Welcome to your first blog of APUSH 2. Just like last year, I expect some great conversations and awesome insight!!! Not to mention, I know you just can't wait until we do the TERM GAME again this year!!!! :-)
This week, we are going to be discussing what has become somewhat of a hot topic lately... the role of America in world politics and rather or not we should continue to be the "World's Policeman." Surprisingly, the varying viewpoints on what "America" means today crosses political boundaries and you can find different viewpoints amongst Democrats, Republicans and even Libertarians. As always, those viewpoints normally have to do with what part of the 3-prong spectrum (liberal, moderate, or conservative) the individual happens to belong to, yet according to a pole done by ABC News last week, it's pretty obvious the definition of America's role in world affairs has dramatically changed over the past 20 years. Twenty years ago, most Americans still believed that we had a moral responsibility to be heavily involved with other countries affairs and they also believed that we, as a democratic republic, were the "shinning examples" for other countries - countries that looked up to the United States and respected our opinion and assistance. That doesn't seem to be the case today - at least according to some.
TOPIC: In your opinion, what does "America" mean today? Are we still "morally" obligated to get involved with other countries affairs - should we still be the "Policemen of the World"?
I feel like this situation is a very complicated one. I find positive areas of each argument, but as expected I will take the more liberal stand point on this issue. While I think America does have good interests in promoting democracy, we definitely are doing damage to our own country while doing it. Trying to achieve a true democracy in the Middle East at this time by using military force is a hopeless cause that is just causing more American deaths. Trying to enforce democratic rule on a chaotic country once and failing might be seen as a brave gesture. But occupying so many sovereign nations and fighting for democracy over, and over without a gratifying result is pointless. Also, its spending money our country DOES NOT have. Instead of acting as a police force and trying to get involved in every international issue, if America did truly care about the spread of democracy we should accomplish this in a more diplomatic fashion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. And I rather find your statement about the U.S 'occupying so many sovereign nations and fighting for democracy over, and over without a gratifying result is pointless' interesting. After I read that part, I was nodding my head with agreement. Like, it only hurts our economy. Furthermore, the U.S doesn't really have to fight and get involve in other country's business, because they aren't obligated to do so. I think the government thinks that they should because most countries are looking up to them for intervention, just like what is happening to Syria. If other countries want intervention, why wait for the U.S? Why can't they act on it? Also, as what you said, if America wants to spread democracy, it should be done in a strategic way.
DeleteI agree that sending troops to other countries spends money we don't even have. With the current state of our economy, I would assume President Obama would be more concerned with relieving the nation's debt and assuaging other problems in the nation. How can we lend a hand to countries like Syria when we too are in need of assistance?
DeleteAmerica is the land of equal opportunity. For many, it is the land of freedom, opportunity, and the melting pot of the world. To me, these attributes still remain true, but I feel there is no need to continue pushing our beliefs and government on other countries. The only time this would be appropriate is if a country is completely uncivilized and in desperate request of help. America's success has given it a big ego. The United States feels that their duty is to be heavily involved in foreign affairs.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is a global power and a defender against oppression and injustice. Intervention in Syria is beneficial, for the removal of Syria's chemical weapons protects the world from catastrophic war. By President Obama threatening repercussions if Syria doesn't cooperate strengthens the claim that we are the "Policemen of the World." Instead of acting like the United Nations, the United States should help and worry about its own people. Then America would rightly posses the prerogative to bestow its morals and ideals on submissive countries.
I completely disagree with your statement about Syria. Removing chemical weapons from Syria will not have any global impact. Chemical weapons are often known as a cheap nuke, but if when they were used on the civilians it shows that these chemical weapons can not be used in a large scale war, or even fired at countries. America would not benefit at all from helping Syria, whether threw ground troops or sending the rebels weaponry. If we send ground troops, we just started another war after almost ending one. Supplying the rebels with weaponry is dangerous because the rebels are uknown groups and are believed to have ties with al qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other dangerous militants, besides how do you think Syria received those chemical weapons anyway? America in no circumstance should be a World Police unless it benefits us.
DeleteI re-read what I said about the chemical weapons and it didn't make sense, so what i meant to say is that these chemical weapons used are going to cause no harm in global standards. They can be used in their own country, but I do not believe they can ever be used to fire at other countries.
DeleteI found it interesting that you incorporated syria, i found that it was a perfect example to go along with this topic. We should not get involved with something that has minimal offense to us. It has not escalted to America. We should only gey involed if it was targated towards us. The United Nations should take charge in that.
DeleteAs jen showed and i brought up in my blog post about Obama's warning to Syria concerning threatening repercussions if Syria doesn't cooperate strengthens the claim that we are the "Policemen of the World", I fail to understand why he did so. I find it so pointless to butt in someone elses business, when that businesses has nothing to do with America. Why bring destruction, and put yourself in a situation like this, when you can avoid situation like this one.
DeleteI agree some what with what Jen is saying, while I do not think America should get involved with Syria for economic and logical reasons, I do think there is a moral issue that compels us to get involved. It is tempting to get involved in this international issue because of the heartwrenching use of chemical weapons on the Syrian people. This does effect the morals of America, but at the same time we should stand our ground and not get involved.
