Question for ppl that are serious about politics?

Question

Do you believe that u.s should not iunterfere at all with the world or still interefere. Details are helpful thanks

Answer 1

The evolution of US involvement in global affairs revolves around the growth of the united states as a nation. The reflection of national security issues, as well as trade concerns, and diplomatically valuable associations, that can benefit both the internal mechanisms of national Identity, and provide socially benificial liason with foreign cultures, societies, and governments, pose the motivation for the healthy aspecture of US foreign policy. The other notion is that ifthe US does not communicate or have a policy for global issues it will look deaf , dumb , and mute.
Beneficial interaction with other nations, and integral policy guide lines tend to create vehicles either for understanding between and positive growth channels between people.
The current climate in the US(to 9/11) and pschological sympathies for both active retalliation, and it's result, and opponents to the results of various policy decisions , have created a gap between many people of many nations.
The US has to balance an image of antagonism, or at least of over reaction, among many groups, both foreign and domestic, while foreign policy has to justify both the ends and the means of security and defence it must at the same time be accountable as policy. That neither does harm to the US or the world.

Answer 2

If it effects our security, yes. The only reason we should go over and spill blood for allies who can't defend themselves (that probably wouldnt' do the same for us) is because if they are overtaken, it will be problems for us in the long run.

For example, if we hadn't interfered in the Middle East, Iraq fighting Iran, Iraq taking over Kuwait, you would have a huge Iran that would have swallowed up both of those two countries, if not more, in addition to holding Lebanon and Syria captive to do their bidding.

Getting involved may seem unrelated to our security, but it is directly related to our security and that is the purpose of the United States government. And as long as we're a thriving free country, our government will always do that. Idiots who say we're 'policing' the world or fanatics who say "Go home, Yank, get out of the Middle East" don't understand this. We're not just there because we can and we want to.

That is why Blair kept warning the world filled with hatred for the USA that the last thing they want is the US to go into isolation. The UK can protect itself from, say, France, yes. But when the Nazis continued to take over countries and became more and more powerful while all of Europe, the Commonwealths, as well as the USA, ignored them because it wasn't their problem, we ended with a HUGE enemy on our hands, and had lost allies to their side. No one country could defeat them.

Those sad little haters who say 'Yank, go home' have no idea the protection that the USA gives them everyday.

Answer 3

Except in rare cases, I believe the U.S. should not interfere with other nations. I like George Washington's warning about not becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations.

First, I think other nations are sovereign. They have a right to do whatever they wish within their own borders. It is arrogant to assume that we even have jurisdiction extending beyond our own borders. Suppose bloodshed is occuring in Kosovo. Where does the U.S. get the authority to intervene? The Constitution? From God? Also, as sad as the facts may be, I still cannot see the justification for one American life being jeopardized. We fought the British over taxation without representation; our involvement in other countries is giving them representation without taxation.

People claim that because we are a superpower, we have a responsibility to maintain world order and bail-out other countries. Again, where does that responsibility originate? I don't recall Moses bringing it down on stone tablets.

There is a huge economic cost to policing the world also. Let's take Israeli-Palestinian relations. How does a dental hygenist in El Paso, a car salesman in Boise or a bank manager in Atlanta benefit from our involvement? Why should their tax dollars be spent in a Mediterranian rathole instead of buying diapers for their kids? I have heard good arguments made that our involvement has actually forestalled any resolution to their problems. Think about it: doesn't Israel/Palestine consume a disproportionate amount of resources (money, time spent, capital, etc.) compared to our own issues at home.

Where is the supposed goodwill the U.S. has reaped from our nanny missions? Most countries hate us anyway, regardless of what we do. If other nations like us, is it because we bribed them or is it because we are good trading partners?

I do think there are arenas where we should be involved. Trade is the foremost issue. We should also involve ourselves where American interests are directly involved. For instance, the U.S. is suffering a massive influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Why? Because Mexico has such a loser, crony, backward economy that a regular person has slim chances of improving his lot in life. Well, their economy has become our problem. I think we have cause to lean on Mexico to make changes.

Answer 4

Our constitution does not give the government the right to mess with other countries no mater how bad they are! A massive part of our national debt is because of our being the worlds police force. They also have no right to fund any other country like Israel. We need to take care of our own country and people first!

Answer 5

We should take a more neutral stance. We can help countries but not be a police state. I want the U.S. to still be involved because it's part of the world of today. But butting into other countries, no. The war on terror is a two-edged sword for me: I totally support the war in Afghanistan but not the one in Iraq. However, I'll always support our troops. Thanks!

Answer 6

Interfere or help. Fine line in your book. Being the BOMC, we have a responsibility to try and help (or interfere as you call it)
We can help so the media portrays us as a villain at every opportunity. Media bias only reports the bad. Bad sells, good is boring. So when we do a million good things and one thing can be perceived as bad that is all you will hear about.

Answer 7

Only if it threatens our national security or a close allies. As for humanitarian and peace keeping missions, they should be left to the incompetent U.N..

Answer 8

I don't think it is as simple as you ask. On the whole I think we should spend more time on our own country. When humanitarian needs of the world arise, I think we should share the riches of this country. We have meddled so much. I don't see where it has proven to be to our benefit.

Answer 9

We are involved cause other countries beg for us to involve ourselves everyday of the year! Ok Chachi!

Answer 10

As the world's leading power, we have to lead, and that is the way to do it.