should America be the world's policeman?

f**k the rest of the world, we've got our own issues to worry about

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH! SO LICK MY BUTT AND SUCK ON MY BALLS

you've got balls... I like balls

fine, ill disagree to be disagreeing.


so should we not focus on being a leader in the effort to keep to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of crazy people who would like to deploy them? is it worth it to ignore everyone else?


doesn't the world need global policing? if not us, then who?

To answer your question; no.

Involvement in the affairs of other countries causes tension, which then leads to conflict.

^do we have a moral obligation to involve ourself in other countries affairs sometimes? genocide, ect ect ect ect ect.

i think we should personally help other countries. like, small organizations and such. but i dont think america as a whole, as in our government, should go off trying to "save" other countries.

^

oh like imperialism?

^i don't think it's a wise idea, no. i don't think we should repeat britian's mistake.

i'm arguing for the sake of argument, since everyone replying seems to basically share my views.

i was asking if we are obligated to get involved at times. if there is another incident like the holocaust, are we obligated to get involved in those issues? is american isolation better, or has history shown it only leads us into things like world wars? is there a price to be paid for not getting involved in things?

Who watches the watch-men?

Their wives.

I guess in a more ideal world each country would pull an equal amount of weight in helping themselves and others... but since countries economies aren't equal the help that they're going to bring to each other isn't equal. Does that mean that America has to right away jump in and pull that countries weight? No, I don't think so. I guess this question is somewhat vague... and I probably don't make sense.

you are SO right

Sergeant? Also the watch men can be watched. The media seems to do a good job of scrutinizing the military's every action. Tons of people are watching. Tons of people are making a fuss. Tons of people are being little babies who wine until they get their way.

The media?! The media is controlled by who? What makes you think that what we see on the television, hear on the radio, read on the internet, etc. is the truth? The government makes sure that you and I only know what they want us to know. You're not there and I'm not there so we don't know what really goes on.

And thank you, Spell check.

the whole world is watching

:lool: Big Brother. No but seriously, you don't believe the government is that involved, do you? I mean sure the government is way too involved in our every day lives, but I doubt the government has that kind of control on what the media says. The media is a thorn in many aspects of the government's every day life, especially militaristic. The military would be a lot better off if the media would butt out of militaristic happenings.

how on earth could the military be better off without the media?

Are you fucking stupid?

no! i think we feel pressured to help the rest of the world. honestly though, we have just as much problems as they do. although we should help them, we need to fix our own problems first. such as the economy, jobs, new orleans, etc. it's not our job to bandage the rset of the world, some countries need to help themselves, and although that may be hard, it's more admirable than being dependent on another that has just as much problems

many* "just as many problems*

we gotta see whats going on with the world because thats whats real on the streets right now. military bases around the world are very necessary because if we are out of sight we are out of mind. and we do it for the lulz

well i suppose the UN are the world police... but if the US for instance decides to invade Iraq anyway, they dont do shit. I don't think it really matters if the US should or shouldnt police the world. any nation will "police" the world if they have something to gain from it. all the good poloticians end up like JFK. the only way to survive is to lower yourself to your enemies' level until your moral compass leads straight to hell

How was JFK better than all the rest? As far as I'm concerned, he won more based on his charisma and looks over ability to rule the country. That's not to say he was bad, but he certainly wasn't a Roosevelt or Lincoln.

lincoln got shot too, there ya go

What the fuck? How does that make JFK better?

holy shit I clik on yo f**kin link

No... I agree with Steve, he have a lot of bullshit problems in our very own government alone. Our politicians have failed the American people with their ridiculous acts =\

We won't be sayin that when Haiti's economy becomes better than the U.S. economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCrovnNGdSg

That's how Steven, that's how. lol.

On topic: America is just the new gunslinging kid on the street trying too hard using any and every resource available.

You must have missed the part where they found no weapons of mass destruction which was one of our sole reasons for invading Iraq. Personally I think oil rights was the real reason. And there's a book I'd like to suggest to you. It's called Killing Hope by William Blum. Normally I don't take the word of just one person but 56 pages of footnotes with documented facts to back them up is hard to refute. According to this book America gave $10 million a year to Afghanistan for decades. And look what they did to us. WE ARE THE ONES PROVIDING THESE WEAPONS IN THE FIRST PLACE. There are many other things in that book on the CIA and U.S. foreign policy that would make you cringe. You know that Van Halen video "Right Now"? In one part of it, it says "right now your country is doing things you think only other countries do." There's truth in that statement.

We don't liberate anybody unless they have something we want. The appalling lack of action in Somalia is proof of that. Look at all the bombings and strife in Ireland. It's been going on for centuries. Why aren't we liberating them?