"world police"??

Question

Should the U.S take on the role of the "world police?"

explain please.

Answer 1

Definately not. The US should take care of its own.

Answer 2

I'm sorry, I thought that we already had. Look at how we have a foreign policy where we go in, remove the bad leaders and then turn around and rebuild the country we just attacked for the people.
This might be good business and good for our reputation. After all, who else had the power to defeat Japan, Germany, Russia (cold war), push back the agressors from Kuwait, etc, etc, the history books are full of our helpful nature.
Problem is, economically, its starting to get to the point that we might not be able to support that kind of good jesture in the future.
Look at Russia, they broke down into several different countries. If all were oppressed, if all needed aid, who would we side with ? which if any or all would we help ? Eventually there would be a time when we wouldn't be able to support a world wide effort to attend to all the discourse between factions or rebels and the current government.
We have limited to countries that we..as a nation have a vested interest in, that is the only reason I can think of as to why we took up certain fights, yet seemed to completely ignore Africa and all the troubles there. Not that we actually seem to expect to be paid back...at least not in money, but with alliance, crops , oil, trading, good-will programs, rights to some assett......
War is always an expensive proposition, and has always been a gamble as to if we will get back anything that is equivalent to the vested interest we have made.

Answer 3

Should? or Has? It is debatable. I find in most cases the United States will only police things that affect the U.S., their allies, or their needs.

Good or bad. Thats the way it is.

Answer 4

That's what that pack of corrupt thieves in the U.N. are supposed to be doing.