Quantcast

Should the United States be the policeman of the WORLD??!!

BlueRepublican 2012/08/05 19:10:59
You!
Add Photos & Videos
It's a very expensive endeavor we have taken upon ourselves. It takes a lot of taxpayer money to keep this operation going. Someone's gotta pay for all those military bases overseas protecting the sovereignty of our allies. Making sure that THEIR people are protected from enemy threats.
bases
Furthermore, it takes BILLIONS of taxpayer foreign aid every year to keep everything running seamlessly. Paying off dictators and kings is definitely cheaper than overthrowing their govt, but much more expensive in the long run. Special contracts for them and unfair trading deals for us keeps the relationships stable.

What's really bad is when we have to borrow money to fund these wars/conflicts. Then on top of paying for the war, we have to pay back the interest on the DEBT. And after the mission is complete, we STILL have to rebuild/reconstruct the entire country/region which costs even MORE money, and of course, add them to the list of international welfare, I mean, American taxpayer foreign Aid recipients.hot

I know that someone has to police the world. The world could not run without someone interfering in the affairs of others. Someone has to pick sides during civil wars and enact war-time laws on citizens during peacetime. Someone's soldiers have to go out and fight and die for 'strategic interests', whatever that means (maybe oil, dunno?).
awp
So, my question is, does it have to be us? Maybe if we didn't, then we would not have to spend 25% of our annual budget on military/defense spending. Maybe then, some of that money can go to education (6%), veterans benefits (3%), or go towards paying down the interest on our debt (7%).

What do you think? I want you to join the discussion and vote right now, leave me a comment, reply, share with all your friends, and RAVE!!!!
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • trentinafur 2012/08/05 21:24:21
    NO, tell me why
    trentinafur
    +7
    World police? No.

    Playing a major global role to ensure our allies are safe from attack - and to ensure our interests (and the interests of our close allies) are not stepped on - yes.

    Other major powers on the globe will step into any vacuum created by U.S. absence from the world stage....to our detriment, and the detriment of our allies.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • cjj ~ FTGOP 2012/08/05 20:18:17
    NO, tell me why
    cjj ~ FTGOP
    +1
    With the increase in problems throughout the globe there is NO way we can continue policing the world. The time to wean off this is NOW! We have a POTUS who is attempting to get others to step up to the plate when the issue is in their interest. I, for one, plan on doing my utmost to keep him in the WH.
  • Theresa cjj ~ F... 2012/08/05 21:03:58
    Theresa
    +1
    Are you for real? He delights in seeing Drone attacks on people! This is not a pacifist Chief executive!
  • cjj ~ F... Theresa 2012/08/05 21:06:41
    cjj ~ FTGOP
    No, I am a figment of your imagination.

    First rate stupid question.

    Whoever suggested he was a pacifist? Oh, that would be you.
  • Theresa cjj ~ F... 2012/08/05 21:08:26
    Theresa
    Your statement about the Usurper was one which lead me to believe that was your intention. Please re read your statement.
  • cjj ~ F... Theresa 2012/08/05 21:21:14
    cjj ~ FTGOP
    Now it is your turn...

    Exactly how does, "We have a POTUS who is attempting to get others to step up to the plate when the issue is in their interest." translate into "pacifist" ? You gotta go here because it is one helluva stretch.

    It doesn't translate as such except in your mind but I understand. See, I deal with people like you every day. I also am from AZ and listen to the right wing agenda pushed on me DAILY through our over-reaching Governor Jan Batsh!t and kooky legislators who think it is OK to knock a girlfriend around in public then claim "legislative immunity" to keep their ass out of the jail where the girlfriend is headed. OR ask the taxpayers to refund their recall election expenses. OR sell the Capitol Building and suggest the taxpayers buy it back at a $3 million dollar hike. OR flip the bird at Obama on everything including his energy plans when AZ is clearly making good on wind and solar which Romney wants to defund.

    Need I continue?
  • Theresa cjj ~ F... 2012/08/05 21:25:30
    Theresa
    +2
    Every wind or solar system out there is a scam. They lose money. The large wind and Solar farms are not economical Why should we pay for them? The only time solar or Wind is economical is when it is close to the consumer. IE attached to the house! This is why subsidies do not work! That is also why they need to be eliminated.
  • Theresa Theresa 2012/08/05 21:27:27
    Theresa
    +1
    Unfortunately all legislators and congress people can commit any crime and be covered by privilege, Only when they become an ex member can any crime be adjudicated.
  • cjj ~ F... Theresa 2012/08/05 21:47:52
    cjj ~ FTGOP
    You'd best let ol' Jan know that. She's obviously not aware...
    http://www.cleantechlaw.org/2...

