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."