NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, so long as it wants the rest of the world to case about the US.

Not really. I mean really, I mean a lot of the world would be happy if we just ignored everyone else and traded as well pleased.

I think we should contiune our trade policy, but we shouldn't be the World's Policeman anymore, and we shouldn't spend billions of dollars on AID to other countries that are just going to turn around and talk trash about us. Maybe a bit of a Quid Pro Quo on the AID money....

Should the United States watch the world?

As in, should the United States worry about stopping non-American genocides and other problems and only worry about the problems caused by/inside America? Or should the United States care about problems in the world?

I personally believe that the 2 branches most responsible for foreign issues (Executive and Legislative) are only protect the United States of America - the rest of the world is none of their business UNLESS things get extremely out of hand such as in cases similar to WWII, and/or unless the country is dragged into it such as in cases similar to WWI (and WWII for that matter).

This thread may seem Amerocentric (a nice word I've coined), but face it: the USA is a Superpower and it has a history of playing World Police. Should this history have happened and should it be repeated - that is the essence of this question.

Sure. But we should neither be dictator nor vigilante.

Have they ever, truly cared for the rest of the world and not acted out of self-interest?!?

Have they ever, truly cared for the rest of the world and not acted out of self-interest?!?

Well, that's what a government is supposed to do. But when it comes to self-interest in destroying/taking away from other countries, then that's NOT what a government is supposed to do.

I'm sorry but last time the US played this little game of "we don't live on planet Earth" it rendered the league of nations in rather shitty order

hence should the United States choose such an action I propose we seal the US off from the rest of the planet and declare that the commies won and that all that remains of the US is a bunch of savages (of course we will also cut off jolt.co.uk so that we can have a British forum for a change)

Sure. But we should neither be dictator nor vigilante.

This. :)

Well, that's what a government is supposed to do. But when it comes to self-interest in destroying/taking away from other countries, then that's NOT what a government is supposed to do.

Hehe, your sig says Obama but you talk like one of those Ron Paul guys.

I agree, though, the US should stop being the world police. The way it's been handled so far, the results are more harm than good, and wither that's by accident or design is unclear.

Hehe, your sig says Obama but you talk like one of those Ron Paul guys.

I agree, though, the US should stop being the world police. The way it's been handled so far, the results are more harm than good, and wither that's by accident or design is unclear.

Sorry to tell you guys, but if the US were the world police, they'd be arrested for corruption.

I'm sorry but last time the US played this little game of "we don't live on planet Earth" it rendered the league of nations in rather shitty order

hence should the United States choose such an action I propose we seal the US off from the rest of the planet and declare that the commies won and that all that remains of the US is a bunch of savages (of course we will also cut off jolt.co.uk so that we can have a British forum for a change)

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7948/englanddq3.jpg

:p

Should the United States watch the world?

As in, should the United States worry about stopping non-American genocides and other problems and only worry about the problems caused by/inside America? Or should the United States care about problems in the world?

I personally believe that the 2 branches most responsible for foreign issues (Executive and Legislative) are only protect the United States of America - the rest of the world is none of their business UNLESS things get extremely out of hand such as in cases similar to WWII, and/or unless the country is dragged into it such as in cases similar to WWI (and WWII for that matter).

This thread may seem Amerocentric (a nice word I've coined), but face it: the USA is a Superpower and it has a history of playing World Police. Should this history have happened and should it be repeated - that is the essence of this question.

Watch the rest of the world.
Does it really? seems to watch when things might go to it's advantage, but ignore other things when they go wrong.
And who decides what counts as "out of hand"? There have been a fair number of genocides in the past that the US has had nothing to do with.

I think if the US did ignore outside issues this would worsen foreign relations within the country, and damage trade etc
I think if the US actually stuck with some of the UN rules it might have a better image, rather than the current let paranoia solve all problems.

