 AnimeGalleries [dot] Net |  AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com |  AnimePedia [dot] Com |  AnimeGlobe [dot] Com |
The question itself is very open-ended, as I can see from all the really in-depth debates here. I'm just going to say that the United States should've never tried to be the "World's Police"; it would've prevented a lot of problems.
"Contrary to what most people say, the most dangerous animal in the world is not the lion or the tiger or even the elephant. It's a shark riding on an elephant's back, just trampling and eating everything they see."
~Jack Handy, SNL
On the other hand, being the world police probably prevented a lot of problems as well.
Adding upon that, had the League of Nations, members being France and Britain did what the League was supposed to do, would've stopped Hitler in 1936 in remilitarizing the Rhineland and Benito Mussolini in conquering Ethiopia. That itself warrants enough of an excuse to support World Police, but you can interpret World Place so much that one side can say they toke over countries for a greater reason or cause, like Joseph Stalin when he toke ruined countries occupied by the German's into the Iron Curtain.Originally Posted by Sagat
I agree Frau that being the World's Police sounds unnecessary and does cause problems, but it does solve problems already present and, had we tried to police Africa of all its tribal wars, the world would be a better place.
Oh my god, I'll never keep this thread to die.
Last edited by Niome!; 06-18-2007 at 06:52 PM.
"Gotta take the good with the bad, smile to the sad, love what you got and remember what you had." - Project Pat
well i dont really care about this anymore because i made a commitment today to contribute in the killing, etc of the war, in one year
THUG LIFE_(\_/)_(XX)
(>_)>stupid bunny
avatar by the uber talented Nespa
grim:
Unrelenting; rigid.Uninviting or unnerving in aspect; forbidding sinister.
Semper Fidelis
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks