At least not in this country. Not yet.
"Control" is not the way. But I think I see what you might be driving back.
Looking over recent history, it's obvious that the world needs a "policeman." It's equally obvious that nobody is going to stand for one nation filling that job. It's also obvious that agencies like the United Nations are completely incapable, both morally and physically, of filling that function.
There is a huge vacuum here. The U.S. is filling it by default, without any official status, and not very consistently. Maybe NATO needs to have its role expanded, or the U.N. needs MAJOR reforms. A police organization that includes criminals as working members has big problems already.
I don't have a ready solution to this. In Heinlein's books, the idea of some kind of worldwide "patrol," with loyalty to no one nation but rather to a rigid code, and a set of laws and principles, was appealing. Whether or not this is realistic is unknown.
Flame » in reply to Why shouldn't the US control the world?
I approve of policemen in my town. But they don't control me.
The whole thread (36 posts)
- Control and isolation
- The mistake in Iraq was Bush's father's.
- Why shouldn't the US control the world?
- Choices are limited
- To be totally secure is to be a total prisoner.
- Yes, it is rhetorical