So yes the US should look over the rest of the world, but not try to dominate it or invade lots of parts of it. Instead if it strengthened UN military power to cut through conflicts, this would help US trade and relations with other powers.

SNIP

Grain for medicine?! you must be joking :p

*disowns lesbians of extreme plot significance*

Sure. But we should neither be dictator nor vigilante.

Quoted for agreement.

Bad poll options.

Fucked up shit that happens in other parts of the planet may be of moral concern to us, but the simple fact is that the Constitution does not grant us the authority to do what we usually end up doing in these situations. Our Founders repeatedly warned us against entangling alliances; advice we roundly rejected within a hundred and fifty years or so (thanks a lot, Woodrow Wilson). They also told us to use Congress to declare wars with clear parameters and justifications; and we're happy to ignore those instructions as well.

Non-interventionism and Isolationism are not the same things. While I do not believe that we should march our armies into these places, I do sympathize with the moral concern some people have because--let's face it--the world's a pretty fucked up place and a lot of bullshit is going on right now.

So in short, I believe we should care, but we shouldn't get too carried away that we're ready to lose sixty thousand citizens to prevent Communism from taking hold in Southeast Asia, or ? thousand "stabilizing" Iraq. I believe our military should only be used for defense, even if some despot somewhere does in fact deserve to be smoked. So we should care, but there is such a thing as caring too much, and we do it with alarming regularity. And even if you are one of those people who thinks that we should intervene whenever necessary (which, to be frank, is "every hour of every day" because there's plenty more suffering on this planet than even the most well-informed of us is aware of), the simple fact of the matter is that we cannot physically afford it anymore. So basically, I guess the question boils down to "Should the US destroy itself economically to 'make the world a better place.'" I say no.

Actually I think America should simply return to the old realpolitik of pragmatic foreign relations, in effect that's what kept the peace, the US and the USSR got on well when FDR and Stalin were in power because both were pragmatic operators to a large degree, it wasn't until the idealistic irrationalists came to power on both sides that the 'Cold War' and ridiculous ideological war came.

It wasn't until the neocons are their 'bring democracy to the world' and 'empire of freedom' irrational idealism that US foreign policy took a turn for the worst.

Not really. I mean really, I mean a lot of the world would be happy if we just ignored everyone else and traded as well pleased.

QFT.
And while you're at it, wouldn't the US taxpayers like a reduction in the US defence budget... like the reduction they could get by a dramatic cut in the US military presence in Europe.

Bad poll options.

Fucked up shit that happens in other parts of the planet may be of moral concern to us, but the simple fact is that the Constitution does not grant us the authority to do what we usually end up doing in these situations....

You win the thread. This was exactly what I was trying to say, but I couldn't get the words out.

Define "care about the world."

Well...we are part of the world...

im in the uk i dont really care about the us, let them do what they want, tbh i feel kinda bad for em because eventually they're going to have a big war with china and i hope to hell we dont get dragged into it but may do because of the stupid nato treaty

Define "care about the world."

Practicing non-interventionism

We should practice non-interventionism. Of course, we haven't done that in over a century.

Whut?
I'll point out the US foreign policy of Isolationism in the inter war years of 1919-1939, if they had intervened they could have stopped Hitler, but pursued this policy because of Roosevelt "I hate war!".

Practicing non-interventionism

We should practice non-interventionism. Of course, we haven't done that in over a century.

im in the uk i dont really care about the us, let them do what they want, tbh i feel kinda bad for em because eventually they're going to have a big war with china and i hope to hell we dont get dragged into it but may do because of the stupid nato treaty

Were going into a war with China?

*looks at recently bought toy made from China*

My god! It is 98% Lead...there going to murder us! :)

Whut?
I'll point out the US foreign policy of Isolationism in the inter war years of 1919-1939, if they had intervened they could have stopped Hitler, but pursued this policy because of Roosevelt "I hate war!".

The whole point of Roosevelts' policy of "non-engagement" is because most americans at the time didn't want to get involved in "european affairs" because simply we wanted to distance ourselves from them with the 3000 miles of ocean between us.

We should practice non-interventionism. Of course, we haven't done that in over a century.

Well, time to round up all politicans in the U.S. and send them back to Forign Policy 101 :D

If the US had taken out Hitler before the war, we would've been remembered as the bad guys, preemptively taking out a dictator who was only trying to rebuild his collapsing nation.

They wouldn't have had to attack him, just join the league of nations, and tell Hitler when to stop, Mind you Hitler was a nutter. Who say's you aren't remembered as the bad guys? I recall two atomic bombs being dropped somewhere. The second world war didn't really have a good and bad side, just two bad sides, where one wasn't as bad as the other.

Should the United States watch the world?

As in, should the United States worry about stopping non-American genocides and other problems and only worry about the problems caused by/inside America? Or should the United States care about problems in the world?

I personally believe that the 2 branches most responsible for foreign issues (Executive and Legislative) are only protect the United States of America - the rest of the world is none of their business UNLESS things get extremely out of hand such as in cases similar to WWII, and/or unless the country is dragged into it such as in cases similar to WWI (and WWII for that matter).

This thread may seem Amerocentric (a nice word I've coined), but face it: the USA is a Superpower and it has a history of playing World Police. Should this history have happened and should it be repeated - that is the essence of this question.

Should we be the world's policeman? No. But we should definitely keep an eye on it, and intervene when absolutely neccessary. We should always stay vigilant.

Whut?
I'll point out the US foreign policy of Isolationism in the inter war years of 1919-1939, if they had intervened they could have stopped Hitler, but pursued this policy because of Roosevelt "I hate war!".

If the US had taken out Hitler before the war, we would've been remembered as the bad guys, preemptively taking out a dictator who was only trying to rebuild his collapsing nation.

i think amerocentric was coined by someone else some time ago.

Whut?
I'll point out the US foreign policy of Isolationism in the inter war years of 1919-1939, if they had intervened they could have stopped Hitler, but pursued this policy because of Roosevelt "I hate war!".

We were non-interventionist? Might want to tell the Latin Americans that...

Oh, and Roosevelt's rhetoric did not match his actions. He was very interventionist.

U should leave us alone and let us be in peace. Stop with your (corrupt) policing of the world now!!!

I've been advocating that the US should take a year or two on 'vacation' from the rest of the planet. Just to see what happpens. Cut off all military and political aid, leave open economic ties because nobody can do without those these days, and just see what happens.
No US troops overseas, no US financial aid to anything except the WORKING UN programs (Huzzah! We can pay off the national debt!), close down all the military bases for a while...
It'd be interesting, to say the least.

Well...we are part of the world...

We are the world... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmxT21uFRwM)

U should leave us alone and let us be in peace. Stop with your (corrupt) policing of the world now!!!

"No you bloody fool!" As some English say in movies, pulling out like *snap* would be terrible. Slowly phasing things out would be the right way to go. Sudden changes are almost always terrible if you never noticed.

"No you bloody fool!" As some English say in movies, pulling out like *snap* would be terrible. Slowly phasing things out would be the right way to go. Sudden changes are almost always terrible if you never noticed.

Most nations are mature enough to make their own decisions and we have international treaties and organizations. Americans don't invade countries or regions to make the world a better or safer place (and I don't think the warguys want to make America safer either, they just don't care about trivial things like that), profit is what they want. Bombs need to fall in order to sell other ones, oil must be secured, unwanted leaders must disappear,...
Pulling back all of a sudden would cause anarchy. But whose fault is that?

Most nations are mature enough to make their own decisions and we have international treaties and organizations. Americans don't invade countries or regions to make the world a better or safer place (and I don't think the warguys want to make America safer either, they just don't care about trivial things like that), profit is what they want. Bombs need to fall in order to sell other ones, oil must be secured, unwanted leaders must disappear,...
Pulling back all of a sudden would cause anarchy. But whose fault is that?

Hey, I think you over sell the corporate greed! There is quite a bit of nationalist and jingoism there too! But you can't really blame all of the worlds problems on the U.S, there are scum everywhere you go.

Should the United States watch the world?

As in, should the United States worry about stopping non-American genocides and other problems and only worry about the problems caused by/inside America? Or should the United States care about problems in the world?

I personally believe that the 2 branches most responsible for foreign issues (Executive and Legislative) are only protect the United States of America - the rest of the world is none of their business UNLESS things get extremely out of hand such as in cases similar to WWII, and/or unless the country is dragged into it such as in cases similar to WWI (and WWII for that matter).

This thread may seem Amerocentric (a nice word I've coined), but face it: the USA is a Superpower and it has a history of playing World Police. Should this history have happened and should it be repeated - that is the essence of this question.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Americentric

Americentric
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source

Americentric refers to a limited focus centered on the United States, the American civilization, culture, or more generally U.S. perspective, in relation to culture or history, or global influence.

Unless you wrote the Wiki article, "your" word (as you define it) already exists ;)

To the point. America should "care" about the world insomuch as its national interests are concerned. I'll leave the nuances of said interests to those in power, and who, consequently, wield the power of American intervention.

This sounds incredibly cheesy, but every nation should care about the rest of the world.

Hey ham, I responded to you on the banned whites page.

I voted no because whenever the US tries to intervene in foreign affairs it seems to be very good at fucking things up.

I voted no because whenever the US tries to intervene in foreign affairs it seems to be very good at fucking things up.

And making things right, or at least better.

And leaving everything alone can fuck things up just as badly, if not moreso...or have we so soon forgotten the unfortunate lessons of isolationism?

The reason I voted "sometimes" is while it may be true that the United States does not have an absolute responsibility for that which is outside of it's borders, it is also true that what happens outside of it's borders can affect the United States.

And making things right, or at least better.

And leaving everything alone can fuck things up just as badly, if not moreso...or have we so soon forgotten the unfortunate lessons of isolationism?

When was the U.S. ever "isolationist?"

Hint: If you want a real example of "isolationism," look at Japan pre-Matthew Perry.

I've been advocating that the US should take a year or two on 'vacation' from the rest of the planet. Just to see what happpens. Cut off all military and political aid, leave open economic ties because nobody can do without those these days, and just see what happens.
No US troops overseas, no US financial aid to anything except the WORKING UN programs (Huzzah! We can pay off the national debt!), close down all the military bases for a while...
It'd be interesting, to say the least.

Interesting, in a masochistic, self-defeating sort of way, surely. "Disastrous" comes more readily to mind. You mention leaving open economic ties because "no one can do without [them]"...I wonder how long you think these will survive without US military support and, indeed, intervention?

Interesting, in a masochistic, self-defeating sort of way, surely.

How is it self-defeating?

When was the U.S. ever "isolationist?"

Hint: If you want a real example of "isolationism," look at Japan pre-Matthew Perry.

We have never been strictly isolationist, no country has, true isolationism doesn't exist (Japan engaged in trade with both Koreans and Chinese), but we have exhibited isolationist tendencies, most notably pre- and post-World War I.

How is it self-defeating?
Hint: read the rest of my post, particularly the question at the end

Hint: read the rest of my post, particularly the question at the end

I did. Why is up to us to ensure that they survive? We're not the world policeman (as much as our politicians would like for us to be).

NO, America does NOT want a gay relationship with the world......pervert.:cool:

Yes, the United States should stop intervening in the world. Quite frankly I'm sick of them fucking me over so that they can go and fuck someone else over.

Amen.

Yes, the United States should stop intervening in the world. Quite frankly I'm sick of them fucking me over so that they can go and fuck someone else over.

I did. Why is up to us to ensure that they survive? We're not the world policeman (as much as our politicians would like for us to be).

