The World's Police Man

Is the world better off with or without America as her police man?

(FYI, this is a somewhat serious poll, given that my third option isn't something stupid like I Heart Cheese)

Imo, better off. We have enough problems of our own to deal with, and our money would be better-spent here. Let the rest of the world handle their own problems. All we are accomplishing is to gain anger from other countries, and rightfully so.

obvious Child said:

Is the world better off with or without America as her police man?

Click to expand...

There will always be "a policeman for the world." I'd just as soon it was us, thank you.

MaggieD said:

There will always be "a policeman for the world." I'd just as soon it was us, thank you.

Click to expand...

Imagine Russia playing the world's police.

I cannot see how the world would be better. Or imagine if there was no one. Kind of reminds me of the European conflicts between each other and how they essentially raped (figurative and literally) the rest of the world.

As messed up as the Good Ol' US is, we're still I think, a force for good and I'd rather have us than anyone else.

Not sure, but don't believe we should be. Was discussing his with a young soldier today, and he mention how a parent shouldn't threaten a child if he's not going to act. In his comparison the US was the parent and Syria was the child. I told him he had it wrong. What if both were adults. What if I told you what you could and couldn't do, throwing out ultimatums?

He said he think about hat, but in a sense that's the trouble with the policeman analogy. What's the authority appointing us a police? I think we're not seeing the real relationship.

There will be times where America HAS to intervene with foreign issues... However occurrences such as that need to be very RARE and the P.O.S./Senate need to think through ALL of the ramifications of intervention before moving forward.

The Syria conflict is like America sticking a hand into a beehive. The only props I can give to Obama is that he went to Congress.

Because I believe that absent the USA as the world police, there would either be no one or a bad one, I'd say better off. That doesn't mean I'd support us intervening everywhere but that there are certain times I'd support it and recognize that if we don't no one will.

Jason Chaffetz from Utah is another Rank Paul I just saw on MSNBC who is playing politics on foreign policy, not like MSNBC compared to ... ^^^^Constituents. They don't see intel. This is ****ing bull**** and plays right into Putin's and ASSad's hands. We don't have 300 million CNCs nor 535.

Unfortunate wording of the poll. Had it said "is the USA better off", I would have voted in the opposite direction

well the question is...is the world better off, of coarse it is becuase the u.s. is laying out the money for the expenses, and using American bodies to solve other nations problems.

Despite the endless crises that pervade the world, in reality we are living in the most peaceful time in world history, ever. In fact a term exists called the "Pax Americana."

In WWI some 15 million were killed. In WWII some 50 million were killed. Since America became the most powerful democracy in the world there have been many conflicts, but none have approached such figures.

I think the costs are obvious, though. It's a money drain to be the sole remaining superpower, and we end up angering a lot of countries. If we weren't the world police, conflicts might spiral out of control and cost millions of lives. However, WWI and WWII are amongst the most noble causes to have fought for, as opposed to these controversial small wars we deal with now.

It's a double-edged sword being on top.