This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should America withdraw as the world "police / peace keepers"?
In 1945, America came out of the war one of the strongest of all of the major participants.
It began to assume the role of a world police/peace keeper promoting it's ideals and political sentiments in an effort to end future conflicts. Of course, there were other competing forces in the world with differing ideas on the world thus creating new conflicts.
70 years later, America spends amounts on it's military that is more then most countries economies. Money that could probably be better spent.
America has based military units per a number of treaties in countries around the world providing host countries with a sense of security and a lower defense budget.
Is it necessary for America to continue this process?
What would be the effect on current world conflicts if America withdraws it's foreign based forces?
Should America honor it's existing treaties or create new accommodations to meet current world political views?
Would America be or feel more secure if it withdraws?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Gail . 50+
I would like America to withdraw from all defense treaties and to withdraw all troops. But what would be the consequence of this?
Our economy would collapse. War is profitable. That's why congress is in such turmoil right now. That's why we're setting up a new base of operations in Australia. Keep the money flowing to the wealthiest who profit most from (and lobby hardest for) war to keep the economy afloat. War is the easiest way to spur the economy, but those in power don't seem to understand that unless that money is spent at home, it doesn't help OUR economy, so wars help Americans less and less while they harm and threaten Americans more and more.
Americans should fix the cancer as opposed to spreading it around the world.
Would America feel more secure if it withdraws. I surely would, but there is a whole political party that would be terrified because they are being told by our government and a certain news channel that they should BE AFRAID - BE VERY AFRAID. Fear is a type of insanity.
Mike Colera 10+
But, pragmatically, would it be tactically beneficial or financially retractable to build what some would call "Fortress America"?
Would other nations who appear to rely on American might to secure their own national interest be appreciative to see American forces depart and be assured they could return in a timely fashion to meet treaty obligations?
Should we have defense treaties?
Is our foreign policy confusing. We went in force to Iraq, after the invasion of Kuiwait and the suppression of the Iraq peoples. Some say it was for the oil, but the US had relatively small oil investment in these middle east countries and those losses would be a small fraction of the cost of invasion and subsequent re-invasion of Iraq. If it was to protect oil investments in the entire area
simple containment of Iraq would have made more financial sense and even that action would was thought to have been more costly then any value received.
Should finances be the main criteria for global involvement in the police/peace keeping policies?
Should "humanity" be the consideration for global involvement ?
Would the world be a better place or much worse if America retreated into "Fortress America"
Zdenek Smith 100+
However we also need to acknowledge that US does not always act justly. For example the second war in Iraq under J. Bush was not justified except for US special interests.
I believe that we do need US to take on role of protecting and spreading democracy. US successfully defeated communism and it is winning war on terror. Who else is able to do that?
Mike Colera 10+
Other comments were that the US was wrongly convinced that there were WMD that could be developed and used to attack the US mainland. Plausible considering the recent attack on 9/11.
I guess we can only guess.
The other point is why do you believe that the US should spread democracy. The US is a constitutional republic, that uses a democratic process in selecting some of it's federal representatives. The people of the US have chosen this method for it's governance. But what if a people want to live under a theocracy? Or a monarchy? Or, even communism. These forms of government are not inherently bad if they are the choice of the people.
They only become distasteful when a nation practicing these forms of governance insist strongly that neighbors do and against the neighbor's wishes.
Zdenek Smith 100+
"But what if a people want to live under a theocracy? Or a monarchy? Or, even communism. "
Did ever dictator or communist party asked people in general and free elections about whether they want to live in such a system? In addition, these systems engage in gross violations of human rights and freedoms. There is no justification for such systems to exist.