Sadly enough, we are. I invite you to name another country who affords as much international commerce protection--particularly shipping--as does the United States.

Hmm. Tough question. I'd lean more towards the no side. The rest of the world should deal with their own problems without the US getting involved. However, there are certain times where the US should get involved, such as protecting national interests.


Instead if it strengthened UN military power to cut through conflicts, this would help US trade and relations with other powers.

How about we don't have a strong UN military?

...big war with china and i hope to hell we dont get dragged into it but may do because of the stupid nato treaty

Oh please. Let's learn some facts from the original sources, not just what the US DoD says, expecially about the North Atlantic Treaty.

Even if (insert unamerican country here) bombed to the ground Washington, New York and Chicago, each NATO member country could choose not to send a single trooper to war.

link to official NATO site and NA Treaty:
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

most significative is article 5:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

(bold mine)
see... it's more "we give ourselves the right to do whatever each of us wants when one of us is attacked, including doing war" than "if you attack one of us we'll all attack you immediately". Don't let the politicians fool you: the North Atlantic Treaty CANNOT FORCE LAWFULLY ANY MEMBER COUNTRY TO USE ITS ARMED FORCES. It's the politicians (PM, Defense Ministry, Parliament) of each country who have full power - and responsibility.

Look up the WEU...

everyone HAS TO care about everywhere, because we all depend for our very existence upon the same ocean of atmosphere and water and other environmental conditions.

america needs to care about the harm it is causing to them itself, and about the harm it is causing others to cause by bullying them into kissing the ass of its own destructive way of life.

bullying the rest of the world i do not equate with caring about it, and bullying the rest of the world to its own supposed yet highly questionable bennifit, is what it DOES NEED TO STOP DOING!

=^^=
.../\...

Have they ever, truly cared for the rest of the world and not acted out of self-interest?!?
Nope. All US Americans ever care about is themselves. It's the land of the proud and the home of the selfish. They only care for others if they can dominate them.

Yes, so long as it wants the rest of the world to case about the US.

Would Jesus?

.. I think it is better if the US does not even know the rest of the world exists.. it could solve a lot of the worlds problems that way.. but maybe I'm being biased in thinking the US's knowledge of other parts of the world is the first step in the worlds problems.. I'm sure the US has done good in the world.. cause they'd hate people for saying they suck, and they may know where the place is that said it, and they may try to solve the issue due to their deep sense of caring.

Would Jesus?who?

The rest of the world should deal with their own problems without the US getting involved.

the u.s. IS the rest of the world's biggest problem. it seriously needs to get itself a conscience.

and having a conscience means caring to avoid screwing everything up for everyone. both everyone else, AND even one's self as well.

=^^=
.../\...

who?

That bearded Jewish guy who died after being nailed to some wood and then managed to come back to life without the usual zombiness associated with resurrections. Then, some guys decided to make a religion that revolved around him for some reason. It grew into the religion that the US Government likes enough to base its (the government) decisions around it (the religion). So, everytime Bush decides to do something incredibly stupid, he does it for Jesus. Just don't bring him back to life again. Doing so will literally destroy the world. You know, thermodynamics and Putin's magical nuclear arsenal and all that jazz.

That bearded Jewish guy who died after being nailed to some wood and then managed to come back to life without the usual zombiness associated with resurrections. Then, some guys decided to make a religion that revolved around him for some reason. It grew into the religion that the US Government likes enough to base its (the government) decisions around it (the religion). So, everytime Bush decides to do something incredibly stupid, he does it for Jesus. Just don't bring him back to life again. Doing so will literally destroy the world. You know, thermodynamics and Putin's magical nuclear arsenal and all that jazz.We really should ask Putin to nuke the US. At once.

Have they ever, truly cared for the rest of the world and not acted out of self-interest?!?

Has anyone?

who?

His Mexican gardener.

