Do you think that the United States should police the world?

[JamesLBicknell]

Do you think that the U.S. has the right to intervene in other countries? If so, what kind of interventions do you feel are acceptable or should be done?

 

I actually think that the U.S. doesn't have the right to intervene in other countries, at least for ideological reasons, as many of our past policies have been hypocritical and questionable in regards to democratic ideals. We have actually overthrown a lot of democratic governments in the past, replacing them with more corrupt governments that support us. If you watched Argo, the opening scene highlights an example of this. Even when the U.S. tries to turn non-democratic governments in to democracies, it sometimes ends up forcing it upon people who don't want it, which is ironic and contradicts the point of democracy.

 

I suppose if it is an ally in trouble or the problem directly concerns us, we should take action, but I don't think we should extend our military power past that.

[Chris]

I have similar feelings and do not think that the United States should intervene in other countries problems, because it seems to often times only make more problems for us. However, with the United States being the super power that it is, as well as having investments throughout the world, the government feels it's our duty to police everyone else. In some ways, it could be a preventative measure, insuring that the United States is always aware of whats happening in other countries, securing our own. A realist would state that other countries want to even the balance of power, and the United States happens to be one of the largest powers there is. I don't necessarily approve of sticking our heads into other countries business, but the government does. He who controls the pen controls the world. 

[Nik Epperson]

I believe the United States can police the world being the only real hegemonic power to date. But I do believe we shouldn't hop into every situation, maybe things that just suit our interests. I do believe we should intervene in genocide, ethnic cleansing situations, and other situations that don't just exclusively benefit our economic standing or our political situation. But me having more of a libertarian approach to the world I would like to see us not being spread out over the globe like the old roman empire right before it collapsed.

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[Will]

I do not think we ever have the right to step in and intervene in another states business. What happens in those countries is none of our concern unless it affects American citizens. The United States is hated around the world for its feeling of superiority and its interventions in other countries business. Iran hates us for the 1953 coup which ousted a democratically elected government. Most of the world opinions of the US are formed by our foreign policy

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[Chris]

But Will, what if that country has weapons of mass destruction? Wouldn't getting involved in their country help us ensure our own security? Sure, maybe they don't have WMD 's, but WHAT IF? WHAT IF WILL?!

[Will]

Then we'll all be proper fucked

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[chehab kaakarli]

A thinking point is when the U.S does hop into a situation it usually does it for its own interest. it is a realist country who views the world as its stepping stone. So they police the world when they gain from it. Just a thinking point. If you intervene in one place and do right, and have another place that is going through the same thing i do think the U.S should intervene. Many factors go into a decision for the U.S to intervene in a situation.

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[Wesley]

The US does what they want no matter what is on the surface. Politically, if it is better to intervien covertly, the US will do what is the best interest of the US. Police or Bully its a thin line and the police often abuse their powers.

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[Hartley]

The United States is just wasting its time and money attempting to police the world, we have near endless domestic problems, why should we also make every other country our problem

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[Sam Coyne]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

I would say that we have zero business, in our current economic climate, messing around with other nation's politics. So long as they aren't committing genocide, or outright attacking us, we should be more focused on our own well-being. Look at the Middle East right now. Because of "interventions" staged by the United States and Soviet Union over the last half century, it is literally burning. We've made alot of enemies, with not much to show for it.

[Brittany Rybarczyk]

I completely agree with Sam. As a leading world power I can see why the United States may see it as their responsibility to intervene when they see injustices going on in other countries but injustices are happening everywhere. We cannot fix all the problems of the world because then we would have no resources left for our own country which is in fact in trouble itself. We have poverty in our own country to take care of before eliminating it in other parts of the world. I'm not saying to ignore these sorts of problems in other countries but unless there is an extreme case such as genocide or our own national security is being attacked the U.S. should stay out.

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[Tim Minotas]

I do not believe the United States has any right to intervene in other countries affairs. We should not be the policemen of the world. I truly believe in the golden rule of treating others the way you would want to be treated. For example how would you feel if other countries were invading our homeland, setting up military bases, killing our people, telling us how we should live and using us and our land for self interest. You wouldn't be real pleased I am assuming? I would be very angry myself. we have no right to be over seas. So I am not very surprised that other countries have the  anger and hate towards us like they do. frankly If i was them i would hate us too. It is not right for us to tell other countries what they can cant do and invade their lands. Let alone the U.S. has no money as it is to be in other countries affairs. We need to focus on our people, land, security  and problems at home first before everyone else's. All that money and resources we spend over seas could do a lot of benefit in the United States. We need to stay out of other countries problems and tighten up our national security at home to the very upmost grade. Just think of all the money we would save by doing that, probably billions even trillions of dollars.

[bastianell...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I dont know if the US has to right to intervene. We should take care of us then worry about other countries.

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[chris torrence]

isnt that what the us is currently trying? with the slogan being " if you haven natural resources, or  political influence we'll be there ". always shoving our " help " and wonderful " democracy" in the face of people who typical dont want it. now where was that help in africa or india's rural lands? where was it in our own borders even...Katrina ringing a bell? oh wait i found it, it was in the middle east, ehlping to take down people we put in charge.......

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[weimer...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

absolutely not. How about we worry about problems in our own country first?

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[Jessica Hathaway]

No, I don't think the US should be policing the world.  I think being the worlds bully is going to do nothing but put an even larger target on our back from countries that don't like us already.  I also think that our country has enough problems of it's own that we aren't even able to solve, so what makes us so much better that we should police others in what they should do?  Our crime is outrageous, our lower class is suffering, were an economical and environmental disaster, so yeah, again, no way,

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[hardy...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I completely agree that before we start thinking that we should police the world, that we should get our own stuff together. I know that this will probably sound a little cold hearted but my beliefs make me think that before we help and support other countries with food and everything, maybe we should help people in our own nation. I know people are already taking advantage of our nations generosity but our main goals should be the support and growth of our future. Instead children are being taught by teachers who dont care if they pass or not. We need to help ourselves before we are able to help others.

... i ranted my bad. We have no right to govern others, we can hardly govern ourselves.

[airyn.b...@gmail.com]

we need to mind our own business. we have plently of our own problems without worrying about everyone elses. we are the yougest and most arrogant country. kind of like when your older brother tries to act like your parent even though they really dont know much of anything. 

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[jedel...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I feel we should not police the world. We have enough problems here at home. We have the United Nations to watch over the world, if they need our help then by all means we should help. But to be going out searching for problems, no thanks.

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, JamesLBicknell wrote:

[rui zhuang]

No, America has so many problems on their own, how can American police other countries? Look at the war of  Iraq, we did not see any advantage of this war, we only see the broken families. That is the result of police other counties. The only advantage is gather money from the war and show the US power in front of the world. So please stop police the world, make US better is the first thing.  

[Victoria Staniszewski]

Only to protect US and it's interest.  "Who 'died' and made US the supreme watchdog of the world".

[Gregory Juliano]

"'Smart power' is the use of American power in ways that would help prevent and resolve conflict - not just send our military in." -Hillary Clinton

        I think that the 'world police' view of American foreign policy is not necessarily the most healthy for us as a nation.  It can create unnecessary enemies and, in extreme cases, influence the safety of our homeland from terrorist threat.

      However, the fact that we have a large, dominant military and that we have already stuck our noses in to so many issues makes all the difference.  There are several current foreign policy issues that didn't need to have U.S. intervention. The fact that we have already taken a stance necessitates further action on the U.S. government's part.  We can't just pull out of affairs that we have already proclaimed to have importance to our country, no matter how indirect the importance.  If it is a matter of human rights on a large scale, then the United States should get involved because we, as a nation, are on the record (stating with our actions) that we will defend what we view as morally right as a country on a global scale.  Whether or not this is a healthy approach is questionable.  However, we cannot just leave matters alone that we have already globally proclaimed matter a great deal to us as a nation.  It'd be ludicrous and show political weakness. 

mber 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, bicknell.james wrote:

[boose....@student.oaklandcc.edu]

[boose....@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I don't agree with the U.S sticking their nose into every other countries business. If a country is having issues within itself, it's for a valid reason and they should figure it out for themselves. On a larger scale, countries having issues with other countries, there needs to be a line drawn. I believe it's like any normal relationship, you have to pick your battles. If you pick every battle than it's eventually going to have a horrible ending. Picking the important battles that mean most sets a good example and gets the point across that it's a big deal. 

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, bicknell.james wrote:

[payton...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I don't feel one specific country to police the world. Each country takes on the responsible of becoming a country and what happens in their country is their problem. The United States, being one of the stronger countries in the world, have taken advantage of their power. The only thing that we are responsible for is our country and what happens on the home front. I know 9/11 was a tough time for all Americans but sometimes you have to leave revenge to others and not let it get too out of hand. The lying and secrets that the government keeps from us on their involvement with other countries is sad. I know in a way they do it to protect us but at the same time we need to know these things. Especially if the US elects themselves as police officers of the world. 

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, bicknell.james wrote:

[bennion...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I do not think the United States should police the world. We have plenty of problems in our own country that need to be dealt with, before we start to intervene every little thing that happens in other countries. If we were a perfect country, and had nothing  better to do than help other countries and jump at everything that happened, then maybe it would be a different story. But we are not, and we need to help ourselves and fix our nation before we could ever do that. Even if that happened, I think the country would have to come to us directly and ask us to intervene. I do not think we would ever have the right to just barge in and intervene on a country that did not ask us to intervene. Unless something serious happens, such as a war, then we need to mind our own business.   

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, bicknell.james wrote:

[Shelby Webb]

I do not believe that our country should do this. Back when we were fighting for our independence we did not like having the British on our soil, so why should we treat other countries the way that we don’t even appreciate? I do not think that it is our right to control or have say over another country. They are ANOTHER COUNTRY, not another state. They are their own and have as much say in what they can do as we have the ability to govern our own country. I understand there is a time to intervene when it comes to our own safety, but even then, there is a line that needs to be drawn, America is not a dictatorship nor should it have any notions leading that way to others.

[labrash....@student.oaklandcc.edu]

no i don't. 

[Chris Gat]

I think we should in a way, but sometimes we go to far. We invade other countries to help them improve their government but in the end we lose more lives.

[bradley...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I definitely don't think the US should intervene with other countries affairs. I feel like there is so much that we need to get done here in the US and we're constantly placed on the backburner. Besides, other countries don't want us to intervene, either, and I don't think that because we're powerful we're obligated to interfere with their conflicts. Most would rather deal with it themselves and I think, much like a growing person, we should treat them like a growing country. Let them figure out the issues and be responsible for themselves. It's the only way they could possibly move on and get closer to peace, in my opinion.

[thomas...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I Agree It is a waste of time and money, If the US tries to police the world it will just spread all of the USA's problems across the globe. We do have the power and the army strength to do so but it would just create more problems. 

[Jeffrey Ragle]

I don't think the United States should be intervening in most of foreign problems. There are some things that the United States should get involved in but we should stay out of most things. Weapons of mass destruction should be one of the exceptions. The U.S. has currently gotten involved in the Ukraine and Russian dispute which I don't know is really necessary. The U.S. should not be trying to put people in power in other countries and it has backfired on us many times. The U.S. usually intervenes in other countries for national security but it doesn't usually work. The countries that we intervene in usually end up resenting the United States even if we intend to help them.

[Brittney B.]

I too completely agree that the US should NOT intervene when we have similar unresolved problems in our own country. I have always believed that the US has wasted so much money and not to mention unfortunate lives due to their request to control. There is a reason why there are different countries and not just one. What works for one may not work for all and that is okay as long as it is not harming us in any way I say let them eat cake!!Previous Previous 

[tyldesl...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I do not think that the US should be the police of the world. We have our own problems here that we should be taking care of. We should be trying to figure out how to build our economy back up and trying to help the homeless get back on their feet. We should be trying to find homes for the children in foster care and orphanages. Most of the time when we get into other countries business it blows back up in our faces. So no I don't think we should get involved in other countries problems. 

