Is it America's job to "run the world"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vonsalza
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vonsalza

Guest
@philipl has an interesting post in another thread, so I decided to start a new one to discuss the issue further.

[Initially placed in “Social Justice”, but feel free to move where it would be more appropriate]
philipl said:
Its not our job to run the world.
Click to expand...
I’ll echo that.

I’m one of those “liberal idiots” that thinks the primary cause for nuclear proliferation is American “Imperialism” of the last century.

For a country like N Korea, how else could they resist an American invasion except by nuclear weapons? (BTW, this is not a justification for the existence of the N Korean regime; merely a justification for why they seek nukes).

If you want to be an economic expansionist, fine. But militarily, the American overseas military presence should be radically curtailed. Check out our international military footprint compared with the next 10 largest nations combined. It’s absurd.
 
Last edited:
Only in extreme situations. I live in Holland and I am happy the USA helped to liberate us from the nazis. We (the europeans) begged the USA for help and were very grateful. In most other cases, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, the people didnt want American help and it probably did more harm than good.
 
No, it isn’t our job to run the world and stick our nose in everyone’s business. Not saying we can’t stand up for things, rather we shouldn’t be so involved in other country’s affairs. We aren’t the globe police.
 
Well, if America is too nationalist, running the world is for self interest and not helping others. And even worse if their morality is changing to the point it could be said they have some atheist roots. Maybe people would feel better with a world run by nordic countries but then we have to take many things into account when we talk about running the world.

What’s the most important thing for people? Is it the economic system? Is it the political system that is behind it? Is it a democratic system in which we have some equality (except for minorities that were against it)?

Then, we would have to speak about what is more important for ruling a country and wether the U.S. or another country has it. And what if in the future it fails because of how they raised the next generation?

First of all, the political and economic systems are made to simplify things in a society and cover the needs of people. However, if a government doesn’t consider, for example, that man has life after death, then the government wouldn’t benefit man in this way or even worse, make it harder for him to reach a good afterlife, so everything that is built over the foundation of this materialism is wrong in some way. So philosophy is extremely important for government, since it will dictate policies. For example, in this market economy, there are products, like light bulbs, that could be made to last for a lot more time if they were more expensive. However, to manufacture few lightbulbs and have them last for long is not very profitable, so the market damages society. Recycling? How about using reusable bottles, then there is no need to manufacture and recycle and contaminate. Competition? Wouldn’t it be better to join forces?

Second of all, a big part of society’s development came through technology, however, today’s technology focus is not so much on advancement but many times on competition, and efforts are wasted in the egoism of companies and people. What I mean with all this is that a culture focused on morals (philosophy), union and technology would advance a lot more. We don’t look for truth as a society anymore, but for diplomacy, that’s why we don’t know if a U.S. run world would benefit or be worse for all the world. It seems that in some ways it’ll be very bad for truth seekers, as scandal will be taught even to children; but in another way it seems it’ll stop radicalism.
 
Last edited:
No one being protected from military aggression by a U.S. military presence will agree with you. No one.
 
Last edited:
Possession of such weapons and its morality is more complex than you seem to express.
 
Last edited:
USA’s massive expenditure in major weapon systems definitely has had helped to keep at least 2/3 of the western hemisphere relatively free from aggression

where the USA has FAILED (imo) is in wars of occupation (eg vietnam) policing (korea) and nation building (middle east)

perhaps the US would be better off minding our own beeswax & letting sovereign nations take care of themselves
 
“Spirituality”?! I could see an Evangelical making that claim, but a Catholic? The US has a history of extreme anti-Catholicism. Surely a country like the Philippines is FAR richer spiritually speaking from a Catholic perspective.
 
Last edited:
great post; USA is a protestant nation (who mostly are pro-life & support traditional “christian values”)

the largest enclaves of Catholics in USA (blue states) largely vote lock-step against traditional Catholic doctrine
 
Last edited:
the USA built nuclear weapons for self defense

USA fought to a stale-mate (at a cost of 48,00 lives) in Korea 60 years ago; we have no desire to invade NK ever again

as far as the USA’s “military footprint”; i agree it is too large & costs way too much money; we can’t afford it anymore

let the sovereign nations of the planet defend themselves; or combine into coalitions or be over-run

leave the USA out of it; WE ARE SICK OF DEFENDING YOU!
 
Last edited:
ok, we’ve done this “atomic on japan” theme here on CAF before

you are not addressing 2/3 of my post…
 
Last edited:
No on the military front at the very least.
Look at what decades of wars have done to the US. Massive debt from trillions spent on unwinnable wars. Severely wounded soldiers, both physically and mentally. And for the latter, some have actually done harm to fellow Americans. These injured soldiers are also being neglected. And hundreds of soldiers who sacrificed their lives for what exactly?
Now the damage that has been inflicted on the Middle East in particular is extensive. Iraq’s modest Christian community was decimated by Bush’s war. Obama’s intervention in Libya has left it in a complete mess where it’s now a massive hub of human trafficking and Islamist militancy. The former is affecting Europe too. Syria and also Libya, all of those weapons meant to arm rebels, a lot of it is now in the hands of terrorists.
Now look at Tunisia, where the Arab Spring originated from. No US military intervention and remarkably it’s much more stable than Libya and Syria, where the US did intervene when the Arab Spring reached those places.
All of this time and money spent on useless wars could have been better spent on fixing America’s own problems. And how can Republicans of the neo-‘conservative’ stripe complain about refugees from the Middle East when they played a role in creating refugees in the first place. They supported all of these useless Middle Eastern military interventions and with the help of others.
 
Last edited:
America should mind its own business. Let other nations pay for their own defense, and force any of my hawkish country men, to put on a uniform and fight the wars they support. Bet they’d change change their interventionist opinions real quick if they actually had to fight.
ATraveller said:
Obama’s intervention in Libya has left it in a complete mess where it’s now a massive hub of human trafficking and Islamist militancy. The former is affecting Europe too. Syria and also Libya, all of those weapons meant to arm rebels, a lot of it is now in the hands of terrorists.
Click to expand...
To Obama’s credit he didn’t get America involved in a war with Syria despite the kvetching of neo-cons like McCain, that wanted a invasion after Obama’s “red line” was crossed. Good thing Trump seems to have backed off after his poorly made decision to bomb their airfield. Last thing we need is another war.
 
Last edited:
Run the world? No.

Help out around the world? Yes… If it’s needed, wanted, feasible, etc. That’s just Christian Charity.

We shouldn’t be forcing our “help” on anyone, ever. Bad things happen when you start doing that.
 
brian_custer said:
the largest enclaves of Catholics in USA (blue states) largely vote lock-step against traditional Catholic doctrine
Click to expand...
It is interesting that you have to insert a modifier of “traditional” Catholic doctrine. No true Scotsman, maybe? As neither part is more than about half of Catholic doctrine, (the moniker “traditional” is irrelevant), I do not see how this supposed state color has any meaning, not that I think this correlation is true, or has any meaning.
 
then let me put it this way: the states in the USA with the largest catholic populations (some 40% catholic or more), by demographic and post-election polling, will’ve been shown to’ve voted time and time and time again for pro-abortion candidates

clear enough for you, shipmate ? 😦
 
Last edited:
I see. So like the mainstream media, you are a believer in polls. Got it.

But no, I did not get that “traditional” Catholic doctrine was the same as abortion.
 
Last edited:
vote whatever way you wish. US catholic “blue states” (sorry that term is offensive or unclear to you) never EVER fail to put pro-abortion candidates in national office
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top