Can blame the US for a lot in this world. Good luck with that one ROFL.
“My country imploded because my pols were corrupt…cuz America…”
The US buys up tons of drugs from down south. That probably doesn’t help.
Well, I agree to a point but you gotta admit that the rise of Mexican drug cartels contributed to the nightmarish levels of violence there. And how did they come to be? The Colombians realized that the most dangerous and effort-consuming part of smuggling coke into the US is crossing the border. So they simply decided to outsource the final leg of the transport in exchange for a significant chunk of the profit.
So it was simply an establishment of a optimal supply chain in order to satisfy the demand from north of the Mexican border.
And when you’ve got free drug money, you’ve got corruption and associated social ills. Take the town of La Linea, Spain the major entry point for drugs into the EU. The majority of the population is officially unemployed - why study in school or work 9 to 5 when you can earn as much as 2k USD per night unloading “packages” from North Africa or acting as lookouts.
2 Likes
Oh absolutely. I by no means am read up on exactly what drives south/central American crime, but I’m sure the drug trade is a major source of it.
So stop posting on TN and fucking read dammit 
1 Like
Touche
Inequality, among other things.
Also, imagine what the US of A would look like if 30 or 40% of the population were Native Americans. Try imagining their lingering social and economic problems extrapolated on a gigantic scale.
1 Like
They did indeed. Although why you felt the need to point this out escapes me.
Feel free to walk away from this struggle, as I made no argument based on ‘feeling right.’
I’m forced to add this qualifier, as you have stated a willingness to drum up post-hoc explanations to demonstrate the national interest in any intervention. In other words, you have assumed for your argument the status of nonfalsifiability. (Although in doing so, you render the term national interest meaningless as a descriptor of the actions of nations.)
I feel that the very definition of a police officer is someone who is paid to intervene in situations in which s/he has no personal interest.
And once again, you are arguing a point I did not make. Nowhere did I say the police “cannot have a personal interest.”
Your use of the term is, frankly, incoherent. You have stated that our ‘world police actions’ are a “bad habit.” But if (as you claim) they are motivated by national interest, how can it possibly be that engaging in them constitutes a bad habit? What nation doesn’t act in its national interest?
They’re shitholes and the countries they used to migrate to (like Venezuela) are shit holes too. The only sane path is south.
Originally it was to question the relevance of a national interest in using the phrase world’s police. At this juncture, I would like to clarify something though.
I disagree with the above statement. As such, a national interest has zero relevance (to me) when referring to America as the world’s police.
Agreed. I realized I was arguing against someone elses criteria. I don’t need (or want) there to be a hole in a thought process that I do not share.
Noted.
Because I feel deciding on when/where to deploy troops to intervene in the rest of world’s affairs has gotten too loose, and that too many people are willing to send soldiers to die for a cause they don’t support enough to join the ranks.
How can national interest have zero relevance when evaluating our interventions abroad? Seems to me that, far from being irrelevant, national interest is the only thing that is indubitably worth considering.
It doesn’t. That’s why I specifically said IRT the phrase world’s police.
Also, if having a national interest automatically invalidates the usage of “world’s police,” IMO the phrase is unusable in it’s entirety, as a country doesn’t spend resources on anything abroad without feeling that it’s of national interest.
The phrase ‘world’s police’ refers to interventions abroad, does it not?
You’ve got it exactly backwards. The problem with acting like the world’s police is one is spending blood and treasure in a situation with no significant (or compelling, or nontrivial, or nongeneric; pick the term you prefer) national interest. By definition, acting in one’s own interest is not to act like the world’s police.
Once again, the US did not have a compelling national interest in intervening in Kosovo. That’s what made it controversial in the eyes of so many.
Sure does. I don’t use that phrase to evaluate our actions. I use it to describe the actions.
That’s because you’re using your definition of police. I disagree with your definition on that as well. I believe police are paid and employed TO take a personal interest where otherwise they would not. I would apply your definition to judges/judicial branch.
Compelling to your standards. Obviously, by the nature of it happening, it was compelling to someone in power.
You evaluated it in your first comment on the subject when you referred to it as a “bad habit.”
The police are paid to take a personal interest in things? An interesting and, shall we say, highly unique interpretation. Would be interested to see if you can find some words to that effect in a police handbook.
But not necessarily compelling from a national-interest perspective. That’s the point.
Do you have some backing of your definition of police that you could share that demonstrates how unique my interpretation is?
Perhaps words to your effect in a police handbook? After all, I used a phrase and you took issue. I fail to see how the burden of proof is on me.
So the person/people who found it compelling arose to their position by iron fist? By coup? When the public elects someone, they’re deciding it’s in the national interest to bow to said pol’s views on national interest, are they not?
Did we suddenly start voting on wars instead of having pols vote on them?
Yeah, as you well know, that’s not how this thing works. You’ve made a claim; feel free to back it up. I am not inclined to try and prove a negative.
Like I said previously, you have claimed the right to twist the notion of national interest until it bends enough to fit any frame you happen to hold. That is not compelling argumentation. So if you want to argue (as you seem to be doing) that the fact of Bill Clinton’s election renders any actions he authorized to be, by definition, in the national interest, all I can do is shrug and leave you to it. (He of course was POTUS during Kosovo, is why I mention him specifically.)
Ive made my claim. World police yada yada send soldiers to die without committing yada yada definition of police/judges yada yada.
If you have an issue with an arm of that, feel free to state why with your support.
I haven’t claimed the right to anything. I specifically spoke of the subjectivity as being a very large flaw (as it is your viewpoint I was commenting on after all). The ease at which I twisted the nation is my support.
I’m not explicity saying it’s IN the national interest. I’m saying it’s a starting point, not an end point. Especially with how insanely (duh) subjective “in the national interest” is, it stands to reason that by electing a pol, society has decided it trusts this individuals subjective view of many things. “in the national interest” is just one of them.
That is to say, I feel when questioning the actions of a national pol, the given would be “soandso did this because he believes it’s in the national interest” and you would start hacking away from there.
You have claimed that the police are paid to take a personal interest. The obligation is on you to support this claim. But at any rate, I am confident enough in its inaccuracy to simply let it stand.
Yes it’s true–if you render terms meaningless, they’re not useful. But note that, since you’ve destroyed (in your mind) the concept of national interest, you’ve not left yourself a place to stand with regard to evaluating the actions of nations.
Sorry, but before I read further, you’re going to have to define this term (national interest) you’re now throwing about.
I have not. I have taken the opposing side of your premise that police are paid to NOT take an interest.
Edit: furthermore whether or not the police take an interest has no weighting on my usage of world’s police, as I do not believe national interest comes into play with the phrase
It’s not destroyed at all. It actually encompasses far more scenarios than your concept. It simply has a lower barrier to entry.
Let’s try a rephrase and avoid the minutia. I’m not explicitly saying that the actions of Bill Clinton ARE literally in the interest of a “majority” of the nation. I’m saying by nature of electing pols, we’re accepting their “power of attorney” over our 1 on 1 views.