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:33:57 PM UTC-5, bicknell.james wrote:

Do you think that the U.S. has the right to intervene in other countries? If so, what kind of interventions do you feel are acceptable or should be done?

 

[Arman Turla]

The United States has had a history of isolationism, it really wasn't until after World War 2 and the Cold War that America really took a permanent global status. Because we rely so much on other parts of the world economically going back to isolationism would be disastrous for us. While I personally do not believe that we should be intervening in other counties affairs, I realize that we intervene because left unchecked those problems can affect our economic interests in the long run. 

For example, say we leave ISIS alone for the next few years and completely ignore them, what happens if they are able to overthrow some of the Middle Eastern governments such as Saudi Arabia? Well, Saudi Arabia exports a lot of oil to western nations such as ourselves and if ISIS controls those oil fields they most definitely won't be selling that to us. As a result global oil prices would skyrocket which would cause the price of gasoline to go up. 

Now if we have to intervene, I am fully against sending our own soldiers to fight and die, I am also against using military action of any kind unless their is a significant national security threat. Instead I would prefer to see financial and material aid for rebel or opposing groups that are fighting our enemy. Very similar to what we are doing now in Iraq and Syria against ISIS. 

If an ally (specifically any NATO member) was attacked I would fully support military action against the aggressor, though I would prefer if we didn't do all the heavy lifting. 

Just my thoughts. 

[Etta McDuffey]

I agree. Helping when asked, only providing the assistance requested then get the heck out of Dodge. There is an abundance of trouble and corruption right here in the US in need policing. There is far too much violence among our own people, as parents are killing their children, married couples killing off their spouses, school shootings, athletes who should be role models for our children,  who are abusing and raping women, gang violence and drug wars, not to mention corruption within our own local government for sure, though I definitely suspect on every level. Are we any better than those countries at war? How can we police other countries and assume to know what is best for them when we don't even know how to manage our own affairs. 

[Katelyn Adamowicz]

I personally agree with you. The United States spends way too much money on foreign aid. Why do we need to be the world police? If our efforts were actually worth anything the world would be a much better place. Also, if our interventions were actually helpful to those countries, they would probably like us instead of hate us like they do now.

[reynold...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

No i think if you begin to over rule the other countries, sooner or later issues would arise.

[ryan.d...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

According to a 1997 Department of Defense report, the data shows a 'strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in in terrorist attacks against the U.S.'. Given this, in addition to the bodies, in addition to the spin off abhorrent enemies regarding our activities, in addition to those maimed, in addition to those whom have received arms, have received training, and received funds, strongly in part through our role overseas, I believe our role is definitely something to brainstorm, analyze, and reconsider. I think we should not be involved in any form of arming, training, or funding in the interest of short-term political goals, without extensive consideration for the potential long-term consequences, in addition to the potential long/short-term unintended consequences. Intervention, to put our foot on another nations land, well I guess that depends if we are willing to forgo the same in our country. Do we find it valid for Britain, China, or any other form of country to set up shop in our country to whatever xyz ends they may hold? If not, then I'd say they might feel similar, especially given many of the unintended consequences we have incurred in places such as the Middle East. I don't believe it is our right to crusade through their countries as much as I don't believe it is their right to crusade through our country.

[grant...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

i feel the same way. i dont think the united states should intervene with other country's and their issues when we have issues in our home country. If they want to police the world then our country should be the perfect role model for other places but when in reality our country has many of our own issues. But hey war is what funds our country so we will always be in a war in some type or way. Think about it none of us and almost all of our parents have never lived when our country is in a time of peace.

[hartzel...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

The United States should not police the world.  One of my favorite quotes from John F. Kennedy is his quote on the United States and imperialism.  ' In short, we must face problems which do not lend themselves to easy or quick or permanent solutions. And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, that we are only six percent of the world's population, that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."  

my favorite part of the quote is "there cannot be an American solution to every world problem." We have a great country but we cannot police the world.  What gives us the right to control everybody?  

