"It is vital for global security that the USA play an active and forceful role in world affairs." How to argue FOR this?

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
This term, my politics elective has a debate segment. I picked to argue in agreeance with the topic, "It is vital for global security that the United States play an active and forceful role in world affairs."

People who disagree with this statement, please take a moment to flip roles and take an intellectual exercise in playing devil's advocate. If you supported this statement, what reasoning would you use to back it up? People who agree with this statement, I just want to hear from you period. :p

I'd appreciate links to reports, speeches, anything to get a feel for other reasons or ideas. Thanks for the help, and no flaming please.

Here's what I've got so far, incidentally:

- Efforts by unstable nation states such as North Korea and Iran to acquire WMDs need to be curbed as much as possible, albeit delicately. No other nation but the US has the physical assets, budget and therefore authority to take the lead in such an effort.

- In an increasingly smaller (travellable) world, allowing other nation states to implode in the hope that they'll eventually put themselves together with a government that believes in international cooperation and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as laid out by the UN ( See Link ). Just like you would investigate and make decisions on what actions to take if you heard gunshots and screams all night long as your next door neighbour's, so must nation-states weigh the pros and cons of stepping into other people's affairs, knowing that a neighbour or government that does not share the same basic beliefs in humanity as you do might not mind coming over to see what's next door. Again, the USA is the only nation that can fulfil this role globally.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Aaaaaaaand I posted into the wrong forum. But maybe OT has some good ideas too. :p
 

TheBoyBlunder

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2003
5,742
1
0
I'd look into what Teddy Roosevelt said about the "walk softly but carry a big stick" or something. Beyond that...I'm not sure.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Your best bet to support that argument, which is correct by the way :), is to reference history and what inaction brought the world. While Nazi Germany rose and annexed its neighbors, the world stood idly by and even appeased Hitler into confidence. What followed was the most devastating war in the history of the world.

With the easy availability of weapons of mass destruction (you can literally cook up chemical weapons with household cleaning products), a similar situation today could be even more destructive, and if nuclear weapons are thrown into the mix, the physical results could last for centuries. We don't have the luxury of allowing any irresponsible state to develop these weapons for nefarious purposes, and we must enforce international protocols limiting their proliferation.

With massive power comes massive responsibility. The United States is the richest and most powerful country in the world, both economically and militarily. In order to maintain the economic strength, we must maintain an international system which is stable and promotes commerce among free nations. We have the military strength to ensure that international stability, and we are the only nation in the world which has the power projection capability to intervene in any location or any nation in the world within a matter of days or weeks. To not use that power when it is morally required is to follow the appeasement of a past generation, setting up a worse situation for which everyone will pay.

Ok, have to go shower. Enjoy. :)
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
"It is vital for our security that the USA play an active and forceful role in world affairs."

As far as the 'global' part goes, we still live in an era of mutually assured destruction. That's reason enough right there, for the USA to play an active role.
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
the u.s. is the only democratic country with enough money, reach, and power to have any sort of international impact on the world. other democratic nations are either too poor, lack the reach, or are too small. someone has got to take charge, and the u.s., with its ingredients is the right candidate.
 

Dragnov

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
6,878
0
0
AndrewR sad most of what I was thinking. I think your best bet is to reference history.

Some random thoughts (that I have not thought of carefully so please don't critique it as its jsut a first thought).

After WWII - Marshall Plan. You can't let countries suffer in its own destruction, it leads to a hotbed of radicals and extremism. Taking an active role in helping recover and integrate the European countries did wonders. Theres A LOT you can talk about here other than what I just said.

Great Depression. Caused in large part due to countries closing themselves off. US forcefully taking steps to fix the world economy and have countries open up is what let it thrive again. Took responsbility of managing the world economy with Bretton Woods system (eventually abondened but then abondonding it for a fexible currency also). No other country could make these changes, they simply didnt have the economic power.

A bunch of stuff on the Cold War on how the US ensured the protection of the Western European countries, etc etc. Europe definitely wanted/needed the US.

Some stuff on East Asia. The development of such countries as Japan and Korea. This is arguable here, but you an't say the favorable treatment, security, and massive amoutns of investment/money put in didn't have some type of impact in helping them grow. Not entirely, but some!

I would definitely avoid the moral grounds on human rights and etc. And definitely argue form a historical perspective.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
I would definitely avoid the moral grounds on human rights and etc. And definitely argue form a historical perspective.
*nods* I'm up against amateurs anyways though - and I can always pull the "you fought any way you could in the Cold War" card if needed. But my attack is going to be on solid issues and history, not the moral/emotional game.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
I would definitely avoid the moral grounds on human rights and etc. And definitely argue form a historical perspective.
*nods* I'm up against amateurs anyways though - and I can always pull the "you fought any way you could in the Cold War" card if needed. But my attack is going to be on solid issues and history, not the moral/emotional game.

Better hope your opponents are weak, cause defending a lame thesis like you are stuck with sucks :p
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Better hope your opponents are weak, cause defending a lame thesis like you are stuck with sucks :p
Stuck with? I was 4th in the class to pick a topic and went for this one. Real men salivate at the thought of battle. :p
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Bump for any new ideas? My debate is tomorrow, 9 am. :)