The US will usually lend a hand, wanted or unwanted. It seems to me we are turning into the Worlds Police Force. Please see the above options and vote according to what you believe. And as always my friends, have a nice day.
I voted for the first option because I know that American taxpayers love to spend fortunes on keeping the US agenda going in other countries.
The U.S. finds itself in a uniquely (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you do/(*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you don't situation regarding world affairs. If we lend a hand to other nations in need, we get accused of trying to be world police. But if we sit back and let them fall on their asses, we get accused of being insensitive jerks who don't care about anyone but ourselves. So basically, the world is full of crybabies who at the end of the day really just want nothing more than to throw a fit about whatever. So all we can really do is follow our own moral compass and ignore the juvenile judgment.
I picked that we should no longer hold this position in the world. Especially the position of the military interventionist. We should be charitable and willing to help, but we should remember that we're not obligated and that sometimes good intentions have bad consequences. I'd like to see the U.S. military geared towards national defense, rather than a force used for nation building.
Every nation with the ability to interfere with other nations' affairs has done so under the image of being a moral force. Whether it is or isn't however, is another question. If one analyzes the history of US foreign policy it is clear it NEVER was a 'world policeman' rather simply another nation vying for power, and quite often control, of others.
I agree with your principle here but I dont think it can be applied to the US in nearly any way. There are certainly some examples of the US helping others, but they are surely outweighed by its exploitation of others. Regardless... I totally agree. If Americans dont get Ron Paul in the top job they will have missed out on an amazing opportunity to take America back to its founding principles.
The US is in a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you do (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you don't because where were the American peacekeepers in all those non resource rich or strategically unimportant countries?
It aint there because the US hates assisting in disasters - even its own, like New Orleans. For the former point, the US was NEVER a world police force - it has always been a rising empire.
Because, you know, we wanted South Korea's vast reserves of precious... um... rice? No, wait... it's because Afghanistan has strategically important mountains and deserts! The reality is that if the USA was a superhero, we'd be Hancock - our intentions are noble more often than not, but we have a habit of being short-sighted and not thinking things through all the way. But we can do better, and we will do better.
you know (*)(*)(*)(*) well that the eurowankers will come knocking on the door the next time one of them goes expansionist. i say we move, don't leave a forwarding address, and get a guard dog.
we sure aren't doing that very well. we paid France, we kicked the snot out of Mexico, then paid them, kick the snot out of Spain, then liberated Cuba, cut loose the Philippines after WWII, and let PR do what it wants.
Manufacturing, but there is clearly more to it than that obviously. The US used Afghanistan in the 80s as to launch a proxy war with the USSR. They are there now because of their previous (*)(*)(*)(*) up - not because they want to help Afghanis. Indeed your understanding of US foreign policy is quite shallow. I strongly disagree. They are almost never noble, and when noble it is, as Wilson described, an accident not an end. I agree there. America's pursuit of empire has done nothing but empower a few and slowly diminish the country's capacity to function effectively. Hence you see massive debt and the rise of the military-Keynesianism to name but a few drawbacks. If you mean by better 'cut off our empire', sure, and yes that can be done, but I doubt people will vote for principled individuals like Ron Paul who would actually pursue such ends.
Empire does not always require territorial gains, and as the British and Dutch particularly pursued, it is often more profitable to ally oneself with a ruling class, which you minimally support in order to allow personal exploitation of the country. This is the nature of US imperialistic hegemony. If you want to discuss more, go here: http://www.politicalforum.com/debates-contests/167720-us-imperial-hegemon.html
I would disagree, sir. What bout all the UN missions we help in? Why help? We contribute the most to these missions and just get the bad end of the deal. As for a Rising Empire, I would agree, we are on that road much like Athens and our immediate predecessor Great Britain. Sadly we did not learn from our British compatriots that colonialism is doom to failure. Nations yearn for self determination.
Not really. US assistance to the UN is merely a formality as a serious (allegedly) member. Compare what you describe to its many violations and vetoes of UN bills. Recall that it has only been the USA that was convicted of international state-terrorism by the ICJ, only to walk out in dismissal. I think America has reached the point, like Britain did post-ww2 that is may have to relinquish its empire in order to preserve its core parameters, ie the USA. If it fails to make the decision, it will most likely become domestically infected with the tyranny it applies over seas.
