You'll have to give us a timeline, or a date period, because US foreign intervention has been huge, ever since the inception of the USA. They were in Libya in the 1800s, they practically paraded across the globe during the Cold War, and no war goes unreported in the news today without a sinister rumour about American involvement. A time frame would cut the question down to a more manageable size.
I am not sure the US should be so involved in other countries. I think we create antagonism by having our flag and military bases in over 100 countries. Just my opinion....
I'll get into detail if the opposing force comes about again, but I'll leave a simple point. Before the USA was the UK patrolling the world. Before that they shared the role with France. Before that it was the role of the Catholic church in general. Before that was Rome. Before that was Greece. There's always someone whose influence greatly distorts that of other nations' into a shriveled pea-sized mass.
I think we create antagonism by having our flag and military bases in over 100 countries. Just my opinion....
And we create antagonism if we don't do as the world demands. When the tsunami in Indonesia hit, we offered 30 million in aid. The world called us misers and heartless. We then had to give 300 million to appease others. Then we invade Iraq to depose Sadaam Hussein, and we are screamed at for violating another country's territory. As Americans, we cannot win.
I'd agree to that. No one really likes us...until they need us.
Most likely because we're pretentious ***** who think others are going to need us, but you know.
We should give aid to those who want it (Libyan rebels) and not to those who don't (the bulk of the War on Terror). Our involvement should function to increase the freedom of others and to help them in establishing a stable infrastructure. More importantly, though, we need to realize that not everyone is going to want (or need) our help. And that although extremely violent countries should be dealt with it is not out job to act as a global police force. We need to work with local governments and understand that we need to create a sold timetable for our involvement in that country. Our reward, then, would be the creation of international stability and the ability to trade with a more economically able partner.
Most likely because we're pretentious ***** who think others are going to need us, but you know.
Totes.
And that although extremely violent countries should be dealt with it is not out job to act as a global police force.
That would somehow come back to
Before the USA was the UK patrolling the world. Before that they shared the role with France. Before that it was the role of the Catholic church in general. Before that was Rome. Before that was Greece. There's always someone whose influence greatly distorts that of other nations' into a shriveled pea-sized mass.
I guess it's been the US acting AS the global police force because of the whole Monroe Doctrine (yay contradictions!) and then the whole Roosevelt Corollary which basically said we get to help out the little guys. (If they have something we want)
Coming back to the present, Oh wait a minute.
sold timetable for our involvement in that country
lol Platt Amendment.
I think we create antagonism by having our flag and military bases in over 100 countries. Just my opinion.... And we create antagonism if we don't do as the world demands.
Agree with first, not so much second. If you don't do what the world demands, you'll lose face, bro. Americans are the supposed face of the heroes, we help the little gaize.
When the tsunami in Indonesia hit, we offered 30 million in aid. The world called us misers and heartless.
Maybe it would show (if we didn't give the large sum) that we only help out wherever the dollar bill is? Play the game High Tea . You go where they pay you more for the goods. We go where we see the largest benefit.
Yes, the US needs to be involved. To fight communism, liberate the persecuted, eliminate dictators...etc. They play an important role.
Product of any elementary US History course, right there.
We are the good guys, so let us come in and show you how it's done, then you can pay us back with interest! kthxsbai! Oh wait, just in case you screw up, we'll stay a bit, and you can eventually give us moar >
I should really get some sleep, because when I come back to this later, I will probably forget what I was thinking. X,X
Most likely because we're pretentious ***** who think others are going to need us, but you know.
We should give aid to those who want it (Libyan rebels) and not to those who don't (the bulk of the War on Terror). Our involvement should function to increase the freedom of others and to help them in establishing a stable infrastructure. More importantly, though, we need to realize that not everyone is going to want (or need) our help. And that although extremely violent countries should be dealt with it is not out job to act as a global police force. We need to work with local governments and understand that we need to create a sold timetable for our involvement in that country. Our reward, then, would be the creation of international stability and the ability to trade with a more economically able partner.
the only guy that made sense...
i wont be posting my opinion. most of us know where that is heading. and i don't have the time for that now.
