UtahBill

Speak softly and carry a big stick? World policeman? Supplier of welfare to the third world? Shining beacon on the hill? Stay home and let the rest of the world take care of itself? Dumping ground for the world's refugees?
IMHO, we should do a lot less of all the things we are doing, and when someone needs our help, it should be done proportionate to how well they treat us. Enemies need not apply for aid of any sort.
But I am open to other opinions. I am hoping for some good responses from other nations here.

__________________
The Age of Reason doesn't have to be a thing of the past.
Being judgemental is the prime directive of some evangelicals.
No success can compensate for failure in the home.

Iriemon

We should act as an example of a just democratic society that recognizes human rights and freedoms of all persons.

We should be a good member of the international community, which doesn't mean going along with world consensus only when it is in our perceived interest and ignoring it when we think it is not.

As the richest nation, we should be generous with our assistance to needy nations -- not just focusing on countries that we think are in our strategic interest.

We should be a free and fair trading partner, though that does not mean putting up with nations that are not playing fairly.

We should promote democracy and human rights, while respecting the sovereignty of other nations.

We should strive to be the shining city on the hill.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Diuretic

The US should look after its self-interest, as should any other country. The problem is how is "self-interest" to be defined? It could justify policies ranging from imperialism to isolationism. Not much of an answer I know.

Lachean

I think our role should be:

• International hub of culture, media and cuisine. A rich melting pot of diversity, living in capitalistic harmony, only dealing with each other by means of trade and not force.
• The "shining city on the hill" in terms of our virtues and standards. A geopolitical beacon for liberty and trade, always standing against tyranny and communism.
• World leaders in biotech research, engineering and most importantly, humanitarian aid.

What I think we shouldn't be:

• World police, nation builders, or pre-emptive war makers.
• An imperialistic, conquering and economically exploitive force.
• Unfair trade partner, with subsidies and other trade barriers.

__________________
"The original, and still the best!" - Grifter

Red_Dave

World Policeman: Both illegal and unconsitutional. The U.S endorced the UN as being incharge of Global security when it signed up to the charter of the united nations. Consitutionally any treaty the U.S signs becomes part of U.S law and the charter of the united nations is one such treaty. The basis of the charter of the united nations is using unilateralism to bring about global security. I would be in favor of america fufilling this ideal by using its military weight to back the U.N in its legal role as global policemen [as oposse to visa versa]. I think its done this with some sucess in places like Rwanda and Kosovo.

Supplier of welfare to the third world?: If you mean provideing aid for developing countrys then aid is not wealfare and isnt supossed to be. The aid we give to third world is not supposed to be a hand out. Its supossed to be a reparation for the way in which developing countrys lose out from global trade [see hans singer]. What actually happens though is that aid is used as a means of controling third world countrys.

For example if your incharge of an african country were there is a water shortage then a sensible responce is to nationalise your water industry and put pump money into it so that water can go to those who desperately need it and/or wouldnt be able to afford it in other circumstances. What actually happens in many circumstances is that when a given country will try to do this the I.M.F/World Bank will say its spending to much and threaten to withold the countrys aid and it doesnt comply. This has obvious negative concequences. I would be happy for america to provide aid that actually fufills its origional purpose provided this is done without fueling couruption.

Stay home and let the rest of the world take care of itself?:I dont think america can practically have an isolationalist role given the amount of influence it has

nkgupta80

usa should look after its own interests (as it and every country always has). However, looking after your own interests does not mean you turn a blind eye to the interests of other countries. In a global world, maintaining diplomatic and economic ties with other countries is beneficial to the individual country.

What should eventually happen (and is happening) is that globalism would tie the interests of various countries and its people together. INdia/China and US relationships is a good example.

GySgt

Yep. Except the "shining beacon on the hill" is more for Americans who need that illusion to feel good about themselves and their lifestyles.


With the absence of the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister, who normally cast the nulliying vote against the West, and the not-yet-membered representative from China to stand in the way, the Security Council of the UN gave the US carte blanche to take whatever actions it deemed necessary in regards to Korea. The result was Truman's Police Action. This would set the precedence for the future.

The Security Council of the UN didn't have much to say throughout the Cold War as the US acted as the body guard of free nations against the Soviet Union. But today, people wish to reflect on America as if it is off on its own self serving mission of illegality? We are very much the legal cop on duty in this world and this is exactly what your kind wanted and needed. It serves two purposes.....your secure and we get the blame.



And what a wonderful job it has done. Visions of lightly colored blue helmets clashing against communism for forty years seem to escape me. And it only took 4 years of slaughter and rape to decide that Darfur is something they might want to look into. Maybe the U.S. made a mistake all these decades. Maybe the Soviets should have been under the gun by the UN instead of the U.S. You may want to check out the history. The UN has never been a force for global security and always relied on the U.S. to do the dirty work. Even in events like Somalia we see an American President forcing the UN to "allow" military involvement to protect humanitarian shipments with American forces directing the mission. Over the years, it has become merely an institution for dictators scrambling about to protect their areas of interests as they cast votes against humane action or against fellow dictators.

The global mistake shared by people all over is that they think the US works for the UN after all these years.

Sure it could. I'd love to see the world reaction. Maybe there's a world war in it.

Careful. This is how dictators wind up getting supported. "Exhaust every angle of diplomacy before military action" means hugging the enemy. And this is how criticism and blame gets cast after the threat is gone. It's only a matter of time before our business deals with China becomes something for criticism for people who wish to claim that what ever China does to its people, America "supports" it.

__________________

GySgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

Infinite Chaos

As RedDave pointed out - this would be illegal.

More than this, a "policeman" is a term open to all sorts of interpretation. . I'm going to go for a idealistic interpretation and say a true Global policeman wouldn't pick and choose which conflicts and problems it takes on dependent upon what self interest dictates. GySgt is a little one-sided in his views on the U.N. - most Americans hate it and feel it's a waste of U.S. taxpayers dollars but would any U.S. President ever throw it out and risk it being based in a far more neutral country or worse still, having it based on enemy soil?

There is no charter or American amendment that says it must house the U.N. - it's there because it's easier to control the U.N. from U.S. soil. Why else would it have stayed on U.S. soil for so long???

Further, the old U.S.S.R. isn't the only recorded stumbling block to U.N. solutions to world problems - the American veto has similarly been used when the U.N. could have acted - or even simply on issues to do with Israel. In fact, since Dr Veto's time - the U.S. has been the most frequent user of the Security Council veto power, so let's not paint China wrongly shall we?

United Nations Security Council veto power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are many misunderstandings of why welfare is given, too many to refute here but money = power. Giving welfare is cheaper and more palatable than stationing military bases in every country on the planet.

U.S. welfare is like any other country (apart from the Scandinavian ones) giving aid - it always costs more to the receiver's peoples than we are informed. This, like the "Global Policeman" is something the U.S. does purely for self-interest.

Would that this could be true. Is the U.S. a democracy or a republic? That is not clear to me yet - it's not an Athenian Democracy (direct democracy) and is the U.S truly an equal or just society? No other country is a truly "equal or just" yet (meaning all citizens have the same rights and care before the law) - certainly from an outside the U.S. perspective there are many things we do not want and there are many Americans like T.O.T here would say "we don't give a **** what the world thinks anyway"

The one I would vote for first - many might say, where would Europe be if the U.S. had stayed out of WW1 and WW2 then - which is nearly the perfect response. In WW2, the U.S. would have been dragged in by Japan's attack so that is moot. (I've read some theories that the U.S. knew of the proposed attack anyway and let it happen)

However, the way the U.S. intervenes now is now equal and even handed. Why uproot one dictator (Iraq etc) and let another (Zimbabwe) thumb his nose at the world? Again, self interest. If Zimbabwe discovered oil the storye might be quite different.

It like to think it is but it isn't.

U.N. figures showed that the last recorded year, Pakistan followed by Sudan and Chad were the highest intakers of refugees in the world. Right now the best source for stats is the U.N HCR

UNHCR - The State of the World's Refugees 2006 - Chapter 7 Internally displaced persons: Introduction

And at least that would be an honest way of doing things. The current U.S. tactics are based in some measure on self interest and the machinations are at best unclear and at worst destructive. (There is no cold war but some old habits die hard)

aegyptos

I admire our old foreign policy of non-intervention and neutrality. Imagine if the US had stayed home in 1917. Would there even have been a WW2 for us to get involved in? Would there ever have been a Soviet Union for that matter?

Infinite Chaos

Interesting question - I would say yes. There would have been (maybe later than it happened) a U.S.S.R.

Remember that Japan was also engaged in other activities on the Chinese mainland and its own ambitions possibly would have led to a conflict with the U.S. anyway - possibly when Japan invaded the American colony of the Philippines in its own ambitions in the lower Pacific.

However, we are getting into conjecture.