How should America engage the world?

[ForThePeople]

At issue in this election is the general question of the role that America should take in the world. Are we an omnipotent 800 pound gorilla to a world of gnats, able to do what we please without any need for permission? Should we use the UN to a certain point but retain the right to strike at will where we feel the need? Should we be bound by the UN and all notions of international justice regardless of our economic and militaristic weight (ie, bound to honor indictments of the World Court, etc)?

As America has grown we have extended our dominion and our right to intervene, starting with the Monroe Doctrine and up to the current unilateral Iraqi invasion (don't offer any non-sense about the significant contribution of 3 soldiers from Tonga, it was unilateral).

Teddy Roosevelt opined that we should "speak softly but carry a big stick," ie use diplomacy but not be afraid of going to war if it failed. President Wilson urged us to joing the League of Nations, FDR and Truman prepared us for the UN, Marshall introduced us as the peacekeepers and nation builders to a war torn Europe and a defeated Japan.

Really - what should be our role on the world stage?

 

[ToBeMe]

My opinion......................

We should take Teddy's advice..................

speak softly but carry a big stick

......................my personal opinion is that we've stuck our noses to many places we didn't/don't need to. We need to offer opinion when asked, assist when needed and be friends to everyone we can but stay out of their business and expect the same. We need to take care of our own problems first, head back to the days when the US was an industry/corporate giant and do what we used to do best................work hard and supply the world with quality products and leadership.

As far as the UN.................I personally am not a fan of it. As long as human emotion is involved....................there will be prejuduce. It can work on a limited basis, but never worldwide because the needs are not, and never will be the same country to country on a worldwide basis. As far as a "world court"....................this may work as long as it applies to particular situations such as war crimes. As for other instances, IMHO you should be held to the laws of the country you are in and subject to the penalties of said country in anything except acts of war.

In other words..............in my humble opinion, the "new world order" or "world government" idea won't work..........at least not at this point in time.............countries and their people are still to far apart and different in their wants and needs for this to work and it could cause the worst war the world has ever seen.................

 

[shiner]

Link