Is it normal that america should be the world's policeman?

26% Normal
9 Comments

I'm an American that works daily with people from all over the world. My observation is that a large portion of non-Americans think America should butt out of other country's business and not fight every country's wars. But it also seems that when THEIR country is threatened, they feel America should step in and spend a disproportionate share of the military costs and have more of our soldiers killed than theirs.

America could easily support its own needs for oil, natural gas, food, infrastructure and other staples of life. We don't really need to be fighting year after year in oil producing countries. I'm not saying we should be isolationist, but to draw back a bit.

Instead of spending hundreds of billions on military infrastructure to fight every country's battle, we could direct more spending toward ultra-high tech defensive and reactive-offensive capabilities. Our goal would be to be able to obliterate any enemy that attacks us directly, and still be able to SUPPORT allies when they are threatened and THEY are leading the battle with a fully engaged force. We could redirect the saved defense spending toward our own social programs, non-military aid to deserving countries and income tax reductions.

Vote "Yes" if you think America should continue to be the world's policeman and fight every country's wars. Vote "No" if you think America should pull back from foreign wars, focus more on homeland security and spend more on our own social issues. State if you're American, or not, in your comments.

Voting Results
26% Normal
Based on 34 votes (9 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 9 )
  • wistfulmaiden
    9 years ago

    I'm American and I think we should mind our own business. I also think the best way to " fight terror" is not not let every foreigner in here so easily.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    5
    5
      -
    • pixie44
      9 years ago

      By not letting every foreigner in here so easily do you mean securing the borders? Because the whole getting your green card and becoming a citizen process isn't easy and takes a lot of time and money and takes over a year.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • thegypsysailor
    9 years ago

    We should contribute (as should every country) our fair share to the United Nations and every country should disband it own military machine.
    Only the UN should control the military might and no individual country should have the ability or right to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.
    Got trouble with IS (ISIS), the assemble an international force under the umbrella of the UN and eradicate the group.
    Neat, sweat and petite; not 10 years of Military occupation.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      9 years ago

      Would that have similarities to Bill Gates' "one world government" idea?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • BlueReverence
    9 years ago

    Actually we rely heavily on resources, services and products from other countries. Due to overpopulation and over consumption, we have to take what we can get.

    It's often wise to participate in others' wars because it gives us political leverage. I scratched your back, so when mine needs scratched, you know what to do. War is all about sustainability btw. When the U.S. spends 60 million to wage war, its because they think its cheaper than what will happen if they don't fight.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • cosmictripster
      9 years ago

      So maybe we should spend money on changing American culture and create a less wasteful economy. If war is what keeps our society stable then it seems like Orwell's 1984 is partially coming true. Idk about you, but I'd rather see a world where we don't keep our society alive by fucking the middle east and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      3
      3
    • Anonymous Post Author
      9 years ago

      But the cost of war is much higher than $60 million. The government reports the cost of the Iraq/Afganistan war is $1.6 TRILLION! Other watchdog agencies say the number is closer to $4-6 TRILLION! Staggering numbers!

      The U.S. is a net exporter of all energy sources combined (crude oil, refined oil products, natural gas, electricity, etc.).

      We import significantly more oil from Canada than all of the Middle East, combined. The U.S. is close to becoming a net oil exporter, anyway. And that is with strict drilling and export restrictions in place. Lift those restrictions and the US does not need to import oil. Lift the restriction and modestly reduce consumption and the U.S. is totally oil independent for a long long time.

      I agree that the U.S. does need to import some products. That's why I didn't suggest we become isolationist. But waging war isn't needed to get those products. And again, becoming less wasteful and less consumption oriented will get us close to a net exporter of all products.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • theseeker
    9 years ago

    I'm an American. I love this country, but I hate the people in charge. Wars come down to mostly one thing, MONEY! You're wrong, America can not support its own needs for resources. That's the real reason why we're still at war right now!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      9 years ago

      See my reply to comictripster. I said we could be self-reliant for staple of life, not every product we think we want. If the US scaled back its wastefulness and over-consumption, we could easily become a net exporter. This would give us the ability to barter for goods without waging war.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1