And leaving everything alone can fuck things up just as badly, if not moreso...or have we so soon forgotten the unfortunate lessons of isolationism?

I don't think you could have stopped Hitler (if that is what you mean?). Almost nobody sees Americans as liberators, but as occupying forces. You aren't making yourself loved troughout the world, more the opposite.

We were non-interventionist? Might want to tell the Latin Americans that...

Oh, and Roosevelt's rhetoric did not match his actions. He was very interventionist.

Not in Europe they weren't.

Not in Europe they weren't.

Not in Europe they weren't what?

Not in Europe they weren't what?

They were Isolationist in relation to European affairs.
They refused to join the League of nations.
Incidently what were the US doing all that time? 1919-39?
Also it was Germany who declared war on the US in December 1941, the fighting had been going for two years before the US came in.

They were Isolationist in relation to European affairs.
They refused to join the League of nations.
Incidently what were the US doing all that time? 1919-39?
Also it was Germany who declared war on the US in December 1941, the fighting had been going for two years before the US came in.

Roosevelt was pro-intervention from the start. The public and Congress were not.

Roosevelt was pro-intervention from the start. The public and Congress were not.

Oh right, so what were the US doing in that time though?

Oh right, so what were the US doing in that time though?

From 1919-1939, precious little. But given our actions in Latin America at that time, calling the U.S. "isolationist" is pretty silly.

I personaly believe that america is the worlds only remaining super power and therefore has a responsibility to watch out for the little guys, in my country we hear how our soldiers are shot, then we hear about all the american soldiers were shot, 9/11 was a horrible thing to hit the USA and the entire world stood up and helped america fight a battle that had nothiing to do with them, i mean call me wrong by all means, but i think if WE are going to help america AMERICA should help us, sacrifices must be made on either side and trust me we have made many sacrifices, hundreds died in the 7/11 bombings in london and all because we helped america, so if you ask me the question 'should america care about the rest of the world?' i am going to say 'damn straight they should care because like it or not they are a part of this world'

How about we don't have a strong UN military?
Because otherwise you get events like this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_genocide

As a U.S. citizen, I agree that the country I live in is seriously screwed up. I think the U.S. does pretty much only act in self-interest. We didn't enter WWII until the Pearl Harbor bombing. We attacked Iraq for oil. We messed up pretty badly in both situations. ( i.e Hiroshima got nuked and lots of Iraqis and U.S. troops died) I think the U.S. doesn't care, but should care without war.

What right does America have to police the world?

What right does America have to police the world?

Answer: It doesn't.

What right does America have to police the world?

That is what everyone is debating, I believe that America should only interviene if we know what were doing and have a master plan, as well as worldwide understanding as to what we were doing. (Hence why Iraq failed)

I personaly believe that america is the worlds only remaining super power and therefore has a responsibility to watch out for the little guys, in my country we hear how our soldiers are shot, then we hear about all the american soldiers were shot, 9/11 was a horrible thing to hit the USA and the entire world stood up and helped america fight a battle that had nothiing to do with them, i mean call me wrong by all means, but i think if WE are going to help america AMERICA should help us, sacrifices must be made on either side and trust me we have made many sacrifices, hundreds died in the 7/11 bombings in london and all because we helped america, so if you ask me the question 'should america care about the rest of the world?' i am going to say 'damn straight they should care because like it or not they are a part of this world'
Amen to that.....good first post! :)

Roosevelt was pro-intervention from the start. The public and Congress were not.
True, because the public elected Congressmen who didn't want to see another World War 1 (only 2 did turn out worse) and everyone also thought that the American economy wasn't up to the job yet to fight anyone.

We really should ask Putin to nuke the US. At once.
Oh give me a break :rolleyes:

You expect Russia to attack the U.S.? Next thing your going to suggest is that we go and invade Mexico.....

Nope. All US Americans ever care about is themselves. It's the land of the proud and the home of the selfish. They only care for others if they can dominate them.