DeleteI completely agree with you that we have no right of intervention in Syria only acting like police by giving them warnings to comply with us. However, to Bishoy's comment above do you understand what their use of chemical weapons even in their own country means to the rest of the world. They are violating international law so our intervention is the enforcement of the law. However I feel it is not our place to enforce but their use of chemical weapons is one of the major problems. They CANNOT be used in their country.
DeleteYour point of removal of Syria's chemical weapons is conflicting me. I don't really know what to say to that for two major reasons. One being is it economically smart to interfere in a country right now with almost a 17 trillion debt? The second reason is what if Syria decides to use the chemical weapons? This can cause a major problem on morals. If we knew about the chemical weapons why did we not try to stop them. I am so split between whether or not we should act like the Policemen of the World on this topic. ):
DeleteI have to make a comment here, for like many of you, I'm somewhat torn on the Syrian issue. Yet, by the same token, as a student of history, one thing that history has clearly taught us (or I should say, "has attempted" to teach us) is that ignoring a problem or issue will NOT make it go away. The world tried that during WW II with the rise of Hitler and the Nazi army - even more so with the way that Jews were being treated and eventually exterminated - and it didn't work. I know it's "What-If" history, but I often wonder what would have happened if the world would have intervened early enough to have put a stop to Hitler's slaughter of 6 million people. As I was telling my WCH class the other day, there are HORRIBLE events in history that have had dramatic effects on humankind for years to come, but by the same token, good has rose out of the ashes in many cases and at times, it was a "good" that most likely would have never happened if it hadn't been for that negative event. Yet, the dilemma we face with living in the "now" is that we don't have the luxury to know what will or will not come about due to a given event. Everything is easier to analyze in hindsight.
DeleteSo, my point is this. Drawing "red lines in the sand" and not following through makes you look weak when someone calls your bluff and they cross the line. Redrawing the line over and over makes you look even weaker. I guess I'm old fashion in some ways and want to believe that the USA is still respected and to some degree, feared. It was those elements that at one time made people around the world want our help and intervention into world affairs. We were the shining example of how a true Democratic Republic could work and prosper... Now, I believe that is less the case. $17 trillion dollars in debt and that isn't even counting the unfunded liabilities (which puts us closer to $30 trillion), a stagnant economy, and we're constantly ignoring problems internally, let alone on the world stage.
So, do we have a responsibility to be the World Policemen...no. Do we have a MORAL obligation to go to other's aid when being slaughtered by mad-men.... I believe so. The problem is, we just don't know who is who....
America is a country where people come to fulfill their dreams. However, just because our country is a nation of opportunities does not mean that it has to make every nation a land of opportunities. Today, America has no “moral” obligation to get involved in other nations. Currently, the situation in Syria is rising, however, there are many other nations who can also impact that country. In addition, I believe the United Nations should serve as the police force; not America. The coalition should make an attempt to resolve situations such as the one in Syria.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there are some people who argue that by getting involved with other countries, we are helping the economy to grow. They argue that war is a positive thing for the nation and support their argument with the events in World War II. However, I don’t believe that the situation today is like World War II. By going into war we would I actually further devastate our economy. Also, I don’t believe that the large amount of nationalism needed to support a war is currently present.
I agree with everything until your last sentence. And I don't think your wrong, just that you are looking at it wrong. Nationalism is often something that arises directly after an event. Look at our Nation after Pearl Harbor, or recruitment skyrocketing after 9/11. Nationalism is, sadly, something that needs to be encouraged, often by cataclysm.
DeleteI agree with Nick, and also Abu no matter how much "nationalism" is present, people do not like being in a long war. They may support it at first, but after 3 to 5 years they begin to despise it and wish for it to be over. Such an example is the civil war.
DeleteI understand why you would want the united nations to be the policemen and i completly agree with it. America was fighting wars that didnt not involve them. They are hurting their own country while interfiring with everyone elses buisness.
DeleteNick I know what you mean but the conditions for Syria today are a bit different. I believe that if we go into interfering with another nation unncecessaily today the nation would be split on whether to support it or not. So the same amount of nationalism as was for say in World War II would not be present.
DeleteAnd Bishoy, I know where you are coming from but your statements are a bit on the false side. You said that people don't like a long war but what does that have to do with nationalism? However, if a large amount of nationalism is present, support for interference will be present no matter what. A perfect example of a long war where strong nationalism was present is World War II.
As jen said, yes i agree with you on that the united nations should be the policemen of the rest of the world and not America. As i said before, our country is already in poor conditions, and on top of that we have to worry about the walls closing in on us, making our economy even more unstable. America does not need to lend a hand if the problems are not affecting us in any way. By lending a hand, they might bring themselves down as well along with those they are helping.
DeleteHow was World War II a long war? America only fought for 4 years, while the war with the middle east is more than a decade
DeleteAnd as Nick already said 9/11 spurred a lot of nationalism, and that was the biggest reason Americans cried for war. The war took to long and now everybody wants our soldiers home.
Deletena·tion·al·ism: patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.
Its common sense Abu, as a war is prolonged people start to hate it. We see that in The Revolutionary War with Britain's troops, we saw it in the Civil War, we saw it in Vietnam, and we saw it in the Gulf War. Nationalism and war go hand in hand.
And as Nick already said 9/11 spurred a lot of nationalism, and that was the biggest reason Americans cried for war. The war took to long and now everybody wants our soldiers home.
Deletena·tion·al·ism: patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.
Its common sense Abu, as a war is prolonged people start to hate it. We see that in The Revolutionary War with Britain's troops, we saw it in the Civil War, we saw it in Vietnam, and we saw it in the Gulf War. Nationalism and war go hand in hand.
Ok so im going to answer all your questions in parts.
Delete1)How was World War II a long war? America only fought for 4 years, while the war with the middle east is more than a decade?
World War II was fought from 1939 to 1945. But the reason stated this was a long war was because of your ingenuity present in the statement "but after 3 to 5 years they begin to despise it and wish for it to be over. Such an example is the civil war." World War II fit YOUR description so I offered it.
2). Your common sense is beautifully presented here. I believe I did agree that nationalism is needed for war. WHAT i said was that CURRENTLY, like TODAY, nationalism or "na·tion·al·ism: patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts" would not be present LIKE it was during WORLD WAR II. Also, your statement of a war which is prolonged people begin to hate i agree to to a certain extent. I believe that the way the country is doing in the war also plays a role. Also what is at cost is also a factor.
ALSO, I hope you notice a small pattern in the examples you provided:
"The Revolutionary War with Britain's troops"- British were losing and not much was at stake for them.
Civil War- I don't know exactly and particularly when this was seen in the North. However, it was most likely more eminent in the South, the losing side.
"Vietnam"- What was America exactly going to win or lose by winning?
I hope you are satisfied with this.
I personally do not consider WWII a long war for Americans. I do agree with the statement you made: " Also what is at cost is also a factor." The cost of war can boost the moral of people, but time will always lower the moral. And again you said " would not be present LIKE it was during WORLD WAR II, " but in WWII Americans had "nationalism" because they wanted to go kill Nazis. After WWII Americans had nationalism because they wanted to go kill terrorists. 9/11 is after WWII and it brought nationalism like WWII. If a Russia attacked New Jersey there will be a great amount of nationalism. How can you state: WHAT i said was that CURRENTLY, like TODAY, nationalism would not be present LIKE it was during WORLD WAR II. Unless you are an omniscient entity you can not make such a bold statement.
DeleteOk So now it is clear that your definition for a long war has flip flopped. I reccomend pressing the delete button for one of your previous comments to prevent contradiction.
DeleteNow part 2:
You are confused with what I am trying to say. I reccomend you READ this whole conversation over. By CURRENTLY, i am talking about the SYrian conflict. I thought you were referring to that as well but as the example of Russian you suggested I see that that is not that case. Please read the conversation over and then comment.
I agree that entering war would compromise our economy. While a large portion of Americans tend to support war for economic and patriotic reasons, the majority also argue war at any time would be unnecessary. War costs and the loss of lives are to be considered.
DeleteBoys, I see that you keep mentioning nationalism over and over again. Just to add the definition of both nationalism and patriotism which are both commonly confused, nationalism is a feeling that one’s country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life. I do agree that America does have a strong sense of nationalism which leads to our country to go to war with others due to differing governmental beliefs.
DeleteI was talking in general, I was not referring to Syria at all. I thought when you made your first comment to Nick you made the first paragraph just for him, and the second part just for me. I didn't realize you meant Syria for both of us. My bad!
DeleteAs for WWII not being a long war. I said 3-5 years as an estimate. You can not truly say what a long war is. I think because WWII was such a large scale war fought over such a small period of time, compared to lets say the Gulf War, it was a short war.
Thank you Bishoy
DeleteAnd since you are talking about Syria I agree with your statement!
DeleteAlas... the war between Abu and "Key Element" has ended..... or has it......
DeleteThis is a very interesting blog topic. In the past, America has always been involved in others country’s affairs. America has always been the country that wants to spread and promote their democracy. We have also been known as the country for a new life, new opportunities, and liberty. We are in no way obligated to get involved with all these other countries. America is doing itself harm but getting involved so much. Instead of acting with violence, we should spread our democracy in a civil way.
ReplyDeleteGoing into war was always said to be a necessary evil. But sometimes America gets involved in conflicts that have minimal effect on our country. War actually hurts our country. It puts America economically unstable, and our economy is already unstable. America should not be the police force of the world, but the United Nations should. Syria is a prime example of this because America involved themselves. Obama is acting as the spokesmen of the “Policemen of the world” by threatening repercussions against Syria. Our country is not economically stable to go through a war. America should not feel the need to be the “policemen of the world”.
I completely agree with you. Even though, the U.S are engaging in strifes that have little effect on our nation, it still have an effect. The U.S being involved in wars hurts the country. And as you said, it hurts the country economically and to add to that, it hurts the country in a way that, the lives of American military men are at risk. The government should start thinking, that whether the intervention on somebody else's business (like that of Syria) is worth the lives of these military men.
DeleteI completely agree with your statement that going into war is a necessary evil, and that we should spread democracy in a civil way. Doing such would result in using less money on war, weapons, and troops, and would somewhat help prevent the national debt from getting any worse than it already is.
