This is an interesting question, and I dabbled a bit into this with Cid.
Some people think the US should stay as minimally attached as possible to the foreign world (hi, I'm RCA); maintaining agreements they've already made with other countries, upholding bargains, trading, etc, but not really going beyond that. Kind of just sitting around and going with the wind, almost, and fighting when forced to.
Others think we should be the world's police, where we actively look for trouble and dictators and aggressors where they may be and go out to kick ass while playing the US national anthem the whole time (Wade is a nice example of this). This isn't an entirely bad perspective...depending on the situation (*cough* World War 2, Cold War *cough*). On the other hand, the results have been...mixed, for basically the whole 21st century. Afghanistan's been going on for 17 years, and it doesn't look like the people there really give a damn about what we're trying to do there (they've been lining the roads with IEDs for that whole time, so our priorities and theirs might be just a little off...). We've gotten involved in other parts of the world militarily; I think we've meddled in Ukraine, too (although not necessarily militarily).
It's a mess, and US involvement doesn't have any particularly clear benefits; at least, not without drawbacks, or serious mistakes along the way to detriment any perceived benefits we might be bringing.
So how much should the US be involved in foreign affairs...?
Should we be the world police or the city upon the hill? The guys going in to help, or the guy who sets the example for how other countries should run themselves...?
Some people think the US should stay as minimally attached as possible to the foreign world (hi, I'm RCA); maintaining agreements they've already made with other countries, upholding bargains, trading, etc, but not really going beyond that. Kind of just sitting around and going with the wind, almost, and fighting when forced to.
Others think we should be the world's police, where we actively look for trouble and dictators and aggressors where they may be and go out to kick ass while playing the US national anthem the whole time (Wade is a nice example of this). This isn't an entirely bad perspective...depending on the situation (*cough* World War 2, Cold War *cough*). On the other hand, the results have been...mixed, for basically the whole 21st century. Afghanistan's been going on for 17 years, and it doesn't look like the people there really give a damn about what we're trying to do there (they've been lining the roads with IEDs for that whole time, so our priorities and theirs might be just a little off...). We've gotten involved in other parts of the world militarily; I think we've meddled in Ukraine, too (although not necessarily militarily).
It's a mess, and US involvement doesn't have any particularly clear benefits; at least, not without drawbacks, or serious mistakes along the way to detriment any perceived benefits we might be bringing.
So how much should the US be involved in foreign affairs...?
Should we be the world police or the city upon the hill? The guys going in to help, or the guy who sets the example for how other countries should run themselves...?
Comment