Is it acceptable to send the US military to other countries for the purpose of liberating the oppressed?
959027
Not in my book it isn't acceptable. We are not the world's keepers. I have no objection to a coalition of different countries and the United States being one of them in some of the world's hot spots when needed. However for the world to expect us to solve its problems...no way.
392699
No, our military shouldn't be made up of people who don't want to be there.  It should be made up of people who are proud to serve.  Immigrants and foreigners can serve in our military if they choose to.
999215
They're using it as leverage to get what they want from the United States.  They don't even have to have them, all they have to do is say they do.  The US can't afford to tackle Afghanistan, Iraq, and North Korea - so they're taking advantage of current circumstances to get free stuff.\n\nLike a nuclear reactor, food, money, aid... etc.
450748
The only realistic option you have is raising money for a private mercenary army.\n\nYou won't be able to protest or convince government officials to take military action because our army is already too spread out - we just don't have the man power right now.  I'm still confused why nothing was done by international government agencies in the 1990's.  Probably don't want to re-live the Somalia mistakes just yet.\n\nProviding humanity aid is also ineffective because, just like in Somalia, the military is stealing the supplies to feed their troops.\n\nI'm not convinced that Americans don't care, I bet they just don't know what the facts are.  News agencies don't report it because it's not as sexy as Iraq.  As with all things retarded in America, people won't listen unless a famous person champions the cause.  Why haven't any celebrity activists done this yet?\n\nER seems to be doing their share of advertising the problem, let's see who else gets on board.
1103646
Yes, if the smaller country poses a threat to the larger country.  We did invade afganistan and iraq for that reason.
767603
It leads me to ask this question, should we be fighting for democracy in other countries while ours is being undermined?
703930
No, and if we have any objections, ie humanitarian or otherwise, they should be handled in a CIVILIZED manner...ie. diplomatically with pressure from the UN...right now it's a joke because it's been undermined and not taken seriously because other forces seem to think they have all the authority...so no one respects their power...and the danger is every country starts doing whatever it wants...which is threatening to the entire world population and much more dangerous than what is happening in one little, be it pathetic, little country.\n\nTHe middle east IS MIDDLE AGE and always will be...their ways will never change because their religion is what keeps them living the way they do...so who cares...let them live however they choose...but where we went wrong is letting other religions change OUR religious rights in our own country.  They should be tolerated but we shouldn't have to shrink back from what we believe either, but we have no right to go to their country and demand they change to our way of life, just to ensure that there is no abuse of people...that much is just plain intolerable and no religion should or would condone that...that is a man made rule to terrorize and control.
1090560
This is not a UN venture. This is an American war fought by several other countries who are now leaving us there.
622016
the world will not be a safer place. Other nations need US help for support. Not only in battle, but also for spying and other support. As you know, US forces are all over the globe.
383073
No-is the simple answer.  To withdraw would be a sign of weakness-something which the American Military would not want to show.  Remember Vietnam.  But this would be the same for most countries-the UK wouldn't pull out either because of Iraqi resistance it just doesnt give a good impression.  And I would support them in their choice!!!
1152654
Yes, it can be justified. We are trying to get rid of people who feel it is right to blow up civilians who are not the ones making decisions that they might disagree with. These are the same people that blow up college students sitting in cafes in Israel. If these people targeted military only, it would be a bit different, but they don't. I think GWB is doing the right thing by staying the course and trying everything he can to finish the job. I feel bad that we are losing soldiers, but unfortunately it happens.
592645
It is generally in the interests of the US to abide in the hope that its opponents will treat US soldiers well in exchange.\n\nHowever, since terrorists are not lawful combatants and do not reciprocate good treatment the US should be following its own consicence in the matter. Guantanamo isn't an example of this because of the first point I made. Moreover, by most accounts the inmates there are fed well and regularly, clothed, allowed religious practice and visits from rights monitors to some extent. This is more than has happened for combatants in most wars - Vietnam and North Korea didn't grant access to US POWs for example.\n\nThe US is doing well in this regard, despite the silly and historically stupid 'Gulag' comparison of an Amnesty report - that wil forever haunt AI, as it was once an genuinely non-partisan and worthy organisation.
989279
First of all, bringing Democracy & freeing the oppressed is not policing the world, it's the American way & the olny moral thing to do. De Oppresso Libre\n\nSecond, yes we should. Yes it could become a wider war against the extremist branch of Islam, but that's what we're already fighting & can't bring them to decisive battle. Yes you are talking about a big hairy problem, especially given the delicate nature of Iraq, but the right thing to do is bring this evil philosophy to battle where we can destroy it. \n\nIs that what we will do? No. We'll use mostly airstrikes against nuclear facilities, gut their military, & attempt to take out the Guardian Council & President. There will also be some major special operations actions against certain facilities that we cannot destroy from the air w/o use of nuclear weapons (which we won't be using). This will delay development for 2-5 years. We will follow this with an external campaign to elect reformers & overthrow the theocratic rule. That will be less successful. We will be attacked by terrorists for taking this action, and it will have been worth teh price to keep Muslim extremist from having a nuclear weapon, or scientest with the knowledge of how to make one suddenly being rented out to al Qaeda, or perhaps every other Islamic Country that dislikes America or Israel.
436172
No.\n\nThe US can do it to itself.
41514
I don't know. They haven't involved in military activities since WW2 until recently. But I think we can give them a chance, besides do you think we can fully trust USA? It's a good way to make a balance of power (without having a cold war).
679894
I would say yes.\nwe were losing, and we had to win at all cost. I say the ends justify the means.\nand we had to win decisively, we had to establish ourselves as the superpower so no one would try that crap again.\nand above all, it was not just some war fought over politics. we were up against murderers and racists and people who wanted to destroy the world. people like that must be stopped, even if it means killing them to make them stop.
1095564
No, the worlds gov's don't "serve" the USA, more like take every advantage of the USA. If you look at the United Nations for instance, ninety +% of the nations we provide billions of $$$ in aid to every year vote AGAINST us more than 60% of the time on resolutions. So, no, we are not the puppet master, or we would not have the issues in the middle east that we now face. Not to mention the rest of the world.