Should the United States continue to be the policemen of the world?

Should the U.S. continue to meddle in world affairs that have little to no consequence to homeland security? What do you think?

We are one big, overgrown teenager of a country. We're kind of like mall cops.

I think we should butt out unless specifically asked.

I don't really feel we HAVE been world police before the past year or so. I don't think we should be world police but I also feel that people consider it policing the world no matter what we do.

I think we have enough of our own problems to deal with on our own soil, first. Then once those are all solved, we should offer to help elsewhere unless there's an issue that directly affects us and/or our country's security. 'Ya all wanna kill each other within the confines of your own country--fine. Go right ahead but don't expect us to come fight your war for you then give you aid, financial or other, after it's done. (easier said than done, though. . .)

^^ Agreed.

It's also destroyed the public opinion of America.

We haven't learned our lesson in over 40 years

"We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost"

I'm 50/50. I definitely don't think there is harm is speaking out against grievous injustice and perhaps butting in if we have to. Like the genocide of Darfur and Rwanda. The U.S. absolutely shouldn't stay mum when they know shit like that is happening in the world.

Chris wrote:Should the U.S. continue to meddle in world affairs that have little to no consequence to homeland security? What do you think?

I think this is a loaded question that will no doubt gain strong opinions from people who think they know more about international policy, homeland security and US national security strategy than they really are qualified to speak on. Unfortunately, that represents the majority of US citizens. Nystyle709 is so far the ONLY one who has presented a reasonable answer considering the current state of world affairs.

To answer the question:

Yes, the US should and MUST continue to "meddle" in world affairs because they invariably WILL/DO have an effect on homeland security in ways that the average person may or may not see. Part of the US national security strategy is to "defend the peace", "preserve the peace" and "extend the peace".

1) The US is one of only 5 countries that is designated a "nuclear weapon state" under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The other four countries being (The UK, France, Russia and China). None of the US allies (with the exception of UK and France) are allowed to posses or develop nuclear weapons. Our allies fall under our "nuclear umbrella". This means that we use the nuclear weapons that we possess as a deterrent from an attack on our country as well as an attack on any of our allies. They depend on our nuclear deterrence capabilities to ensure their own security. Because there are states and organizations out there (not allied with us) who are intent on developing and expanding their own nuclear capabilities (as well as other WMD's) and states that harbor terrorists out there which threaten the security of us and our allies, we have the responsibility of "meddling" with their affiars because ultimately they DO threaten our own national security. We absolutely do NOT want nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists! This means that we must actively disrupt terrorist networks (inside and outside the US). Sometimes, this involves "meddling" with the affairs of other countries like Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Iran, etc. We must also directly aid any of our allies that are militarily threatened by communist dictatorships (ie; protecting the democrasy of South Korea from the dictatorship of North Korea).

2) We have the responsibility as the world's only democratic superpower to encourage the spread of democracy, human rights and free trade (extending the peace) because ultimately this is what creates "friendship" in terms of US/international affairs. If we ignored civil unrest in Egypt or Libya for example, then it looks like we don't really care about human rights at all, we only care about the human rights of Americans. By politically supporting a dictator who kills his own people in the streets (because such a dictator has been instrumental in preventing the spread of terrorism in the past), we look like a bunch of hypocrites! Suddenly, the world would think that the US only helps the US and abandons everyone else. Remember the cries from Egypt and Lybia? "Where is the US?", "why don't they support us", "why don't they practice what they preach". The most powerful democrasy in the world cannot continuously preach "democrasy" and "human rights" while at the same time turning a blind eye to people suffering atrocities under a evil dictatorship. Such an act would solidify the position of the terrorists that we are fighting against (that the US is an evil, greedy, corporate, "devil" nation not to be trusted). If we suddenly adopted an isolationist mentality (as we did in the days leading up to WWII), then nobody would respect the US anymore, human atrocities worldwide would continue, we would lose political allies, terrorism would spread, and the homeland security of the US would ultimately be threatened more than it ever has been before. By meddling in the affairs of the rest of the world and acting as the "world police" as you call it, we are indirectly supporting our own homeland security.

BTW, it's not that other countries don't respect us anymore. On the countrary, they DO respect us because they inevitably wait to see exactly what the US is going to do anytime there is civil unrest in the world. They stop respecting us when we abandon our principles in favor of an isolationist mentality that ensures that our actions only benefit the US and nobody else. The only countries right now that DON'T respect us are the ones that are either directly competing with us as economic superpower (China), the ones that are made to look incompetent by us or revealed to be "not serious" concerning the global war on terror (Pakistan), and the ones who are enemies of the US (Iran, North Korea). Those countries combined with terrorist networks like the Al-Qeada and their supporters the Taliban are the people who DON'T respect the US. We neither require nor want their respect! We want the respect of our allies just as they want our respect.

Wow...

I was really expecting more people to comment after that for some reason, lol.

captainbryce wrote:Wow...

I was really expecting more people to comment after that for some reason, lol.

Why?

Side Note: Did you just get a job on One Life To Live?

Forgiveness Man wrote:

captainbryce wrote:Wow...

I was really expecting more people to comment after that for some reason, lol.

Why?

Seemed like an interesting topic given the state of world affairs today. I was kind of hoping that somebody would challenge my last comment considering that most people initially seemed to take the opposite stance.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Side Note: Did you just get a job on One Life To Live?

Nope, why? Did you just see "me" on there or something?

captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Why?

Seemed like an interesting topic given the state of world affairs today. I was kind of hoping that somebody would challenge my last comment considering that most people initially seemed to take the opposite stance.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Side Note: Did you just get a job on One Life To Live?

Nope, why? Did you just see "me" on there or something?

Yeah, it probably was. lol I'm sure somebody else will say something soon.


The guy looks a lot like you and his personality seems a lot like what I get from you too. It's strange. I thought you was taking a side job.

I don't watch soaps, so I'm afraid I don't know who you mean. Do you know the actor's name, or what character he plays? Maybe I could look him up.

captainbryce wrote:I don't watch soaps, so I'm afraid I don't know who you mean. Do you know the actor's name, or what character he plays? Maybe I could look him up.

Neither will I in a few months. Hmmmm, don't know the actor's name. I'll have to look it up. He's playing the new guy, Baz. (Edit: I think the actor's name is Barret Helms. He looks less like you on IMDb. But, at least with your current pic, I totally saw a resemblance with him onscreen. )

Okay: I am returning the topic now. Sorry.

I just looked him up on google images. Good looking guy.