Do you think it's necessary for America to police so much of the world?

International agenda is very important
yes, both areas are interrelated and they need to taken care of in equal proportion
it is appropriate until a war begins, then it turns against the U.S.
:s

Polly Math, I think we need to put our nose back in our own business and live others to their own.

No, I don’t think it’s necessary, nor is it wanted in many parts of the world. The bad thing about that is that American citizens really don’t have a say in the matter. Domestic and foreign policies are indeed interrelated. Therefore, if a country asks us in, then it is appropriate. But, if we push our way in because of our own national security interests and/or without that country’s invitation, either overtly or covertly, it is completely inappropriate.

On this issue I am inclined to side with Ron Paul. We are wasting far too much of our resources in two undeclared wars which just keep dragging on.

Apparently Vietnam’s lessons have been short-lived.

Yankees go home is I think an apt statement to make!

I think “policing” is in the eye of the beholder (or policed). I think there are always going to be personal interests for a country to be “policing” the rest of the world. I do believe the policing runs side by side with overseeing its domestic agenda because, like it or not, we are all affected economically and politically by world events and the world’s economies.

The extent of the appropriateness of America’s involvement in the world’s affairs purely depends on your point of view, in my opinion ie if you have something to gain by siding with America’s involvement, or if you have something to lose by it

An entire disproportionate budget of our resources have been allotted towards an unnecessary display of force which is really just a continuation of antiquated notions. Ronald Reagan was responsible for the resurgence and rebuilding of the military complex to astronomical proportions. Our nuclear arsenal alone could destroy every man woman and living thing on this planet many times over and is akin to a 500 pound bottle rocket at the backyard barbecue on the 4th of July. It is unnecessary and ridiculous in proportion.

The basis of the military complex’s origins was the fear of attack by an outside force. Eisenhower’s famous speech echoed this:
“A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. ”
The establishment of this has been secured and our position in the world’s arena is clear. But the complex has now become a beast of immense proportions whose basis it is is to support certain industries who not only benefit from government funds but also export this technology worldwide. Wars and genocide are carried out daily throughout the globe with our own “weapons of mass destruction”.
Clinton tried to get spending in line with fiscal responsibility to great success balancing the budget and creating a surplus. Revisionists would like to say this was the basis of our being attacked by terrorists in the Middle East and later by terrorists on our own soil. This is laughable and history has shown the folly of this thinking.
For example we have been attacked on two separate occasions, 9/11/2001 and 12/7/1941 and way back in the 18th century by England. We have had a significant military establishment on both former occasions but nothing could have prevented these attacks except better intelligence. And in the latter, we were able to hold off a far superior military force by the intelligent use of “terrorist/guerilla” tactics and the will of patriots alone. Patriots who were defending vital and self evident principles.

Vietnam has shown this also. The resolve of the people throughout years of onslaught by a generally better equipped force proved nothing. And the escalation at the hands of Nixon through “carpet bombing” 24 hours a day only cemented their resolve and resentment. And where is the horror of Vietnam today? Today they have a successful socialist driven market economy.

A well equipped and tactical force on the shores of our nation, a vast network of intelligence throughout the world is all that is necessary. The stationing of hundreds of thousand s of troops throughout the world is a drain on resources which could be better served to strengthen our own economy, retool, industry to make us competitive with Japan, China and the European Union. And perhaps most importantly use these billions to stand at the vanguard of cutting edge technologies, energy sources and sustainable agriculture practices. All of which would attract the best scientific and intellectual minds to our shores.

We will never stop acts of terrorism through force alone. This can only come about through attractive alternatives to fundamentalist ideologies which respect others throughout the world and especially in the Third World.

Absolutely N O T !! We have a lot of problems right here in the good ole USA that need to be delt with rather than sticking our noses in other countries business .

What if one or a couple of them did not approve of the way we do something ; how would the US react if another country came over and was trying to FORCE us to change outr ways ?

Take care of out OWN; then ..worry about everyone else…. UNLESS there is an immediate threat to our health ‘n safety .

It depends. Terror camps produced people who flew airplanes into skyscrapers. Should they remain open for business?

@HighShaman : Agreed. We only get away with unnecessary ‘policing’ because supposedly, we’re one of the biggest and baddest kids on the block and no one in their right mind would want to pick a fight with us or make us angry, right? Why does our government feel obligated to clean up the world’s messes when the most of the world resents us or berates us for doing so? Why, because it’s sad and even a little bit pathetic that our government uses ‘protecting our interests’ as the frequent rationality for breaking the Geneva convention or invading another country when the actual reasons we do so are probably ‘oil’ or something even less altruistic than that. I also agree that terrorists should be dealt with, but if the rest of the world isn’t also committed to helping in such a police action it quickly becomes obvious that our prime consideration should be on our own home front and on our own domestic issues rather than on another continent where our limited resources will be squandered needlessly.

No. Freedom is declining in much of the world because of America’s bully tactics—from the former secret Swiss Banking industry, to insane drug regulation around the world…