DeleteI agree with you. In no way should we as a country have anything to do with something that we know could cause a war when we don't directly have to be involved. In the past maybe it was our moral obligation because we were more stable than any other country, but now we are not and we cant help anyone because we can not even help ourselves.
DeleteAmerica is always depicted as the "good guys." They solve all the problems in the world and bring peace and democracy to the whole world. Right? Well lets look at the most successful account of America trying to bring "democracy" to other countries, the Arab Spring. We nearly destroyed the countries, lost thousands of American soldiers, thousands of civilians (non American) died, and at the end the we did not accomplish our goal. We hurt our selves and the Middle East trying to be the World Police. See what everyone forgets is that America is still a COUNTRY, just like France, Britain, Russia, and every other country in the world. We are not some Super Hero that saves everyone. As a country, America has to be selfish. It has to do what is best for itself and its people. We need to fix all our internal problems before we start budging our heads in other peoples business. If the people of another country want democracy, let them fight for themselves, and establish their own country. We do not have to risk countless of soldiers lives to help others. As for being "morally obligated," I want to see some written contract promising we would support every pro democracy movement. And even if there is such document, we are called hypocrites whether we help said country or not. What I mean by that is, if we go to war with another country to "bring democracy" to the people, we are then classified as war mongers, and for every soldier and civilian killed we are hated. If we don't go to war then we are seen as hypocrite, but I rather be seen as a hypocrite then the other option. Why doesn't the UN or some other country go and become the World Police.
ReplyDeleteI AGREE!! If they want to be us, let them fight like we had to. I love selfishness, especially when it saves us money! Seriously though, you are absolutely right. Most of what we have done as the WORLD POLICE, has hurt the people we tried to help. Saying that people forget that we are a country and not a super hero is about as grassroots non-intervention as you can possibly be, and it is the best way to be.
DeleteIn response to your last sentence, I think the United States' title of "Polimen of the World' came from the overly-patriot and nationalistic feelings during Manifest Destiny and other earlier events. Americans get so pumped up over war and their rights and liberties that they feel everybody should enjoy synonomous opportunites. This passione appears to countires as intrusive and presumtious.
DeleteYour statement "as a country, America has to be selfish" definitely stands out for good reason. Ultimately,military interventions always result in more danger and cost than promised. If we took action, deeper involvement is inevitable. We most definitely need to stay on our toes regarding the situation, but stay selfish in attempt to address our own nation's issues.
DeleteBishoy I must say I have to agree on Americans NEED to be selfish. Because like history is showing what have we accomplished through our latest interventions? Almost nothing expect lives lost and money shredded. It is true as well that whether we choose to intervene or ignore we will have a negative look upon us. However we put this on our own shoulders and it is time we understand that we need to quit trying to help other and help ourselves! We are a world power however a broke one. The government also calling for war is underestimating the resistance present in Syria. Why risk our people only to throw away more money.
DeleteBABY BISH, you were so right about America needs to be more selfish. Sometimes you have to be selfish to saves yourself from harm that is destroying the country and the people living in it. We as a nation need to do what is best for ourselves, not worry about others. First lets start fixing the problems within our country before we try to help others. Getting involved and trying to spread democracy as of right now is not the best move for us. Our country is going to through major economic crisis and we are trying to send military troops to other countries. This will only result in us spending money, increasing the national debt and killing American soldiers who do not need to risk their lives. “To be happy, we must not be too concerned with others.” -- Albert Camus
DeleteI have deemed military action necessary in certain situations, but I am undoubtedly against Barrack Obama's intervention proposals and overall stance on the issue. I recall him stating something along the lines that "helping out in foreign nations is what makes the American people so great." (Something similar to that). He is a shining example of how America is depicted as a try hard peacemaker. Initiating war and continuing to act as the head honcho minimally will advance or preserve a consistent level of peace and national security. Additionally, attempting to promote our democratic ways in Syria in a fanatical manner will most likely cycle of violence.
ReplyDeleteWe should not continuously act as world police, and not act on our claim to "take the moral high ground" It is essentially not a demand, but a desire for America to play Globo-cop. Trying to be the police of the world is getting awfully expensive. We have run up almost 4 trillion dollars more debt since Barack Obama was elected!! This war will only escalate that amount. Additionally, we are getting a lot of young men and women hurt while simultaneously accomplishing a whole lot of nothing.
So no, we should not continue to be the policemen of the world, although our governmental decision makers expect as to go sing Kum Ba Yah with those in Syria and see America this way.
I personally do not like President Obama, but this is sometimes why this country is going down hill. We blame one person, anything bad happens and its the President's fault, while we completely ignore the rest of our government. I personally believe the President is no more than a puppet head, something of the resemblance of the Queen of England. The whole system of government is to blame, and the people of America are also part (or should be) of the government system. The reason America acts the way it does is because of two things, after WWII the power America received rushed to its head, and the people in this country are to passive and do not speak out and protest against the actions the country is taking. This allows the government to do whatever it wants without anyone telling them to stop, such as becoming a "World Police."
DeleteI completely agree. I'm not really a big fan of President Obama neither but I refuse to be like everyone else and blame only him for the things that HAVE not been done. Obama is the President but that title doesn't really mean anything anymore. Just like how you said that he's a puppet head just like the Queen of England is so true. Obama has little or no say in any decision making for the United States. The rest of the Government, most likely the Congress is the main part of his whole speeches. Obama is practically the messenger. As for the United States being world police, I don't think it is a bad thing. Our Country is huge and we are the most popular so I feel like being involved with other countries and things like that helps us look good but the United States should be involved in a good way not a controlling way.
DeleteBishoy I sort of agree with you but not completely on the presidential power. I wouldnt go ahead and call him a figure head but i agree that there are others to blame. One statement that you made that really gt to me was"people in this country are to passive and do not speak out and protest against the actions the country is taking." BISHOY where in the WORLD did you suddenly receive this epiphany?? WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Delete"2000- April 16, Protests of the IMF/World Bank meeting. Supporting march for the A16 street blockades of an IMF/World Bank meeting.
2000 - April 30, Millennium March on Washington. Controversial LBGT political rally.
2000 - May 14, Million Mom March. March against gun violence.
2000 - August 26, Rev. Al Sharpton organized the "Redeem the Dream" march in Washington DC commemorating the 37th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.
2004 - October 17, Million Worker March.
2005 - January 20, Counter-inaugural protests. Demonstrations against George W. Bush's second inauguration.
2005 - September 24, Anti-War in Iraq protest.
2005 - October 15, Millions More Movement. March to commemorate the 10th Anniversary of the Million Man March.
2006 - March 6, ProjectMARCH. March for colon cancer screening for all adults
2007 - January 27, January 27, 2007 anti-war protest. Sponsored by United for Peace and Justice.
2007 - March 17, March 17, 2007 anti-war protest. March against the Iraq War sponsored by ANSWER Coalition.
2007 - June 10, June 10, 2007 anti-Israeli occupation protest. Rally and march against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories for peace and anti-violence.
2007 - September 15, September 15, 2007 anti-war protest. March against the Iraq War sponsored by ANSWER Coalition.
2007 - October 19 – 20, October Rebellion. Series of demonstrations protesting the policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
2007 - Unnamed date, Unnamed date, Myanmar political protest. March against the strict, Burmese government. Consists of some Americans, Burmese people, and Asian-American Burmese people.
2008 - March 19, March 19, 2008 anti-war protest.
2008 - April 19, National Socialist Movement protest march. Against illegal immigration.
2008 - June 1, Jewish Federation of Greater Washington. Israel at sixty years celebration.[18]
THESE ARE ALL EXAMPLES OF the "PASSIVE" people speaking out! These are major examples of protests only in DC from 2000-2008. There were more but I had to delete them because they didn’t fit.
Hey Abu guess what ITS 2013!!!! Its been a whole FIVE Years since you could give me an example of a nationwide protest. Now its my turn to give you a list.
Delete1. Voter turnout:estimated 126 million people voted in the election, where President Barack Obama defeated GOP nominee Mitt Romney. That means 93 MILLION eligible citizens did not cast ballots.
2. We were lied to about the Benghazi incedent
3. IRS Scandals
4. Snowden and the NSA
5. The wars that America are trying to be involved in
6. 16 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT
The list continues... You get my point
Bishoy your contradictory and hypocritical statements are making me laugh. Where is the “common sense” my man?
DeleteYOUR STATEMENT:
“the reason America acts the way it does is because of two things, after WWII the power America received rushed to its head, and the people in this country are to passive and do not speak out and protest against the actions the country is taking”
YOU DID NOT SPECIFY A TIME PERIOD BUDDY!
I wanted to prove a point: the people in this country are NOT passive!
What exactly does your list have to do with anything I said?? I don’t get your point at all.
But since it is NOW 2013 as you have magically discovered, are you saying that there are NO, NOT ONE, protest occurring in the United States? Has a plague of passiveness suddenly spread?
I'm sorry Abu I took a guess that you would be smart enough to realize that I would not like to talk about a protest that affected the country five years ago. And the list symbolizes things that are a major deal that Americans should be demanding answers to, and I do not recall millions of people taking to the street protesting on why we are being spied on without warrants or why there was an American Ambassador and other Americans murdered in Benghazi, and the Obama Administration blamed it on a 4 year old video. If you re-read my statement I said "nationwide protest" (not as in Nationwide Insurance, so you do not get confused again) as in the whole Nation Nation, or a large portion of the Nation.
DeleteBISHOY? you said that the people in this nation are too passive to speak up. You did not specify that they have to be on the specific topics YOU deem important. I really have no clue about what you are saying anymore. Like you are just throwing out contradictory statements that really make no sense. The people in OUR COUNTRY ARE NOT PASSIVE BECAUSE YOU DID NOT SEE THEM PROTESTING ON THE STREETS FOR THE INCIDENT IN BENGHAZI. Please clear that out of your mind.
DeleteThese are examples Abu. And I said "the list symbolizes things that are a major deal that Americans should be demanding answers to, and I do not recall millions of people taking to the street protesting on why we are being spied on without warrants, or why there was an American Ambassador and other Americans murdered in Benghazi, and the Obama Administration blamed it on a 4 year old video."
