Should the US stop getting involved in other countries affairs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Guest
As title states. The US have played policeman since ww2. I'm not partial either way on whether that's good or bad, but with the US having its own problems, should they concentrate on their own country first before policing others? Or on the flipside, is policing the other countries more important, due to preventing future complications?
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Take care of home before you take care of others. It may sound selfish, and it is, but I don't care. Of course there are extremes where intervention is required, thats different...but we don't need to be in EVERY conflict...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Take care of home before you take care of others. It may sound selfish, and it is, but I don't care. Of course there are extremes where intervention is required, thats different...but we don't need to be in EVERY conflict...

I agree. I was hoping there would be a pocket of members who wouldn't agree though, so we could flesh it out. Unfortunately nobody seems to be interested in the one serious thread that I make. :D
 

DeletedUser42621

Guest
the US is the one country capable of maintaining peace worldwide, and therefore it has the obligation to do so.
Without the US trade sanction and military power as a deterrent other countries would continue with nuclear program and invasions of neighbouring countries. If the US hadn't guaranteed Europe in the Cold war then the USSR would have invaded and the spread of communism would have been much more affluent. In order for the US to maintain its international influence it must exercise this influence. When Iraq refused to trade oil in dollars in 2003, the US had to intervene to stop its economy collapsing with the loss of the dollar as world reserve currency. The time when countries were in isolation from all but their closest neighbours has gone, and now the most powerful countries can more easily project their power globally, to promote their own interests and to ensure lasting peace, and nuclear deterrent. ;)

~Taikou
 

DeletedUser

Guest
the US is the one country capable of maintaining peace worldwide, and therefore it has the obligation to do so.
Without the US trade sanction and military power as a deterrent other countries would continue with nuclear program and invasions of neighbouring countries. If the US hadn't guaranteed Europe in the Cold war then the USSR would have invaded and the spread of communism would have been much more affluent. In order for the US to maintain its international influence it must exercise this influence. When Iraq refused to trade oil in dollars in 2003, the US had to intervene to stop its economy collapsing with the loss of the dollar as world reserve currency. The time when countries were in isolation from all but their closest neighbours has gone, and now the most powerful countries can more easily project their power globally, to promote their own interests and to ensure lasting peace, and nuclear deterrent. ;)

~Taikou

Firstly, thanks for such a well thought out response. Whilst I understand where you're coming from, and you've put forward a few decent points as to why the US has been going into other countries, I've bolded out some points where I would like to discuss. I hope you don't mind me exploring them. :)


"one country capable of maintaining peace" - The US is not the only country with the capabilities of maintaining world peace in my opinion. It might have the strongest military, but that doesn't go to say that other countries wouldn't be able to do a similar thing. Above this, the US calls on other countries to join in their affairs in other countries. The UK, New Zealand and Australia also went to Iraq at a moments notice for the US, with no personal gain for any of them. Saying the US has done all of this on it's own is like saying they won WW2 on their own. It's a joint effort by lots of parties. Anywho back on to the quote. China could probably maintain world peace. Why doesn't it seem like it? Well, it's not the kind of world peace that the US would like. Their world peace looks a lot different to our world peace.

"Therefore it has the obligation to do so" - Again, I must disagree. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. There is no obligation at all. That is a mask that the government has given the situation to make it sound more friendly on the US's behalf. The US is going into these countries because they want to, not because they have to. Granted, they might (and I'm sure they do) have the best intentions, there is no obligation at all.

"Using the military as a deterrent" - This is pretty much what it boils down to. The military IS a deterrent. It's pretty much saying "If you don't do what we say, we have the ability to force it." Not a nice message. Again granted, it might be the most effective way to solve any issues, but it's not exactly setting a good example. Future issues between countries may go straight into "military mode" because that's the example that the US has set.

"Other countries would continue nuclear programs and invading surrounding countries" - But don't you see? That's exactly what the US is doing too. They have a nuclear program, they invade other countries too. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and so on! North Korea has a nuclear plan, and I don't see the US going there. There's a reason they choose certain countries to 'help'.

"In order for the US to maintain its international influence it must exercise this influence." - I feel that this is the most important statement in your post. I can see the logic behind it, but it really is the tactic of the bully. On Monday, the bully takes the lunch money, on Tuesday, and Wednesday they do the same. On Thursday they forgot too, but on Friday they remembered and did it again. On Thursday, did everyone forget who the bully was? No. Nobody is going to forget that the US is able to intervene an issue.

"the US had to intervene to stop its economy collapsing" - Soooo this is about the US protecting itself, and not about the good of another country....

Please don't take any of this to heart, I'm trying to make a good thread. :)

Also, you didn't really answer the question, which was "Should the US solve their own problems first." :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser19042

Guest
Donkey dee do.
Nice answer kanga. I can't think of anything as a counter argument. lol
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
Thanks Kanga, I think you are wrong though that Taikou didn't answer the question.

