I think the United States role in the world is to protect it's global interests such as crucial raw materials (oil etc.) , stop terrorism, protect US trade, homeland security, and other interests that go along that line. I know many people will say that spreading democracy, being a bully and some other reasons are correct, but I would like to hear your stance on my debatable opinion.
2006-09-06 06:43:16 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
ADF you said, "Provide a role model for other countries. This should be our role in spreading democracy, not forcing it down people's throats." But should spreading democracy really be a role that the US should have?
2006-09-06 06:53:32 · update #1
You're correct and it has been the US' principal role in the world since the end of WWII. The idea then (and now) is that if the world is interconnected via trade and the attendant communication that it will be a safer and more prosperous place for ALL the world's people to live.
2006-09-06 06:46:26 · answer #1 · answered by Walter Ridgeley 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the United States' actual mission is just to help, it would have been so noble. However, more often than most, the U.S. gets involved to protect their own agenda. This results in more trouble and the general population's doubt and lack of respect for our government. Our government responds by imposing and implementing stricter rules to "protect the American people". They bring about fear amongst their own people and the government operates under the notion that the people are dumb and would believe whatever media spin is delivered. That may have some truth, but others don't get fooled so easy and questions are asked.
As a result of all this "new politics", we live in fear and privacy is just an illusion. Our country sacrifices the liberties our ancestors gave their life to obtain so people will think twice before they second guess or question our government.
Granted, there are bad people out there. United States has aided a lot, but a number of these "enemies" became that way because we made them our enemies. Whatever reason they became our enemy, only our government has the explanation for that.
My answer reflects my opinion. It in no way is a disrespect to our nation's ideals. I just wish we would play more fairly.
2006-09-06 07:24:13 · answer #2 · answered by *Ginelle* 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Protecting crucial raw materials, but not necessarily through force - Yes
Stop Terrorism - We are not the WPD (World Police Force), however providing assistance in this yes. Currently we have a tendency to ask forgiveness instead of permission.
Protect US Trade - Yes, but not necessarily through force.
Homeland Security - Yes, but the method is debateable
Others I would add -
Provide a role model for other countries. This should be our role in spreading democracy, not forcing it down people's throats.
Provide mediation for World Concerns
Provide support and counsel for our allies.
2006-09-06 06:51:29 · answer #3 · answered by ADF 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We would be the worst at globally protecting crucial raw materials simply because we consume more than any other country in the world.
Secondly we would not be good at stopping terrorism because we are one of the main countries that cause it.
Third, democracy does not work in every situation. The concept conflicts with certain religions, cultures and ways of life where a dictatorship is much more suitable. The reason why dictatorships tend to fail is because the leaders become selfishly motivated in lieu of making rules that are based on what will benefit the entire nation.
2006-09-06 06:52:25 · answer #4 · answered by Joe K 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Should we protect our interests even if they arn't in our country? Protect the US, I agree when they are in the US. As for terrorism I think anyone taken out by our country claimed to be a terrorist might have done nothing wrong yet. Think about it. What makes you a terrorist? Hanging out with other terrorists? Having an actuall plan for destrucion to the innocent? Or actually and intentionally injuring innocent people? If you have a plan to do something should that sentance be death? Because I bet we are killing alot of people who might be doing nothing wrong that are being called terrorists.
2006-09-06 06:49:44 · answer #5 · answered by sheltz32tt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are not the military for corporate interest, who have little interest for those that work for them!
You spread democracy by being a role model, not a bully!!
PS: We are not a democracy!! If we were Bush would NOT BE president!
2006-09-06 06:48:35 · answer #6 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If called upon by the country that owns the raw materials, to help protect those resources, stop terrorism, supportUS trade, and homeland security...all yes.
Democracy? Not our business to impose that on another country. If the people won't fight for it, they don't deserve it.
2006-09-06 06:48:00 · answer #7 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, we aren't bullies by any sense of the imagination---except the press and liberal wing of the democrat party.
we are the bad guys and everybody wants to come here, work, practice religion (or not) complain, not live under a dictatorship, work for a living, buy cars and sneakers..
..but they all don't think about that. They came here because we are good and if we have to "bully" commies, terrorists, that's how we have to do it.
...because we have the might...because we are free. Have you ever thought of that? Did you ever wonder why we are so strong? Not because of natural resources....but because we are free to educate ourselves, we can make millions if that is our goal. We can give money to poor nations.
The bully US can liberate France. The bully rebuilds its enemies. But we may be bullies as you say, to keep nuclear armaments out of peoples hands who will try to blow up the world to get their way.......
Who is going to contain iran, say? Nobody except us. If that makes us "bullies" and Kofi 'the embezzler" annan needs us to bully...cause he can't...then so be it!
Your choice!
I'm tired of pseudo-intellectuals who make no sense and have absolutely no historical perspective beyond Katie Couric!
2006-09-06 06:54:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "role" by whose definition?
If the US gets to define their own role in the world, without having to take into account anyone else's rights, then by definition it is just being a bully and claiming what it wants.
So, unless everyone else involved in the interaction consents to a particular relationship, the use of the term 'role' is supect.
2006-09-06 06:46:22 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I could not agree with you more. Really. We have no right to bully the world or force 'our idea' of what democracy is on any other nation.
2006-09-09 19:09:27 · answer #10 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