World Police

After reading the reply's in the fort hood thread I have a question.....What do the people on this forum think about the United States Govt role in foreign matters. Should we play a role in policing the world or should we sit back and wait for an attack before we react. Is it our responsibility to try and keep Iran from gaining Atomic weapons? Should we allow North Korea to build a nuclear arsenal without stepping in... Or should we get involved in countries that are run by dictators that commit genocide. What do you guys think we should be doing?

I wouldn't just immediately retreat from the world scene since that would leave a power vacuum that would likely have all kinds of nasty consequences. I would, however, begin a turnaround in foreign policy to a more non-interventionist role that would leave other parts of the world to manage their own affairs and solve their own problems.

That said, we'd still need to look after our own world interests, but we would do so more like China does today. Instead of actively and recklessly inserting ourselves into every regional problem thinking that we have the answers, we would, as Washington advocated in his farewell address, avoid unnecessary foreign entanglements.

I agree with Pete on this. One thing I think gets overlooked on foreign affairs is how our policies, the aid sent to certain nations, the trade agreements, all have HUGE impacts that lead up to war(s). Nations don't just attack each other out of the blue, there are many factors that build up the call to arms. Giving certain nations 'favored status' in regards to trade creates enemies from day one. So does giving billions in aid to one nation while imposing an embargo on another.

We should NOT being in the role of World Police. Iran is going to have, if it doesn't already have, nukes despite the negotiations, embargoes, sanctions, threats. So, at the end of the day what have we accomplished with all these tactics? I mean besides waste millions of dollars and create millions of enemies. Same goes for North Korea, did all the sanctions and threats do a damn but of good? As for preventing genocide; what have we done to stop it on the African continent? Do we only care about genocide when there is supposed American interests in play? Which is again, picking and choosing when we wish to be the 'Defenders of Democracy' and when we choose to let the UN 'lead'. George Washington's foreign policies would be wise to be the FP of today.

I have to read these few posts several times to take everything in, and I really don't think I can add anything more to what's been said.