Why does the US think that it has the right to tell the other countries what to do?

Question

Do we have the right to boss around?

Would we like it if the EU, Russia, or China told us what to do?

Answer 1

I will quote an excerpt from the Statement of Principles (sic) for the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). For those unfamiliar with this stuff, the PNAC provides the ideological basis for the group known of as Neo-conservatives. This group essentially dictates foreign policy. If you follow the link provided in the source, the most prominent name that you will see is Dick Cheney.

"
...we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
" [1]

People will doubtless interpret this differently depending upon their background. A number of points jump out at me though:

1. They claim to be responsible for peace and security (always big on security) for not just the U.S. but other important regions of the world. It's interesting that Africa and S. America are not included. It's also highly debatable whether their actions have achieved their stated aims.

2. They claim that the 20th century taught them to proactively "shape circumstances" (key words!) to counteract threats before they arise.

3. The final sentence seems to me to be an embrace of U.S. hegemony and empire.

Now, read the last statement just before the signatures.

"
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
"

If you further peruse documents on their site, you'll find a document [2] that contains the statement famous with 9/11 conspiracy buffs regarding a "new Pearl Harbor" that would be a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" allowing them to accelerate a "revolutionary change" to U.S. defense. Conspiracies aside, 9/11 was such an event. It is highly unsettling that a defense (sic) buildup was sought before there was a credible reason to need one.

Answer 2

All countries think that they are the most important,most balanced,mature...so on and so forth. US can afford to stand on top of the roof and scream at the top of the voice (mind you not to all nations, but to those which it considers below the pedestal). Why doesn't it enforce it's will on China, India, France and Japan ? Open to debate, but generally because it (like any country having an experienced government) realizes where to scream (and where to stay quite) and which audience to show which part of the movie....All countries do it. The size of the stage varies, China does it, India does it (nepal, bhutan, Sri Lanka), UK, Russia....it's just that the size of the stage varies...some do it on neighborhood scale, some on regional, and US on a global stage.... Don't blame a country for that...acknowledge it for having acquired that status, and learn your lessons.

Answer 3

In the case of the middle-east... I honestly believe it's been about oil and about Israel.

The oil-factor grew from a period in our country's history when we were a little better off than today. In terms of solid monetary conditions and monetary policy things in the 40's an 50's were still relatively sound, gold backed. We still had, at that time, industrialized nation status.

As such, the oil companies and affiliated industries took our technology to the middle-east to partner with them. Our technology and work ethic + their natural resources = Partnership.

Every other place on the globe benefitted from that partnership and a whole host of global industries continued to grow up and around petrol.

However strategic the oil industry is, to a military industrial complex or not, begs the question of whether the US government has the authority to protect the PRIVATE enterprise of a corporation taking the risk of doing business overseas!

If I open up a leather shoe manufacturing plant in Mexico because there are no more ranches in the US- do I not take the risk, or the company takes the risk, of a Mexican take-over of the factory and cattle I paid for? Or do I demand the US military come in, round up all the cattle in Mexico, herd them to my shoe factory for slaughter and production? And when the military can't handle it all, the US gov hires private cowboys to come in and do work the soldiers can't. All for my leather shoe factory, so your kids can wear safe footwear.

The Israel factor- This has been a touchy subject and actually growing less so over time.

Obviously the land of Israel, at one time, was strategic to watching, guarding and/or providing a launching point for action against threats to the 'private oil company's interests'.

Also, the Jewish factor. Many, many jews in the United States have taken their loyalties toward Israel to Washington in the form of special interest lobbying. This meant alot of money in the pockets of politicians.

I am first and foremost, despite my personally strong affections toward Israel, an AMERICAN. And my country has to come first. This special interest lobbying is wrong.

Finally, I say in answer to the question:

1) Corporations can ask government anything they want... But our government is LIMITED therefor it cannot, by law (Equal protection clause) show favoritism to corporations, whether oil or shoes.

Politicians have garnered much to much power and money from corporations for these 'favors', aka PORK.

2) Our government has no right to offer the same, as mentioned in #1 to special interest groups.

No, our government has no right to do anything outside the written laws. And 'they' can't change the laws without amending the...

Answer 4

finding at Obama’s previous existence in Chicago, his friends, and who his Czars are is extremely telling. Obama is a guy who's pushed by utilising a socialist time table, and could pay no interest to what the yank human beings want. different democrats like Clinton a minimum of have been poll pushed as he signed the republican costs on Welfare, or perhaps a mushy tax shrink. this might in basic terms recommend greater financial woes appropriate around the nook once you communicate approximately Cap and commerce. The technological expertise is corrupted, and whether a number of it became genuine, the actual records became trashed by utilising a similar scientists that had tens of millions in delivers given to them to proceed their study. If carried out, the cap and commerce will upload an anticipated 3,500 money in taxes to the common kin in u . s . of america. Our financial device is 14 trillion in the crimson, and with cap and commerce on the horizon, organizations would be hesitant to hire, to enhance, and we are in hardship.

Answer 5

Russia and China won't try, because they have too many domestic issues they don't want other nations to comment on, and the EU can't ever agree on what to bully the US about. As long as no one stands up to you, you shouldn't really feel too worried about this.

Answer 6

America as a country is a wonderful country and America has miljons of nice and smart people (on of them came to Sweden and married me, by the way), but...

unlyckely some of them and some of their politicians think that they are the best and everything they think and do is OK. WHY they do so, must be because they think that the amount of wapon and the number of soldiers giv them that right.

Off course America hasn't any right to boss around.

Answer 7

They do tell us what to do. We have things called discussions, where we all tell eachother what to do, and then everyone decides what they really will or wont do. And then everyone makes threats and everyone else decides if they will act on those threats.

We're not the only country telling other countries what to do. Everyone who's part of the UN has a voice before the global community, and they openly tell neighboring countries, or those acting uncivilly what not to do.

Grow up, and actually read some news beyond what the associated press or the Democratic left is feeding you.

Answer 8

I don't think the US has the right to be a world policeman when there is so much going on within our own borders.

I do think that the US has the responsibility to act in defense of a weaker nation though, as does all the world super powers. Call it the price of being successful.

Kind of conflicting views I know but it's how I feel.

Answer 9

The US has positioned itself as the leader of human rights, I think it's somewhat true, and that gives us a little authority to lead the cause. We also have a lot of experience with how to do things successfully, being the most prosperous country on the planet. You can debate if we are the best, but we're definitely up there, and so it would be wise for other countries to at least listen to what we have to say.

Answer 10

You know why America is so often criticized? Because we actually do something while other nations timidly stand on the sidelines. It's easy smile smugly about a lack of "mistakes" when you never actually do anything of consequence.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Teddy Roosevelt said it best:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."