    Yeah, and I haven't had an electricity bill for over 20 years because solar doesn't work. HA!

    You keep feeding your $ to Big Bro Energy. I'll keep my solar going and if the grid goes down, I'LL still have power!
  • Theresa cjj ~ F... 2012/08/05 23:12:28
    Theresa
    I did not say solar did not work. I said large scale farms of solar does not work. That is what Romney is railing about!
  • cjj ~ F... Theresa 2012/08/07 05:16:13
    cjj ~ FTGOP
    +1
    ...and Jan.
  • toni Theresa 2012/08/06 22:58:05
    toni
    I agree. Obama is not a pacifist president. The only pacifist president in my lifetime was carter and people weren't too thrilled with him. If he had done a little more saber rattling with Iran he might have been reelected. As for drone attacks, many of the "no" answers to this question have argued that we should put america first. I see prefering drone attacks over soldier attacks as putting american lives first.
    There are quite a few areas where I have issues with obama, but I will be voting for him, doing volunteer work for his election campaign and contributing to his campaign. Why? Because Mitt Romney or any of the other politicians who tried to get the republican nomination, being president is absolutely horrifying.
  • Allbiz - PWCM - JLA 2012/08/05 20:18:13 (edited)
    NO, tell me why
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    +2
    We have been doing this since harry Truman imbedded us into the affairs of the Koreans. And then JFK continued the policy when he determined that the Vietnamese could not resolve their problems without our "advice". And of course, Jimmy Carter decided it was "the right thing to do" to support the murderous tyrant in Iran.

    It's a "democrat thing".
  • ALofRI 2012/08/05 20:08:47
    NO, tell me why
    ALofRI
    +1
    We spend nearly twice as much as the next 7 countries PUT TOGETHER! That includes China and Russia and Iran and Israel, etc.etc. Half of the world judt figures THEY don't have to spend much because WE'LL take care of them, and/or WE will buy the weapons they develop FROM THEM so THEY make a profit. Time THEY shared the cost more evenly!
  • Odinsown 2012/08/05 20:07:50
    NO, tell me why
    Odinsown
    +1
    It is not our national responsibility to make sure the entire world lives up to the "american dream" especially since we can't live up to it in our own borders.
  • rustyshackelford 2012/08/05 19:49:04
  • holly go lightly 2012/08/05 19:38:02
    NO, tell me why
    holly go lightly
    +2
    It is more expensive than what it is costing in cash. It is costing us our morals and our safety. Not to mention our Liberty and level headedness.We are becoming another "lost generation."
  • John "By God" American 2012/08/05 19:36:30
    NO, tell me why
    John "By God" American
    +3
    It's not the job of a morally bankrupt country...
  • holly g... John "B... 2012/08/05 19:38:45
    holly go lightly
    +2
    Bingo!
  • Maddog 2012/08/05 19:36:07 (edited)
    NO, tell me why
    Maddog
    +3
    In my opinion the only valid use for U.S. military might is the defense of the Continental United States against foreign invasion, such as that occurring on our southern border. Lard-assed politicians have no business sending young men and women to die in exotic lands for dubious political and economic gain!

    There are many countries whose economies are flourishing, but for whom the U.S. still provides a security umbrella. Let these countries foot the bill for their own defense and bring U.S. forces home. This would do much to diminish our ballooning budget deficits.
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/08/05 19:36:07
    NO, tell me why
    Lady Whitewolf
    +4
    No. Bring ALL our people home and immediately END ALL foreign aid.
  • lee 2012/08/05 19:34:08
    NO, tell me why
    lee
    +2
    because it backfires on us all too often.
  • Tasine 2012/08/05 19:33:23
    Undecided
    Tasine
    +2
    Only if the rest of the world participates by paying us for our protection of them - and only if the people of the nation being protected assists in that protection.

