Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
No.USA is focused on its serving its interests only. Policing the world is just an illusion.
Look at the examples of Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Palestine and Libya. They remind us about the double-standards of US foreign policy and the fact that US is focused on serving its interests only.
USA is focused on its serving its interests only. Policing the world is just an illusion.
Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
why should the US police the world?have they perfected running a country
are the beliefs of America universal into other countries?
This is exactly why it would be silly for us to try. When this country becomes a Utopia then people can talk about policing the entire world.
Originally posted by psmith81992
This is a huge point of contention as far as foreign policy is concerned and I know both sides are as split on this as possible. I for one believe that not only could we patrol the world, but it is our moral obligation. In my opinion, it made every bit of sense when Dennis Prager said something along the lines of , "why should LA have a police force but not the world"? The world is a bad place, despise the naivete of some. I know that may not be the popular opinion here, but I'm interested in what others have to say. Keep in mind this isn't a topic I've really debated people on so I'm open to all opinions and to learn something. Could we? And if we could, should we?
If I thought we could effectively police the world without expending trillions of dollars while bitching about food stamp users getting a break and cutting veterans' benefits among other things... oh and you know leaving most places we 'police' less stable than when we found them and birthing anti-American terrorists left and right.
The reason we have terrorists from places most people couldn't find on a map 20 years ago is because of American foreign policy, not because they 'hate our freedom' or some such BS.
Our moral obligation is to the people in this nation who prosper or suffer according to its foreign diplomacy and spending of wealth and resources. Fighting wars or police actions in Shit****istans all over the world is NOT morally correct nor is it honoring the social contract. Keep it home.
The reason we have terrorists from places most people couldn't find on a map 20 years ago is because of American foreign policy, not because they 'hate our freedom' or some such BS.
Then the question becomes "if we don't do it and someone else takes that mantle, do we object"?
Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, I just can't see how any single country is morally obligated to police the entire world. Do other countries not have morals?If they want us to police their lands then they should give us control of them.
It interferes with sovereignty. Now, there are some countries that just don't have their shit together, or have huge issues. I mean, there is a point in which people should intervene. But it shouldn't just be us; the UN and any other major power should stop genocides, massive human rights violations, etc.
The problem with that is that the common people don't want to fight for others when they have problems back here. So you motivate them with fear. Göring would be proud.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh yes, it's not "a reason", it's "the reason", lol.Then the question becomes "if we don't do it and someone else takes that mantle, do we object"?
Really, we're inconsistent when it comes to others doing stuff. Look at Crimea. Look at Georgia. Taiwan. Etc.
We let China and Russia gobble up stuff all the time, because we're afraid to go to war with them.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh yes, it's not "a reason", it's "the reason", lol.Then the question becomes "if we don't do it and someone else takes that mantle, do we object"?
But someone could never truly take up that mantle because we don't need other countries to police us, we have the resources to do it ourselves. To successfully police the world you'd need to have jurisdiction in every country on Earth.