DeleteSimply put, the people don't care about what happens in the government anymore, and thus become passive. The list I gave are corrupt things the government did, and they were not punished by the people for it.
I hate to break up the nice debate, but regarding Bishoy's initial response, I don't believe my standpoint is why the country is going downhill. It is no secret that I am not a fan of Obama, but I payed credit to the overall government decision. I just elaborated on one of his typical ingenuine statements over the media. I am well aware of the complexity behind the scenes in Washington. You can call him a puppet head, but I call the president a reflection/symbol.
DeleteBish I also disagree with you. Americans are definitely not passive by nature. There have been many protests where people have fought the government. For example, the Civil Rights movement. To bring present issues into light, many people are fighting war in the Middle East now. Statistics prove that the people are not favoring it.
DeleteI guess we have different point of views at the end. I feel like just giving a statistic is pretty passive action. I am being serious right now can someone tell me the most recent protest with 15-60 thousand people in America? The protest can be for any reason.
DeleteAnd when I say just giving a statistic, I mean as this number will not change anything. Statistics are showing people do not favor it, but does that change anything? In fact if we look at Syria polls show that the American people do not want to be involved, but I do not think the government would have cared about our opinion. So far the only reason we are not in another war is because of Russia.
DeleteDefining "America" is very difficult, because America isn't just a place, it is an idea. And like most ideas, it is prone to drastic and extreme change throughout time, and drastic and extreme opinionation, based on who you are asking to define it. Throughout history, America has been a rebel, a revolutionary, a slavemaster, a tyrant, a liberator, a warmonger, and a peacekeeeper. To some people, we are a model and a peacekeeper, to others, an interventionist, trigger happy empire. I honestly don't think that you can define America in a single term, because there are so many aspects to it, that all have thousands of angles and definitions attached individually, which are all differently deciphered and interpreted based on who is reading, listening to, writing, or making them.Simply, America is a conundrum.
ReplyDeleteNow as to the question of whether or not we should be the world police, there is definitely an answer. Absolutely NOT. Too long have we done single-handedly, the job of the entirety of the United Nations. Yes, we have worked in conjunction with Germany, France, Australia, and the U.K., but it has constantly been us at the fore. While in some cases, like directly after 9/11, I feel that some Middle-Eastern butt-kicking was in order,but in place like Egypt, and Libya, and now, Syria, we should not be acting as the U.S., but rather as a member-state if the U.N.
Our BELOVED administration recently stated that they are aware that the American people are tired after a decade of war, but that does not stop our "Moral Obligation," to take action. WHY THE ___ NOT??!? Who on EARTH says that we have to do a single God-___ thing, when the American people don't want to. Now I am no pacifist, but when a politician openly acknowledges that his constituents don't want what he is proposing, he should have his answer right there.
I agree with basically everything you said. I really support the idea that America should be a country a part of the United Nations yet not take the role of the United Nations. In addition, there are various other super powers present in the world who can do the same job. In addition, I like how you explain that if the citizens of a nation don't want war, why are their representatives going for war.
DeleteI absolutely enjoyed and agreed with your description of "What is America?” Because I had trouble summing up American in the few words I did you absolutely hit the nail on the head! A conundrum yes, we are viewed differently across the world for our courses of action. For the actual question I also wonder were this moral obligation comes from. What was our purpose in intervention?! "Moral Obligation" of what the US or the UN?! Because last I heard we are the US and as part of the UN we shouldn't intervene because the other world powers ignored it when we are the most unstable.
DeleteYou are absolutely correct regarding the American people not wanting to interfere in Syria. The American public has grown extremely tired of war. I saw on a poll that approximately 9% were in favor of heading to Syria to rage war, and that is very telling!!
DeleteNicholas, what you said America was actually perfect. After writing what i wrote and then reading your definitions of America it got be thinking. Can you still define America with solely certain words and idealistic. We have been known as the country with freedom and equal opportunities. Does that still stand today because many people would argue on equality rights. I remember when I was at LFD and they were talking about different races and the counselor read a statics but I forgot where it said something along the lines of blacks have a significantly less chances of scoring a job then whites. Have the equal opportunities disappeared? It truly depends on who you are talking to
DeleteNick, you never cease to amaze me at times. One minute I could strangle you for your sloppy writing and then other times you nail it. Your opening paragraph is excellent... so good, as a matter of fact, that I plan to copy it, blow it up, and make a poster out of it - with your permission and of course accredited to you as the author.
DeleteOn another note, I also have to agree with your "careful shouting" questions (thanks for leaving the bad words blanked!). I'm reminded of a NJ representative (I'll not mention his name in case the NSA is reading this) that told me not long ago that it was HIS responsibility to VOTE the way HE felt was GOOD for the people, NOT what the people of the state believed was good for them. I will always remember just how hard my jaw hit the floor when he made that statement, for it literally flew in the face of the very foundation of our Democratic Republic!!! "WE THE PEOPLE" - a concept this representative seemed to have forgotten. You're 100% correct, I firmly believe that if the majority of this nation says "DO NOT GET INVOLVED" into something, regardless of what that "something" happens to be, then our government, which is suppose to be SERVING the people, should listen and not get involved. It amazes me time and time again, lately, just how far our government seems to have strayed from that concept.
