Do you think that the US should be the police man of the world?

Question

Right now in my world history class, we go over this topic couple of times, and we have a split between people that think yes and people that think no.
The US is involved in many different conflicts around the world, so they practically are being the police man of the world.
What do you think about it?

Answer 1

People look to this country as a super power to help the world with their problems but it isn't do-able without taking sides which means the loosing side is constantly after us, i say its time to tell the world to count us out and resolve their own fights.

Answer 2

This is a tough one. Generally speaking I think not. It causes a lot of resentment from other countries and can come back to haunt us. We used to fund Iraq and Afghanistan a few decades ago--and look how well that turned out.

But on the other hand I think that there are some situations that are just too awful not to try to fix, like the holocaust in WWII.

Basically I think that when we interfere for genuine humanitarian reasons, things turn out okay. But when we interfere to suit our own needs, like during the cold war or as regards oil, it generally turns out badly for all involved.

Answer 3

This question has two sides that must be considered.

1.) America acting as the "worlds police" infringes upon what is known in politics as "national sovreignty". Which means each nations right to do as it wishes without external interference. America (already the worlds police in a sence), has grown in other nations ranks of the worst countries in the world because we think we are always right, and we think we can fix everyones problems.

2.) Why not help if we can? Because we can get ourselves into a terrible situation like we are right now (iraq). We decided that we could help iraq (or so our president said), so we are now engaged in what i called Vietnam II. The same thing happend in Mogadishu, Somalia (black hawk down).

So in short, no america needs to focus on fixing our internal problems, like poverty, crime rates, social security, ect. Instead of trying to fix other nations fights.

Ron Paul 08

Answer 4

Ok, lets think of it this way. If a country is commiting acts of genocide and other such atrocities, is it our business to save those innocent people? I would say yes.

Just one more thing while I'm at it. In WWII, was it our business to stop the holocaust? Ok, now for the rant. I can't stand all these new Isolationists, don't they study history? Don't they remember Chamberland's "Peace in Our Time"? Come on people, pull your heads' out of the sand.

Answer 5

We get enough practice with 3 million visa jumpers flying in a year from all over the world, why not. It's experience like Hillery has. Take care.

Answer 6

Countries should solve their own problems. A country can help another country if asked.

Answer 7

If you were being torchered and ur family was being murdered wouldnt u want someone to step in and help? kinda like we did with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa to name just a few. I know I would and I know I have no problem going and helping.

Answer 8

If we are the worlds policeman we have to be morally correct and that means no torture, follow the Geneva Convention etc....

Answer 9

No we should first solve our own problems at home

Answer 10

hell ya, we have the manpower to set things straight in the world. if not us then who, FRANCE????, russia, england. No, we must police over the world and unite everyone against the muslim terrorists.