You said it yourself,
Kanga said:
"Other countries would continue nuclear programs and invading surrounding countries" - But don't you see? That's exactly what the US is doing too. They have a nuclear program, they invade other countries too. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and so on! North Korea has a nuclear plan, and I don't see the US going there. There's a reason they choose certain countries to 'help'.
And
Kanga said:
"the US had to intervene to stop its economy collapsing" - Soooo this is about the US protecting itself, and not about the good of another country....
The US is already concentrating on their own problems and welfare when intervening in other countries' affairs. These are not mutually exclusive, but (in the way the US chooses to do them) the same thing.
 

DeletedUser42621

Guest
Please don't take any of this to heart, I'm trying to make a good thread. :)

Also, you didn't really answer the question, which was "Should the US solve their own problems first." :D

Hey, i'm not american so no worries-just an interested bystander...
atm, america should probably focus on own economic issues, ie massive debt ect, however, i still believe that as the worlds most powerful country it should be "intervening" in all international affairs, and placing them at least secondary importance. to stay out of something altogether would be wrong.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Thanks Kanga, I think you are wrong though that Taikou didn't answer the question.

You said it yourself,

And

The US is already concentrating on their own problems and welfare when intervening in other countries' affairs. These are not mutually exclusive, but (in the way the US chooses to do them) the same thing.

I see what you mean... By doing what they're doing it's also helping themselves in a round-about way... Maybe not the most orthodox way of doing things, but still. :S

Hey, i'm not american so no worries-just an interested bystander...
atm, america should probably focus on own economic issues, ie massive debt ect, however, i still believe that as the worlds most powerful country it should be "intervening" in all international affairs, and placing them at least secondary importance. to stay out of something altogether would be wrong.

Fair call. :) I kinda agree, but I think pebble said it best when he said to intervene in the absolutely necessary. Needless to say these 'military outings' are expensive to fund.
 

DeletedUser42621

Guest
as sirloin said; the military outings and taking care of internal problems are not mutually exclusive...if you hadn't gone into Iraq then you may have lost world reserve currency, which would have destroyed your economy. At the very least, oil imports would have cost more, as it is, you invaded, sorted the problem and took $17.5 billion worth of oil back home.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
as sirloin said; the military outings and taking care of internal problems are not mutually exclusive...if you hadn't gone into Iraq then you may have lost world reserve currency, which would have destroyed your economy. At the very least, oil imports would have cost more, as it is, you invaded, sorted the problem and took $17.5 billion worth of oil back home.
A spoil of war to pay for the intervention of the US is this right?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
But clearly they didn't solve anything for themselves. During the time that Bush spent in Iraq, the deficit jumped ridiculously higher than it previously was. No amount of oil was ever going to surplus on that kind of spending.
 

DeletedUser42621

Guest
If the dollar had lost its status as world reserve currency then the economy would have been in a much worse state than it was because of Iraq. The economy was also greatly harmed by the middle eastern oil embargo in 1967 which is why people bend rules and abuse influence to get it.

A spoil of war to pay for the intervention of the US is this right?

Its undoubtedly wrong but they did also overthrow sadam hussein, and his regime was certainly the greater evil.

"one country capable of maintaining peace" - The US is not the only country with the capabilities of maintaining world peace in my opinion.

Lets explore the other candidates:

China has a strong military but I don't think it has the administrative, logistical or supply line base to project this power on a global level. Furthermore, they have considerably less allies than US, and are not in a particularly powerful military alliance, in contrast to the US in NATO.
I wasn't happy about the UK going into Iraq, and a lot of people weren't. In a sense this supports my view. No one but the US has the influence to make so many support them in war. I highly doubt the UK would follow anyone else into war so readily, except possibly the whole of the EU.

The EU member states foreign policies are to divided and their economies are to different for them to be global superpower. In addition their military is far inferior to the US.

Russia has the worlds largest military (in personnel), but lacks the infrastructure or economy to deal with global events.

This has been a really fun debate so far lets keep it alive!!!!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser23986

Guest
But clearly they didn't solve anything for themselves. During the time that Bush spent in Iraq, the deficit jumped ridiculously higher than it previously was. No amount of oil was ever going to surplus on that kind of spending.

But the oil remains the resource of the country, unless US explicitly claims it as their colony. Looting it can't be justified in any way. It doesn't matter if the govt got changed or not, the nation didn't. The people and the nation owned it, not US.

Edit: You shouldn't ask for payment if you want to do social work.
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
Military victories should never be counted in money value alone, especially short term money value. There is inevitably political value for winning a war (and conversely for losing one).

America also controlled which companies had access for "rebuilding" Iraq such that most of the country's wealth and potential is now owned by them. This is the preferred method of imperialism as it is cheaper and easier to spin than military action, and more in line with the free economy model.

