

I just work 32 and then volunteer a few extra, and watch grandson. so not everybody. I'd like to cut it too even less, but I got this huge mortgage, and just myself to pay it.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I wouldn't mind a driving job where my thoughts can be their own

[+] -4 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Is this a joke?

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No joke.

I wanna know what options we have to prevent the oligarchs (US/West) war for resources.

I submit we need a real world police force. I understand your criticism (the rude childishness is not welcome) but the problem still remains.

[+] -4 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Centralizing power is always a bad idea. Its whats led to this current situation. More centralization will get you more of the same.

Want to stop the US from invading? Decentralize DC. Make the country more horizontal. Direct Democracy perhaps.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree, horizontal, direct democracy.

Are you saying dismantle the US army? Are you suggesting dissolve the US government.?

This is your answer to policing the world? What about other countries, armies.? We must think beyond our selves. We are only 5% of the world population. Countries warred before the US, before the rise of the Western Oligarchs/civilization.

So while I agree with you I'm afraid it does not resolve the need we have of policing the world.

I do not believe that will remove all need of policing the world. (I also do notthink it will happen)

[-] -2 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

must be VQ. its all a black and white world.

[-] -3 points by BIGBRUISER (-4) 1 year ago

OTP congratulations for having some smarts. Some idiots here would probably support a World police, World court, World constitution. That of course would supercede every nation's constitution, sovereignty and independence. Oh and they will probably ask David Rockefeller and the Koch brothers to author the World constitution. WTF are they thinking? !!!