True. And yet what nation is freely able to act truly altruistically...without the excuse of self-interest?

As a U.S. citizen, I agree that the country I live in is seriously screwed up. I think the U.S. does pretty much only act in self-interest. We didn't enter WWII until the Pearl Harbor bombing. We attacked Iraq for oil. We messed up pretty badly in both situations. ( i.e Hiroshima got nuked and lots of Iraqis and U.S. troops died) I think the U.S. doesn't care, but should care without war.

Assuming we did, for this reason:

Why is it such a bad thing? Wars have been fought over vital resources in the past...

and

How much oil are we actually getting because of the Iraqi invasion?

What right does America have to police the world?

Every right.

Answer: It doesn't.

Why not?

Every right.Give by whom?

Give by whom?

Since when are rights assigned?

Should the United States watch the world?

As in, should the United States worry about stopping non-American genocides and other problems and only worry about the problems caused by/inside America? Or should the United States care about problems in the world?

I personally believe that the 2 branches most responsible for foreign issues (Executive and Legislative) are only protect the United States of America - the rest of the world is none of their business UNLESS things get extremely out of hand such as in cases similar to WWII, and/or unless the country is dragged into it such as in cases similar to WWI (and WWII for that matter).

This thread may seem Amerocentric (a nice word I've coined), but face it: the USA is a Superpower and it has a history of playing World Police. Should this history have happened and should it be repeated - that is the essence of this question.

It would help if we were good at it.

Who decides when something is out of hand? The US? Brilliant idea, that.

Who decides when something is out of hand? The US? Brilliant idea, that.

No, a human being and his/her common sense decide.

UNLESS things get extremely out of hand such as in cases similar to WWII, and/or unless the country is dragged into it such as in cases similar to WWI (and WWII for that matter).

That bearded Jewish guy who died after being nailed to some wood and then managed to come back to life without the usual zombiness associated with resurrections. Then, some guys decided to make a religion that revolved around him for some reason. It grew into the religion that the US Government likes enough to base its (the government) decisions around it (the religion). So, everytime Bush decides to do something incredibly stupid, he does it for Jesus. Just don't bring him back to life again. Doing so will literally destroy the world. You know, thermodynamics and Putin's magical nuclear arsenal and all that jazz.


The US Government doesn't base their decisions on that religion, they just use it as an excuse afterwards to hold on to what little support they still can.

I picked the third option.

There is no doubt that America has helped people in times of need. But to some degree, I think the world has come to expect the US to always be the ones who step up. Many governments enjoy bashing the US for their involvement in affairs that on the surface appear unrelated to their way of life, but down deep, these deadbeat countries are relieved to know THEY don't have to do it themselves. America has spoiled the world this sense. Eventually, the US will realize this. It may be too late by then.

We should give them our compassion, and a bit less of our money.

Should the United States watch the world?

As in, should the United States worry about stopping non-American genocides and other problems and only worry about the problems caused by/inside America? Or should the United States care about problems in the world?

I personally believe that the 2 branches most responsible for foreign issues (Executive and Legislative) are only protect the United States of America - the rest of the world is none of their business UNLESS things get extremely out of hand such as in cases similar to WWII, and/or unless the country is dragged into it such as in cases similar to WWI (and WWII for that matter).

This thread may seem Amerocentric (a nice word I've coined), but face it: the USA is a Superpower and it has a history of playing World Police. Should this history have happened and should it be repeated - that is the essence of this question.Part of the reason America played world police is that it is a good way of perpetuating its power, when done correctly. America comes out looking good (or at least competent) in its allies eyes, and usually the situation they resolve comes out more in favor of America (as opposed to them never intervening). So, ignoring the fact I am not American right now, America should have gone through with the whole world police thing. I secured it international power which gives it the favorable end of every business deal and it allows them some grace when they do some seedier things. I'd say had they not, they would currently be worse off economically as a consequence.