The money spent on military action is not all money that would not be spent, or is useless for other purposes. The last figures I could find (2011) for employee numbers counted around 1.5 million US uniformed military personnel, or 2.3 million including National Guard and reserves. The military is great for employment figures, and particularly helps (or targets, depending on your viewpoint) areas with high male unemployment due to heavy industry closures. This can be good for patriotism and political popularity in those areas.

The military also supports the US' own arms industry. Lets be fair here, a love of weaponry is an American stereotype, and whilst that means it is a generalisation it is also a dearly held love by many. Having and equipping a military force to be proud of is supported by and supportive of the American arms industry which is worth $28.7 billion annually in official* exports alone.

There is also the opportunity to deal with personal grudges and slights when someone threatens the President's daddy :x

EDIT: Inserted official* as that figure is from Janes. Other figures I found were substantially higher.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
China has a strong military but I don't think it has the administrative, logistical or supply line base to project this power on a global level. Furthermore, they have considerably less allies than US, and are not in a particularly powerful military alliance, in contrast to the US in NATO.
I wasn't happy about the UK going into Iraq, and a lot of people weren't. In a sense this supports my view. No one but the US has the influence to make so many support them in war. I highly doubt the UK would follow anyone else into war so readily, except possibly the whole of the EU.
!

If the UK started it then a lot of countries would have got involved I think. I mean, we don't have anywhere near the military of the US, but the amount of help we'd have (I'd like to think) would be ridiculously high, not to mention the US would get involved with us and that pretty much covers the invasion. A lot of countries that are allied would also have exactly the same assistance, especially in the EU.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
I a few months ago an argument like this appeared in my alliance council tab (we do work in there sometimes don't judge us) and I forget how it went but I remember it ending with me saying this (purely out of comedy for the record) "silence you Brits your the only country that we leave only so don't give us a reason to change that". The point of this beyond the fact of me being an idiot since most of that alliances council didn't live in Britian is that in this day and age everything country is connected and those that can't be trust to not violate human right or start a nuclear war need to be watch carefully by every country that can afford it. That being said clearly the US can't afford it but we feel that we need to do it anyway. Also I think the British intervene as much as the Americans do but they just don't get caught.

The military also supports the US' own arms industry. Lets be fair here, a love of weaponry is an American stereotype, and whilst that means it is a generalisation it is also a dearly held love by many. Having and equipping a military force to be proud of is supported by and supportive of the American arms industry which is worth $28.7 billion annually in official* exports alone.
I'm being fair when I say this as a proud American. That stereotype is actually pretty accurate lol.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser345

Guest
The problem I have is that I feel the USA has not been getting involved in other countries for justifiable moral reasons but rather that they have been motivated far more by the prospect of oil contracts, wealth and stopping their rivals from exerting their influence. The cynic in me wonders whether the USA would have jumped into Syria as quickly as Libya or Iraq if that natural wealth was there; the human rights aspect in Syria is just as large as what was used to justify the invasion of those other two countries yet the USA has held back. Personally I feel they should instead commit resources to the U.N. who should be allowed to choose an action based upon the right thing to do without regard to what might further one particular nation. Just like with the Hoare-Laval Pact and the League of Nations, the USA is undermining the U.N.'s influence and ability to enact change for the better around the globe.

This is more of an opinion than a logical argument since I haven't the time to go away and find facts to back it up.
 

DeletedUser27621

Guest
The argument that China could maintain world peace is very flawed, firstly they have an economy of a little more than half of ours, with a smaller military. So if we look at pure economic numbers China is roughly half of the U.S. Of course this is not everything, the US has more allies, and more powerful allies.

The US also has more influence on a global scale, with the exception of Eastern Asia (China's metaphorical backyard) the US has much more influence or influence on the people that do for example most of the Americas have huge trade relations with the US. And in Europe, the US affiliation with NATO/EU greatly helps its influence.

Next, the issue that the US should fix its economic problems at home. Let's look at China, yes their economy is growing quickly, but in GDP/Capita it is incredibly low. Also their economy is ridiculously unstable and could very well collapse at any moment. Also the harms of having a moderately large deficit is greatly overstated.

For the UN they have 5 permanent members who can say no to something and it stops. 5 countries who, more often than not, have interests contrary to the others or the good of the world. For example in Syria the UN did not intervene because Russia said no (the syrian government buys russian weapons).

The only issue I see with the US helping to influence "freedom" around the globe is that we are very bad at finishing it. We went into the middle east soon after 9/11, an operation that cost us total about $6,000,000,000,000. And what did we accomplish? about nothing. In fact in Iraq we most likely made the situation worse, Hussein was at least stable.


In short, the US is best for the job, we just suck at it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top