Should the U.N put sanctions on U.S.A for all the trouble they cause in south America in the last decades?
149591
If that happens the US will pull all our funding and whatever troops that are under their peacekeeper control.\n\nWithout US support there is NO UN.  \n\nSo they can try.  I would love to get rid of that organization it has done nothing but steal, bad mouth the US and Israel, and waste our money.\n\nWe haven't done anything that we shouldn't have anyway.  Well the Bay of Pigs but that was Kennedy leaving the Cubans out to dry
161749
Yes. Cuba at the time posed a significant threat to the United States, since it was closely allied with the USSR diplomatically, and was only about 60 miles from Miami, one of the US' largest cities. A war fought there could have meant the end of the United States.\n\nAlso, the Madison Doctrine technically makes US intervention in Latin American politics allowed, although it is a distasteful piece of legislation. Still, it is essential to American national security.\n\nIt was poorly executed because Castro knew what was happening, and the invasion was poorly planned. The CIA trained exiles were also expecting massive amounts of internal help from Cubans, but they were disappointed. Almost no one showed up at the party.
940566
No\nBecause we have so many independent states in the world and they create much trouble \nthink\nanother football team\nanother set of ambasadors \nanother set of politicians
587074
Well did you now that South Africa had the second strongest economy in the world next to Japan, during 1968-1971? But then America realized that they were going to be a mighty world power, and started sanctions on this beautiful country. Not to save the black people from Apartheid, but they used Apartheid to convince other nation to provoke their cause. But as the Holy Roman Empire came to a fall...so would America. Any country that is based on war and deception shall hit rock hard bottom.
1069600
The US HAD an isolationist policy before we were dragged into WWII. I don't think our isolation in the 1930's bought us much happiness or kept us out of what was going on in the world.\n\nSome would say our reluctance made our eventual enemies BOLDER and created a bigger mess to eventually clean up.\n\nI think we should directly deal with threats to our security. The UN can be utilized for "policing" the other troubled spots.
497220
Isn't that country in enough trouble already?!
412560
i think it depends on the case.  i think we should focus on more humanitarian aid rather than military intervention or military aid.  its probably fair to say every country has enough guns without us sending them some more for their cause.\n\nthe idea too that we are world's police implies that we are always fighting the good fight and, just ask south america, we are more often than not fighting for what we think will work out best for us in the short term.  there are numerous cases of over-throwing democracies either directly with our  military or through funding and channeling of arms, and setting up dictators in their place.  it would be much harder to say we shouldn't be policing the world if in fact we were fighting for what was best for the people of those countries instead.\n\nin cases of genocide i think we should be stepping in, and much faster than we have in the past, and doing whatever needs to be done to bring a stop to it.
914464
Ah, the mythical NAU. Ain't gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent.\n\nAmerica is not going to saddle itself with a bunch of socialist freeloaders from the north, or uneducated socialist whiners from the south. Qui bono? Certainly not the US!
1091720
No - they should have in 1978 and 1990 but managed to lose to countries such as Peru & Costa Rica !
1119142
No. We should allow a hostile country to develop any weapon they want, so they can attack us later on. Then we can sit back and bitch and moan about how Bush screwed it up. We should wait for the inneffectual UN to pass 20+ resolutions over the next 10-20 years. Then once they have the bomb and have attacked us we can be blamed for it, and rebuild their country better than it was before. All while they burn our flag and chant, "Death to America."
723602
I think it is partly because the US government has been so bogged down in the mess it has created in Iraq and Afghanistan that it hasn't got the resources to impose its agenda on South America, and people are waking up, too.  As a consequence of American imposed policies through IMF, World Bank, puppet regimes, training secret police and torturers to cut dissent, etc.  millions and millions of people have been exploited, but as the saying goes, you can't fool all the people all the time...so now presidents who are more sensitive to people's agenda instead of catering to US interests and the corporate agenda are being elected.  For example in the case of Chavez in Venezuela, US tried to bring about a coup and get rid of him, but thank God it didn't work...times aren't like they were when the democratically elected president of Chile was killed and replaced by the monster, General Pinochet.  And God willing, this just the beginning...I hope American people will wake up, too, because they are also being betrayed.
601080
Well, there's two ways of looking at it.\nFirstly, as you say, in an increasingly globalized world no nation--no matter how powerful or wealthy--can afford to be selfish or motivated by narrow, self-centered interests. Thus, the USA too must adapt to the new realities and requirements of this age. It must strive to be more friendly and sympathetic towards other nations and generally develop a more positive attitude in its dealings with the rest of the world.\nThe other aspect is, that all nations have their own interests at stake, ultimately. And the USA also has its interests to watch and protect. But even if this is the case, it doesnt mean that it can ride rough-shod over other nations and interfere indiscriminately in their affairs.\n There is a dire need for it to strike the right balance between (a) national self-interest and (b) global needs, concerns and relations.\nIf the US wants to play a greater, more responsible role in world politics, it should do so with legitimacy i.e., by being a part of international organizations and acting in concord with them not by trying to usurp the role of the UN or other, similar agencies.
932540
i only agree with u totally,if u want to study alittle bit youll find how this came about in the 60s when we sold out and b came apart of the u.n.do u under stand we r no longer a soverin nation because of this.these r one world order issues.bush senios told this on tv in 93
936302
Yes.  America, UK, and Australia need to get out of there and deal with their own domestic issues instead.
708719
Yes. \nMaybe we should just stop arming other countries and worry about ourselves.
551378
The entire world has a distaste for America, after all, we are always the source of their economic problems... and we like to get involved in everything and make it worse O.o
588845
Great idea in principle, but I would avoid Bolivia as Bebobz6 is sponsoring a child there, and might be a tad upset about it.\n\nWhy not nuke Argentina instead ?  Not even other Latin Americans like them.