Should the Unites States act as the world's policeman ?
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.
409734
We should do more to get along that the United States is currently doing.
858886
US foregion policy lacks common sense, we armed many people we now combat or later did, Castro was armed by us, Iran, with the Shaw, Hussien was pu tinto power by us to combat the Aiyloitlla, Pineapple face Noregia, the list goes on. Its because we are the worlds bully, the tough kid who believes we rule. We need to revert back to the days of allowing people to handle their own affairs, supsope that France, Germany, and Russia had joined with England in combatting the terrorists known as the American Revolutionaries? You'd be singing God Save The Queen
276319
In an ideal world, there is a chance what you suggest might work. But humans being what they are, it will never work. Throughout history, there have been civil wars and revolutions. Humans like to distinguish themselves from others. The us versus them is a very strong sense. If there is no other country to call “them” we’ll pick other attributes such as where the others live or the color of their skin.\nLook at Africa, anyone with ½ brain can see that Africa can easily become a major world power if they got a modicum of unity. Not the entire continent needs to become 1 country. As long as they form a union similar to the EU, they will be able to go mush farther. What that would mean is that the small rulers in the many African countries would have to give up the power they have gained, in many cases by force, to a higher form of government. You will see far more cases like what happened in Ethiopia and Eritrea before you see East and West Germany type stories.\nI love your idea in the way that 1 global government would focus on global matters instead of local ones. But unfortunately, I can not see it happening.\nMuslims unite Government and religion into their government. The developed countries separate the 2. Will you force separation of church and state on Muslims or would you tell America they have been wrong by separating religion and government.\nI think a good step towards a united world is education. Starting from America, people should be encouraged to learn about and from other people in the world. Maybe in a few generations, people will come to see the world as what it is, the only planet that we are likely to live on for a long time.
529754
Most definitely.  We need to do some cleaning up ourself before we can help others.  The U.N. is a good idea in itself (like Communism is, I mean you can't say the idea of it is a bad thing, it just doesn't work in reality) but so far it's been just a bitch.  I know I'm tired of going through the U.N. I mean just look at the dumping scandal.  No one can really be trusted anymore.\n\nMy only qualm is that if we go back into the Monroe Doctrine phase, we will resort to Isolationism.  We, being a world power and major influence (to some degree), can't afford to go back to being isolated.  It would just be like backing down and letting the world do as it pleases--no Americans, I would think, would want foreign people dictating how we should run our lives (just as noone else would want that, either).  So it's sort of a black and white question with so many gray areas it isn't even funny.
993108
No. We are policing the world too much and ourselves not enough.
491515
Amen Brother!! I hear ya!! But the job and the duty of the United States has always been to protect and help other countries, even if we neglect our own citizens, redundant I know
968155
I forgot the name for the act (posse commo tas? I think), but you can't use US troops to police the cities unless martial law is declared.  I am a Solider and I don't want to have to be the police or police our own cities.  We don't have an Army to protect us form ourselves.  My oath is to defend the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic and to the Constitution.  Not to police the streets.  We are trained to fight wars, not to be police.  You would not want the mentality of a warfighter to respond to a domestic disturbance, not a good combo.
450195
No. Lots of countries have WMD.\nWhat are we waiting for, let's get N. Korea and Iran!!!\n\nIt actually WAS our duty to act as the police of the world but now it is not since we are not moral anymore--I.E. torture of prisoners, locking them away without trials or lawyers or telling them the charges, etc.\n\nWe no longer have the moral high ground in the world.\nWe are no better than a third world country morally now.
1023276
Certainly, the world should unite! Now, I don't mean a monolithic, authoritarian, "1984" nightmare dictatorship, but an assembly of nation-states under a minimalist, one-man one-vote global government. In fact, I've got an idea of how this government should be set up, with some rather specific points. Like our great system, it'll have three separate branches, with checks and balances on each. The legislative, or the Global Assembly, as I like to call it, will be unicameral, with four different types of officers. The Congressmen will be based on population, and divided amongst the nations of the world. There will also be a Parliamentary Member, with one officer serving every nation. Think of it as a Senator. There will also be an Ambassador, named by the Government of each member nation. Finally, there will be a Councilor, elected by the intelligentsia of each nation. All of this will be headed by a Prime Minister, popularly elected by all the people of Earth. What the global assembly will do is mediate the disputes between the nations, and it will also attempt projects that the nations alone couldn't achieve. The executive branch, the Premier, will be elected on a local level. Every 10,000 people will come together, vote for the Premier, and the winner of the greatest number of these will take office. The point of the executive will be to focus on the "higher things" in life: Science, the Arts, Medicine, Human Rights, all that. The Judicial will mediate the whole thing, keeping power balanced between Executive and Legislative, between Global and National.\n\n...Sorry to go on like that, but it's an idea I've held for a while.
1096171
I seem to remember reading that the early American colonists didn't much like the principle of taxation without representation. \n\nThe US role as "the world police" is purely self appointed and purely in the interests of protecting the American Empire, which has at it's heart the protection of the American economy and globalisation.\n\nIf you bother reading a slight amount of world history, you will see that the US used to complain about us Brits doing exactly the thing.
257475
We wouldn't be in this shape if we quit playing the worlds police force. Every country that we have ever help out has turned on us and after wards, there isn't much that we can do about it because sticking our noises into there afairs puts our neck on the chopping block, except get it sliced.
819457
Well ,it is a good question.I believe that United Nations Security Consul has many obligations,in fact it is crated in order to prevent violations and atrocity and to keep peace and security in the world ,but unfortunately peace and security are not totally prevailed!in the world and we blame always US because it makes more decisions in UNSC. I think others permanent members in the counsel has responsibility too,we blame US, UK for there roll but in fact France china,Russia are also have did less or nothing for peace and security in the world which they should have done !!.and this is a big problem .of course it is right that US keep it,s interests but I believe without US ,there will be more dictators,terrorists,atrocity in the world. If we look the policy among different nations then we can understand that only US policy has significant diplomacy and bring nations to dialog which is in my view undeniable, it is all members responsibility in UNSC in order to functions be more acceptable.
783267
Unfortunately, the Americans have the power to impose their way of life on the rest of the world, which is rather unpleasant if you are at the receiving end. The Europeans resent the fact that the US is the current bully in the schoolyard. History shows that there is always one dominating power which has the capacity to bully the rest of the world. However, these powers will eventually fall into corruption and decadence. See the history of the Roman empire as an example. When will it be the turn for the US to follow the same fate and which power will become the next bully?
715912
How about EarthGov?\n\nI think a world government would require a body sort of like the United Nations, but with the powers endowed in Congress.  I do believe that the U.S.'s three-branch system works well, and should be (with minor tweaking to accommodate everyone) used as a base.\n\nTherefore, a united judicial system consisting of people from around the world would be required (for the first few generations, until we accept everybody else as equal citizens), before eventually basing it just on qualifications.\n\nAn elected leader, like the President would be a good choice, just as long as that person is a good person and actually knows what he's doing (after all, he'd be leading 6+ Billion people.)\n\nYet the government would also have international abilities that the U.N. has, so no one could accuse one country of butting into another's business.\n\nAnd if the "New Founders" are ever not sure what to do, they can just reference to the dozens of movies, T.V. shows, and books which have covered this subject, such as "The 5th Element & Star Trek".
1145796
With the latest reports out of Iraq and across the world, it is evident that the United States has broken many of the U.N. charter rules.These include torture and the basic rules of war. I know that this is an unpopular choice, but sometimes the correct response is not always the most popular.
467187
The US has an answer for every problem that can crop up. We pay specialists to sit around dreaming up problems with world currencies, just so we will have the answer, if and when that problem should come up. So the short answer is, we police the world because we have the means, the motive and the opportunity...