Another great example of this was when we had a member of Congress that made the statement (again, not mentioning names...NSA.. in case you're reading this....so please, no Homeland Security phone calls!!).... "We need to pass this bill first and then we can find out what's in it!!!" Seriously??? For me, that is and will be for some time, I'm sure, one of the moments that made we afraid of the path we have decided to venture down....
Yet. unlike many of you, I do feel we have a moral obligation to prevent, if at all possible, the mass murdering of ANY PEOPLE!! As I said in an earlier post - history has made a number of attempts to teach us that ignoring a problem does NOT make it disappear. Ignoring it does not make it any less horrible...just because it's not happening to you (us).
Also, unlike many of you, I have traveled around this planet and had the opportunity to visit a number of countries and I have yet to find a place that is as wonderful as the United States. Granted, I'm what some would consider an "Ol Flag Waiver," but despite ALL the things that you pointed out Nick that America has meant to many and as you clearly pointed out, that we truly were at times, one thing is for certain. I have yet to find another country where you can have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and become SOMEBODY. You can go from rags to riches. You can read what you want, you can watch what you want, you can say what you want and still live FREE.
"To those that much has been given, much is expected...."
After reading the prompt, it had me contemplating to a point that I really asked myself, what does America mean nowadays. Sure, it's a country which was established from the roots of liberty and equality. But what does it truly mean? I believe that America delineates the ideology of 'growth' and 'conquest of one's dream and goals' that's why it has the most number of immigrants (legal or illegal) per year. They come to the U.S, in expectation of having a better life and better opportunities to improve their life and to eventually grow as a person and attain their own established goals.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, the U.S has been all over the world since the idea of Manifest Destiny proliferated in the 19th century, and although, the U.S has been posing as the U.N for years, it is time for the U.S. to stay out of other country's business. For example, the current events in Syria is not the Americans' problem. It is Syria's. They started it, they should fixed it on their own. As , what George Washington once said, ' War- an act of violence whose object is to constrain enemy, to accompany our will.' In the Syrian affair, who is exactly the enemy of the U.S that needs constraining? No one! Syria isn't doing a thing to us, why get in their business? Because we're 'morally obligated' to do so? Absolutely not! The U.S. doesn't have an obligation to the world, but it does have an obligation to its people. It has come to that point, that the U.S should start focusing on the events happening in its own boundaries not somewhere else. Thus, the U.S doesn't have to act as the 'Policeman of the World'
I agree with you chriz, because of America's land of various opportunities, immigrants mostly "illegal" come to the America seeking the fulfillment of their dreams. Over 700,000 new illegal aliens enter the US annually and stay. Roughly 12 million illegal immigrants are staying in the country at the moment.
DeleteI was intrigued by the what you said of George Washington, also you brought out an excellent point about Syria. They are surely not our problem and Obama is making it our problem. They have not done any harm to us. They should be punished for their actions but not by America. Again, the United Nations should step in and take control.
DeleteI agree with your statement that Syria isn't our country's problem. They started the conflict; they wanted to change. Why should that affect us? We already had our turn fighting amongst and within ourselves, and established a government that works (at least a little bit) for us, and all without interference from other countries. They should do the same, and without interference from America.
DeleteWhat does “America” mean today? America is a country that provides opportunities for growth, improvement and fulfillment of dreams. In 1945, America survived a war that was one of the strongest out of the many other participants. Since then American has began to assume the role of the “police of the world.” They have been posing as United Nations, acting like the heroes as always , and I think it is time for them to step aside and let someone else do all the hard work. Yes, getting involved paints the picture that America is the good guys who bring peace and democracy to the rest of the world, but it also portrays a picture showing the consequences of war. War doesn’t do anything good to our county. Our country is already in poor conditions, and on top of that we have to worry about the walls closing in on us, making our economy even more unstable. For example, the emerging of problems in Syria, is not America’s problem, it is Syria’s. They are the ones who got themselves into this mess, so they should figure out how to get themselves out of this situation. If we are not getting affected by the mess created in Syria, then why should we “America” do anything about it? But, yet, Obama threatens repercussions against Syria. Because of this, sometimes along with country America helps out, America itself goes down with them. War is not an option because of the conditions we are already living in and America should not feel as if they need to innerve as “police of the world”
ReplyDeleteAs Jamie stated in one of the comments above, America began acting as the "Policemen of the World" long before the Ally victory in 1945. It actually began acting as such during the growth of American Imperialism, when we began annexing nations such as Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines. Further evidence for this statement is when the United States forced Japan to open its ports to American ships for trade. Likewise with Chinese ports.