Read more at http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/john-f-kennedy/#DHgcr9oi3V5y4Wrq.99

[Austin Ratkowiak]

In my personal opinion the U.S needs to focus less on whats occurring in other countries and focus on all the issues that occurring in their own country

[dunbar...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I am set to join the Navy once i have my  bachelors degree and here is how I view it and so do many other soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The United States has interests in other nations, whether it's oil for our cars or just another ally. We also are the most powerful military in the world, so many of the weaker nations look to us for support. We can turn a blind eye to true tyranny and allow thousands of innocent people to be slaughtered, or we can d something about it. It is unfortunate that so many of our young men make the ultimate sacrifice for someone on the other side of the world. Someone who does not know his story or who he has left behind, but that is not what is important. What is important is making a change. Giving someone in the country the chance to better themselves and their nation. Freedom is far from free, and our men on the front lines know this better than anyone.

[Quinn Malecki]

Dunbar at oaklandcc.edu wrote:

We can turn a blind eye to true tyranny and allow thousands of innocent people to be slaughtered, or we can d something about it.

You suggest that the US might do something about it, you're right. The US has not always just turned a blind eye to tyranny and allow thousands of innocent people to be slaughtered, it has also supported that slaughter, tyranny, and suppressed facts which prove it.  I'll paste here an introduction I wrote of an historical example of that taking place in 1975, which turned into many years of US complicity in the approval of Indonesian war crimes.  There are other cases like it.  Military decisions are hardly made in the US interest, unless the people of the US have interests which they don't know about, and which the DoD decides on their behalf.  The execution of US force abroad doesn't take enough of the interests of the US population into account as too many instances of unilateral or illegal US military acts on US taxpayer dollars have not been justified by official US figures commanding them.

Between 1524 and 1974 C.E., an island called East Timor - between the Indian and Pacific Oceans nearly 400 miles north of Australia - was under Portuguese governance. During a transitional period between the fall of the Salazar-Caetano dictatorship of Portugal and composition of a new constitution in Lisbon, the Portuguese also were determining the fate of East Timor nearly 12,000 miles from Lisbon and 2,000 miles from Jakarta, Indonesia. Significance then of Indonesia can be defined according to an unclassified US State Department record of a conversation in Jakarta detailing a desire that Suharto, the President of Indonesia, expressed to Gerald Ford, the President of the United States, about Indonesian soldiers invading the East Timorese. US Secretary of State Kissinger accompanied President Ford and reminded Suharto of the Indonesian military consisting of US-made arms and advised that the invasion take place once Ford and Kissinger returned to America, so to better avoid suspicion of an illegal US-backed atrocity. Why did the Indonesians invade and occupy East Timor - eventually killing or imprisoning nearly one-third of the 650,000 population of East Timor - with US military aid? Indonesians invaded and occupied East Timor because Indonesian debt to economic and military aid from the US required repayment that the resources of East Timor could have sufficed; Suharto suggested that if the East Timorese began to mobilize communism then communism could infiltrate the national ideology of Indonesia and undermine the Suharto regime; political self-determination of the East Timorese - that Suharto suggested would foster communism - left military defense of the East Timorese that was vulnerable to a US-backed Indonesian invasion.

[Tyler]

It's like when two children are fighting, you need an adult to step in and handle things. Not every country is fully developed, they need help with things. People in US foreign policy have made plenty of mistakes across the board, but by no means should we ever consider being isolationists.

[jami...@gmail.com]

Of course, I believe since the U.S is a super power, it is our responsibility to police the rest of the world.

[Edom]

Nope. Just because the united states has "power" does not mean they are entitled to being international watch dog. We constantly intervene on anything and everything because the US ego insists on it. The US promptly steps into "help" on any issue outside of its own in the name of "justice" which is rarely ever asked for. Not saying this is true 100% of the time, obviously. The united states has military stations in like 75 different countries or some shit...does that not seem excessive? Does any other country have it's military so unnecessarily expanded across the globe as ours? The united states feels the need to be accessible to any part of the globe in case danger comes. I truly think it is absurd and US should only intervene when explicitly asked to.

[morris....@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I do not think the U.S. has the right to police the world. Most of the time we're intervening in things we don't even understand which just causes more problems than it solves. I agree that a lot of our past policies and ideologies have been a little shaky when it came to these invasions.

[Branden Johnson]

Since we are the "Mature" Country, I think that we should be the police of the entire world, I mean even though the President is a figurehead, he is the most powerful man (or women) on the planet, the US usually goes into third world countries and provides aid to them when other countries sit back, don't get me wrong, some countries do help out too, but it's mainly us. As for our military, we have an amazing military who helps protect third world countries from invaders and we even go in to take out bad people so to speak in order to protect civilians. If the US were to take a back seat to what is going on in the world, who knows what could happen, imagine if we didn't take out Osama Bin Laden for instances, he attacked the US and sent fear straight into our eyes, were we suppose to sit back and let another country go in for us and wipe out members of Al Qaeda or perhaps let them continue their terrorist ways? No, we took action since we are the global police. 

[Billy Fetterhoff]

We have our own problems in the United States and there is no need for us to go get involved in other countries problems because that will ultimately cause more problems for us and that's not what we need. We should just stay out of it and solve our own problems here in the Unites States because we have enough problems and riots right now so we don't need our police officers to go over to other countries when we need them here to fight for our own peoples lives.  

[troll...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

We can hardly police ourselves half the time; I don't think we've got the right as an individual nation to tell anywhere else what to do. We should back off in general if we don't have the consent and assistance of some of our global partners.

[sean stoner]

Not only do I think we don't have the right to police other countries, I don't believe we have the ability to do so. If the United States didn't approve of how a country as a whole acted then there are other ways to "punish" their actions such as boycotting trade with said country. If the U.S. is going to police other countries I would prefer that they not beat around the bush about it and say that they are acting as a dictatorial government when dealing with this countries and they can either change their behavior or face military consequences. If they choose to face the consequences then I say to commit if not entirely a very large portion of the military resources towards that goal as to both finish the job quickly and ensure that everyone knows that our word will be backed up to the fullest extent.

[jonbry...@gmail.com]

I do not think the US should "police the world." We are the largest war power in the world and we spend trillions of dollars on military technology and equipment to commit war crimes in foreign countries and bomb innocent men, women, and children.

[Paris R]

I think the United States government has no right to intervene in on any other countries' affairs, including allies, unless ABSOLUTELY needed. The United States has no dominion anywhere besides its homeland. Intervening on another's affairs only puts the American citizens at possible harm. The matter in which they do intervene should not subject its people to wars or other type of terrorist like action. An acceptable intervention should come in the form of medical help, war intelligence or equipment. Rather a country is democratic or not has nothing to do with us, as long as the offenders do not come onto our land trying to seize our government.

[westlake...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I believe that the U.S. should only intervene when other countries are actually killing people.  If one country is sawing off people's heads, I would hope someone would want to put a stop to it.  Other than that, the U.S. should mind there business.

[gacobel...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I feel the U.S. is the best country to deal with violent and power hungry governments around the globe.  As the so called world police we can stop genocides, and terrorist cells and even rouge nations before any harm is done.  Now personally I don't want the U.S. to get into anymore wars because of the implication that the Army would send me to whatever country it is on the other side of the world, but I see how useful we are in terms of peacekeeping.  We could decimate the ISIS threat in a matter of months if we put boots on the ground.  If we did that last year all these people that were butchered would of been saved.  I do understand though that someone shouldn't have to police another country, but someone has to stop these horrible groups and no one seems to be willing or able besides us.

[king.ga...@student.oaklandcc.edu]

I feel that the US as a country has the means to help countries that dont have weapons or the money to help themselves. I think that yea we always dont need to be involved in wars and such but I dont think when it comes to innocent people being killed we shouldn't sit by and let it happen.