Letters to the Editor

World police?

March 2, 2011


To the editor:

Libya intervention, just a thought. When will the Russians or the Chinese step in and do some policing? Why does it seem like it is always the U.S. or the Brits who have to be the world’s policemen?

Maybe we should just get our folk out and then take the rest of the world’s attitude, sit around and let the locals slaughter each other?


Tom Shewmon 7 years, 3 months ago

Well Jeremy, Obama went around the globe apologizing for this very thing and proceeds to randomly blow innocent villagers in Afghanistan to smithereens. And Jeremy, the entrenched left said George W. Bush was the slaughterer. So whatya gonna do?

Roland Gunslinger 7 years, 3 months ago

Tom- I was under the impression that you thought muslims were bad. I guess when it's convenient those same muslims are now "innocent villagers". Since muslims are now innocent people I assume you now have no problem with the "ground zero mosque"?

Getaroom 7 years, 3 months ago

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Vertigo!!!!! And as for you Tom S , G. W. Bush was the "Decider" and his henchmen were the master minds of two unfunded wars that have created far more hatred toward the USA than at any other time in history. It is all about the OIL Tom S.

jafs 7 years, 3 months ago

Don't you know by now, in TS' world, everything is Obama's fault?

Brock Masters 7 years, 3 months ago

Jeremy, I agree We need to stop being the world's police and start dealing with our own problems here at home.

Bill Getz 7 years, 3 months ago

A horrendous idea. Having spent the past fifty-some years trying to diminish Russian influence in the Middle East, the US would be unlikely to open the door wide on this premise. Both Russia and China have terrible records of persecuting Muslim minorities in their own countries, their reception by Lybians would not be warm. Russia and China each has a vested interest in oil; Russia as a rival producer, China as ravenous consumer. Only as part of an international peacekeeping force under UN auspices would their military cooperation be tolerated by all parties. And, if that were to happen, guess who would still have to supply the muscle and the taxpayers' expense associated with it! BG

littlexav 7 years, 3 months ago

When you leave the "rest of the world" to fend for itself, you end up with the Taliban. We've already seen what that can do.

No thank you.

jafs 7 years, 3 months ago

Actually, the Taliban came into existence after we had supplied arms to Afghanistan for quite a while during their war with the Soviets, and then failed to offer any meaningful help rebuilding their country after they won the war.

They were originally called the mujaheddin (sp?), and we armed and helped them against the Soviets.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 3 months ago

Because isolationism worked so well in the 1930s....

gogoplata 7 years, 3 months ago

The problems of the 30s arose out of the consequences of our actions in WW1 when we set out to make the world safe for democracy. Non-interventionist is a better word for leaving other countries alone. If we still trade and communicate with them we are hardly isolationist.

50YearResident 7 years, 3 months ago

Let Lybia clean up their own mess. How would we feel if any other Country came it the US and took over DC and the White House and told us, we don't like your policies so we are taking over to form a new government? When the people get fed up enough with how their country is opperating they will work to change it. Remember, we did it right here once.

jafs 7 years, 3 months ago

I think we should rethink our foreign policy, and this is a good start.

Why not offer non-military aid to help other nations, and forgo military aid in most cases?

Why not step in militarily only if/when there's a clear injustice, and otherwise let other nations sort out their own problems?

Why not tie human rights conditions to our economic trade with other nations?

Why not stop supporting brutal leaders (eg. Mubarak), and support democratically elected ones instead?

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 7 years, 3 months ago

We should not try to be the worlds policeman or sugar daddy. We should take care of our own country and people first! Stop foreign aid, and we would have much less deficit. I am not saying we should practice isolationism, but we should put America first! Thank you, Lynn

Brock Masters 7 years, 3 months ago

Eliminating foreign won't solve our budget deficit problem, but it is a start. It does not make financial sense to say we won't considering an expense because it alone won't solve the problem. Knock off 33 billion and that is 33 billion we don't have to find somewhere else.

Why should we spend $33 billion for foriegn aid? What does it get us? I don't see it as money worth spending.

JayhawkVeteran 7 years, 3 months ago

I have to say with all the protest images coming out from these Tyrant run countries, thank goodness for the second amendment! Perfect example of what happens when only the government military and police have weapons. Defenseless civilians slaughtered! Thankfully the founding fathers had the foresight of making sure the citizens could defend themselves from a thief to a Hitler!

voevoda 7 years, 3 months ago

Actually, under Communism, the Russians did their share of policing--think Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1979. The locals didn't appreciate their efforts, and neither did the US. The latest attempt at Russian policing, in Abkhazia in 2008, similarly earned them American condemnation. As for China, the US certainly didn't approve of their intervention in Korea. Mr. Taylor, do you really hope for Russian and/or Chinese policing efforts, or was this just a rhetorical means to condemn US policing efforts?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.