Deletei just deleted the post that i made for this by accident and it was perfect!!... but also really long and i cannot type it again.. so here's the gist of what i had to say:
Deletei agree to a certain extent, however the syrian government is at fault,not syria itself. the syrian people did nothing to deserve of provoke the chemical massacre that took the lives of thousands. it was the syrian government that just let it happen.Thats why i think the US always steps in, its almost like no one else will make a move until we do. and thats bad, we should not have to feel responsible in sense of making them pay for their actions, we should feel responsible in helping the thousands of family's that were affected though
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is the home of freedom and opportunity. However, why is it that we deprive ourselves the Freedom to stay away from foreign affairs taking away our Opportunity to deal with our own? It seems as if we have a twist on words. What are we gaining from these actions? I personally haven’t seen much success of America's influence on the spread of the beautiful democratic principles. So what more are we doing besides sending in soldiers and losing valuable American lives to an affair we have no business in. What do we owe to these countries? On the basis of our actions it seems as if we only feed the fire instead of helping it. Also, war means money and where is America getting this money from? Add it to the debt I guess. We are the United States not the United Nations so why is it that we act like all issues are ours. We are a world power indeed; however, there are other countries with just as much power completely ignoring the issues. I understand the chemical weapons issue however it is not our issue as a country to battle against. This issue, if not approached correctly, will only hurt our nation not help. We act like that no good child looking for trouble while we have enough trouble on our own hands. Any pension from being the "policemen of the world" will not pay off this country’s debt.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is a country of equal rights and opportunities. People come to America for many different reasons such as for freedom, better life styles, or just looking for a new start. As many would call to be the first model country to the show how the democracy works, we do not have to pressure other countries into our ideas and government beliefs. As of now America, does not have a "moral" obligation to get involved with other countries affairs. We are only hurting ourselves by trying to interfere with other nations and still trying to proclaim are selves as “Policemen of the World.” A perfect example is the situation in Syria. If America tries to use military force it will be a waste of two things. First we are causing more American solider deaths, in a war we don’t need to enter. Second is America is going to be spending so much more money and effecting the economy more. America’s national debt has almost reached 17 trillion dollars. Why spend money when you don’t have it? If we really wants to try to spread our government beliefs of democracy we should attempt to do it through peaceful ways not resort to violence. Once again America has no “moral” obligation anymore.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you to a certain degree. The part I slightly disagree with is that right now, especially in Syria we are not trying to spread Democracy and nor should we ever try to spread democratic goals. the one thing we should focus on is improving the lives of these people and our people. there are so many people who are in desperate need of the simple things we take for granted. And there are many organizations that are assisting in the effort to help these people, but what if that was like our thing, what if we did not just thrown around money but we used it as a nation to fix our selves first and then fix the other countries? by doing this.. by not shoving democracy in peoples faces, we actually help and better peoples lives
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMany today consider America to be the greatest country in the world, with reasons such as diversity, opportunity, freedom, and American football. However, (and I hope nobody gets mad at me for saying this) I believe that America is not the greatest country in the world, nor is it anywhere close to being the greatest, as it once was. But one day, it could be again. It has the potential.
ReplyDeleteCountless other countries have freedom; France, Australia, Belgium, Japan, Italy, South Korea, just to name a few. So our freedom definitely does not make us stand out as being the greatest. In fact, there is little evidence to support the statement that we are the greatest country in the world. We rank 7th in population literacy rate, 22nd in science, 27th in math, and 49th in life expectancy.
Currently, we are number one in two categories- defense spending, which is one of the major unnecessary expenses that has pushed us into a $17 trillion debt, and incarcerated citizens per capita.
There was a time when our country was the greatest, when our leaders stood up for what was right, rather than what their political parties told them what was right. We used to pass laws for moral reasons, rather than to put more money into the hands of the upper class and politicians. We used to care about the well being of other countries, rather than just caring about trade and the money we could get from them.
There was a time where we built enormous things, such as the Sears Tower, the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the Empire State Building. A time where we explored space, created cures and vaccinations for diseases, and for a time cultivated the world's strongest economy. We were able to do all these things because the American people were more informed about the country they lived in, and ways they could make things better.
The first step to solve a problem is to recognize that there is one. And there is a MAJOR PROBLEM HERE. America is no longer the greatest country in the world. But it can be again.
I forgot to answer the second question:
DeleteAre we morally obligated to get involved with other countries affairs? It depends on what grounds we fight for. While it's imperative that we keep ties with our allies, America should not have to intervene with foreign affairs unless such conflicts could lead to drastic environmental, social and economic turmoil on an international scale.
Do we have the right to be the "Policemen of the World"? I don't believe we do, but most countries seem to expect that of the Unites States. We still are looked upon as a country that can be used as an intermediary during times of conflict, and since we are regarded as such, we act that way.
America is still the land of freedom for many people. Unfortunately thats not all we are anymore, now america is also thought of into the aggressor and plenty other unpleasant names because of our insatiable need to meddle in other countries political policies and what not. We have use our war machines to “help” the countries "change for the better" when they do not want change they just want help.
ReplyDeleteIf we want to change what we refer to as Third World countries, we should use our might and money to drill water wells and help the people live healthier . When people have the means for food, clothing and shelter, they wont have to fight for the right to these necessities.
We are not the “policemen” of the world. It has not worked inn these last couple of years and will not work again. Our country should wake up to that fact that pushing other governments to be like us will only make others angry. We have to be strong in ourselves before we can help others. Our politicians have allowed us to be weak and it appears we are getting weak. We need to let the matters of political parties be handled by the UN and let our focus be on, if anything, the improvement of life for the people of foreign nations, and maybe even our own