    Even then, I don't believe we should be policing the world, losing soldiers for other nations' benefit just because. We are the only nation that COULD be the world's police force, but in actual fact, I think every nation should have to protect itself - same principle as of welfare - fighting FOR others makes them even weaker, and loses us fine, brave people.
  • Neutron... Tasine 2012/08/05 19:37:22
    NeutronBomb
    +1
    lol sounds like a protection racket.
  • Tasine Neutron... 2012/08/05 20:04:13
    Tasine
    +2
    IF we fight other people's wars, it should be THEIR expense and sacrifice, NOT ours. Otherwise it is asking us to be the idiots I fear we have become.
  • Neutron... Tasine 2012/08/05 20:24:30
    NeutronBomb
    +2
    Protecting other nations has nothing to do with it, furthering American interests is always behind these decisions anyway. If theres no oil or political advantage to be had no ones interested.
  • marcuss... Neutron... 2012/08/05 20:43:16
    marcuss LIBERALS ARE IDIOTS
    +1
    We have PLENTY of oil right here.

    The most prosperous states with out a deficit are harvesting natural resources. BTW they are Republican controlled states.
  • Neutron... marcuss... 2012/08/05 20:58:31
    NeutronBomb
    The US still depends on foreign energy.
  • Theresa Neutron... 2012/08/05 21:06:40
    Theresa
    +1
    Not really 10 years ago that was true today it is not. However, the petrodollar is what is at stake for all these wars.
  • Neutron... Theresa 2012/08/05 21:14:41
    NeutronBomb
    Well that is true, but I would not say the us is fully self sufficient just yet.
  • Theresa Neutron... 2012/08/05 21:17:03
    Theresa
    +1
    I would just allowing imports from Canada and Mexico we are self sufficient.
  • ConLibFraud 2012/08/05 19:32:40
    NO, tell me why
    ConLibFraud
    +5
    Hell no!!!

    All you that think America should police the world and give foreign aid to other countries are living in denial of the trillions of debt. If every American were taxed 100% it's not enough for the interest!!!!

    If you want to police the world, have war and continue foreign aid ...

    YOU PAY FOR IT OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET!
  • BlueRep... ConLibF... 2012/08/05 19:38:25
    BlueRepublican
    +2
    Glad to hear ya LF :-)
  • ConLibF... BlueRep... 2012/08/05 20:32:45
    ConLibFraud
    +1
    Thanks for all the posts!
  • CHUCK 2012/08/05 19:30:26
    NO, tell me why
    CHUCK
    +1
    WE CAN NOT AFFORD IT ..LOOK WHAT WE NOW HAVE IN THE COUNTRIES THAT WE SPENT MY TAX DOLLAR ON..

    RAIN
  • holly g... CHUCK 2012/08/05 19:40:08
    holly go lightly
    +1
    Perfect point.
  • ed 2012/08/05 19:29:18
    NO, tell me why
    ed
    +5
    every country rich or poor needs to take care of their own country using what ever methods are available to them.
  • historian 2012/08/05 19:28:47
    NO, tell me why
    historian
    +5
    I don't believe one world government is desirable for individuals who wish to live free, with sovereign, diverse Nations and States where the people may choose to live with whatever form of government and society they so choose, with their own religions, financial systems, private property, and so forth. As can be shown through historical example, bigger government is the opposite of liberty and freedom of the individuals living under it, as one group of people gain power over another and then by threat of death, destruction, robbery, etc they force their will on the minority because of an arrogant, superiority complex that labels their opposition "brutal, backwards, ignorant, uncivilized, savage, insane", and the list goes on. The United States acting as the world police is doing the exact thing I described above, removing sovereign states through financial coercion or military destruction in order to force the will of the communist "international community" on others. They excuse this behavior with labels and slogans that rally the arrogance and pride of the mob to support these "police actions" by instilling in their minds images of liberating the oppressed, spreading democracy, spreading "our" values, and so forth. It's unfortunate that the U.S. is barreling down that failed road to world domination so many empires attempted before.
  • explorer1618 2012/08/05 19:28:47
    NO, tell me why
    explorer1618
    +1
    We can not take care of the arwnj's first ! They nothing but home grown terrorist and need to be put down as mad dogs as they are !
  • NeutronBomb 2012/08/05 19:23:14
    NO, tell me why
    NeutronBomb
    +2
    Lets face it, their record of success so far has been pretty poor.
  • CHUCK Neutron... 2012/08/05 19:34:03
    CHUCK
    +1
    U GOT THAT RIGHT..

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/23 21:31:56

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals