Do you feel that the US should adopt a noninterventionist foreign policy?

[Chris B]

Do you have that opinion?

 

[PhotoJones]

yes. unless it's to bring food.

 

[blind_fury]

We should stop genocides.

But no wars for oil and no excessive nation building.

 

[Chris B]

We should stop genocides.

But no wars for oil and no excessive nation building.

That's were I stand as well. On a humanitarian basis or a situation similar to the 1991 Gulf War, the US should intervene. Other than that, diplomacy should be the first option.

 

[Gonking]

That's what the rest of the world is hoping

 

[Kaleb]

no Africa needs your help

 

[Spiderine]

Intervention should be under collective efforts of the UN. Thats why it exists.

 

[Mee]

Do you feel that the US should adopt a noninterventionist foreign policy?

Don't show off, smarty-pants.

 

[Gonking]

no Africa needs your help

Let the United Nations to do that

 

[R0rschach]

No!

We should take over the world.

It is best for everyone that we do.

Plus then we can finally form The Union of Allied Planets.

Then there will be peace.

 

[Tobiaswins]

We should stop genocides.

But no wars for oil and no excessive nation building.

I couldn't agree more

 

[ScottyBBadd]

Intervention should be under collective efforts of the UN. Thats why it exists.

Which at least half are enemies or paid off to oppose the U.S.

 

[Kritish]

The United States should help its allies but it should take a Switzerland style stance with the rest of the world unless it's a threat to national security.

 

[Kritish]

no Africa needs your help

Africa can go to hell, we've spent billions if not trillions of dollars to help yet it hasn't helped. We have thousands of homeless and over 41 million without health care, at least the homeless people won't shoot at our helicopters. We should worry more about providing universal healthcare and getting the homeless off the street than what happens in Somalia.

 

[Spiderine]

There are too many corrupt governments on the continent of Africa, its hard to justify sending aid, food ,money,etc.Nigeria, Uganda,Sudan,and Somalia just to name a few. There are the upper aristocrats of the governments and then there are the vast number of poor. The aid never reaches its destinations of getting to the people that needs it. Im not saying the world (not just the US)should sit back and do anything but many of the problems must be solved internally there.

 

[Mr Jide]

The US is the global nosey parker

 

[Darthphere]

Do you have that opinion?

You mean isolationism?

 

[Ahura Mazda]

The funny thing was that the US was non-interventionist under Presidents like Monroe...

 

[kainedamo]

All the US has to do is fight the right fights and not the wrong ones.

I'm tired of Americans complaining, saying "the world complains when we get involved and they complain when we do". The reason the world complains is:

The Iraq War was started under false pretences and is an unjust war making the world a more unstable place.

But Americans take a back seat to issues like global warming, sticking their heads in the sand saying "it doesn't exist!! it doesn't exist!!".

 

[hippie_hunter]

The funny thing was that the US was non-interventionist under Presidents like Monroe...

Monroe was the first President to be interventionalist

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'm mostly going to agree with Kritish on this issue. I beleive that we should adopt a more isolationist policy and focus on the problems at home more than the rest of the world.

 

[Spiderine]

The US tried not to get involved in both world wars, and had no choice. They now make it a policy to focus on world affairs as a way maintaining our superiority and status. Many parts of the world dont want us involved, yet when disputes arise they look to us to take a stand. Once we do that we end up pissing part of the world off who disagrees with us. That has always been the role of world powers. We now have vested interests all across the globe.

 

[Matt]

We should stop genocides.

But no wars for oil and no excessive nation building.

Thats the problem though. You can't have it both ways. Either America is all about promoting democracy, freedom, and fighting dictators (in which case Iraq was perfectly justified, despite politicians underlaying motives) or it is not (in which case not only is Iraq unjustified, but so is intervention in a country like Sudan). It is simple as that, it is hypocritical to try and have your cake and eat it too in these types of situations.

 

[CConn]

It just seems wrong to me that there would be people dying of starvation and god knows what disease in one part of the world, and all we Americans are concerned about is getting health care for people who have more money than 90% of the world's inhabitance. And I say that as someone who's never had health care.

 

[The Overlord]

All the US has to do is fight the right fights and not the wrong ones.

I'm tired of Americans complaining, saying "the world complains when we get involved and they complain when we do". The reason the world complains is:

The Iraq War was started under false pretences and is an unjust war making the world a more unstable place.

But Americans take a back seat to issues like global warming, sticking their heads in the sand saying "it doesn't exist!! it doesn't exist!!".

That's tricky though, to decide which fights are "right" and which ones are "wrong". Look at Somalia in the early 1990s, people thought it was a good idea to try and feed the people there and stop the warlords, but it turned into a mess. Hindsight and time often determies what will considered Right or wrong.