Does the USA have a duty to protect the world?

[Kroe]

This is my first Forum question, but I was wonder what people think. Does the United States of America have a duty to protect the world from tyrants and violent or does it over step its bounds? If the U.S. doesn't do it who should? Should anybody at all? Should organizations like the UN be given more power so they can do their job better?

Ill probably being getting a lot of crap for this, but the way I see it is if the U.S.A. doesn't do it who is? Because unless there are some major reforms in the UN they won't be able to do their job as efficiently or effectively as they could.

[Ardoki]

I don't see how overthrowing democratically elected governments to only replace them with oppressive dictatorships is "protecting the world"?

[Conserative Morality]

I don't see how overthrowing democratically elected governments to only replace them with oppressive dictatorships is "protecting the world"?

To be fair, not all of our interventions ended up like that.

[Soled]

What do you think, OP?

[Qubec]

Hell no. The US needs to learn to stop interfering with everything

[Cheveksim]

My honest opinion is firstly, that the United Nations is a corrupt organisation of terror that should be dismantled as soon as possible. With that said, I do not think that the need for a union of nations is necessary anymore. This is connected to my next point, which is that no one nation should have the duty, nor the right, to meddle in other nations' affairs. So, to conclude, the United States does not have a duty to protect the world, nor do they have the right. My point about the United Nations is somewhat unrelated, but I had to post it because of my constant need to spread hatred for the United Nations.

[Kroe]

My honest opinion is firstly, that the United Nations is a corrupt organisation of terror that should be dismantled as soon as possible. With that said, I do not think that the need for a union of nations is necessary anymore. This is connected to my next point, which is that no one nation should have the duty, nor the right, to meddle in other nations' affairs. So, to conclude, the United States does not have a duty to protect the world, nor do they have the right. My point about the United Nations is somewhat unrelated, but I had to post it because of my constant need to spread hatred for the United Nations.

I do not agree with your statement that the UN should be abolished, but as I said in my opinion I think they should have major reforms because in their current state they are as you said pretty corrupt and don't know how to do their job worth shit, the idea is a great one BUT their members are to focused on the needs and agendas of their own countries that it blurs the agenda of the UN as a whole.

[Kroe]

What do you think, OP?

I edited my post to include my opinion.

[Kroe]

I don't see how overthrowing democratically elected governments to only replace them with oppressive dictatorships is "protecting the world"?

The US has been some pretty horrible things in the name of democracy, but they have also done a lot of good things as well. I don't know the bad outweighs the good at all.

[The Rebel Alliances]

The United States of America has often supported oppressive regimes when it benefits Washington DC's interest quite often. Has betrayed the trust of foreign populations as much as aided them. And pretty much every intervention in our history was done to give the USA some perceived benefit. Real or not. The American Government has done its share of war crimes. Massacres against natives, intern camps and so forth just to name a few. (Smallpox blankets anyone)

None of this is to make the USA seem like the Galactic Empire, but to show that by the same coin it is not some righteous divine nation with a unsaid sacred duty to the 'People for the World'. Hell, many would argue that it does not effectively meet its duties to its own citizens.

The United States is simply another nation among hundreds and the thousands in the history of mankind.
So, I would say no.

[Kroe]

The United States of America has often supported oppressive regimes when it benefits Washington DC's interest quite often. Has betrayed the trust of foreign populations as much as aided them. And pretty much every intervention in our history was done to give the USA some perceived benefit. Real or not. The American Government has done its share of war crimes. Massacres against natives, intern camps and so forth just to name a few. (Smallpox blankets anyone)

None of this is to make the USA seem like the Galactic Empire, but to show that by the same coin it is not some righteous divine nation with a unsaid sacred duty to the 'People for the World'. Hell, many would argue that it does not effectively meet its duties to its own citizens.

The United States is simply another nation among hundreds and the thousands in the history of mankind.
So, I would say no.

That was a really well thought out answer, if you believe the U.S.A. shouldn't do you think any nation or organization has the duty or right?

[Digital Planets]

The US doesn't have a duty to do shit. If they wanted to tell the rest of the world to fuck off, they can.

[The Rebel Alliances]

The United States of America has often supported oppressive regimes when it benefits Washington DC's interest quite often. Has betrayed the trust of foreign populations as much as aided them. And pretty much every intervention in our history was done to give the USA some perceived benefit. Real or not. The American Government has done its share of war crimes. Massacres against natives, intern camps and so forth just to name a few. (Smallpox blankets anyone)

None of this is to make the USA seem like the Galactic Empire, but to show that by the same coin it is not some righteous divine nation with a unsaid sacred duty to the 'People for the World'. Hell, many would argue that it does not effectively meet its duties to its own citizens.

The United States is simply another nation among hundreds and the thousands in the history of mankind.
So, I would say no.

That was a really well thought out answer, if you believe the U.S.A. shouldn't do you think any nation or organization has the duty or right?

Why thank you. To answer your question. Ideally, the UN would be able to enforce some common protection. As it is a collective acting to right violations that effect a collective. Or in some cases even just a single state. But it is unable to.

When it comes down to it, only the people of affected nation have a 'Duty' to fix the perceived wrongs in that nation. So, for example. Only the Koreans have a duty to work out a problem between the two Koreas. Everyone else who partakes is simply there for their own reasons. Regardless if they 'feel' a duty.

But also I have a distinction between 'Natural' and 'Adopted' Duties. However, that is a topic for another day.

[Cetacea]

NO

The US is the tyrant and the violent, it is not a global sheriff or heroic saviour. It is an corporate imperialist who does nothing to help unless it is the benefactor. This is the nature of superpowers in our world...

[The Rebel Alliances]

NO

The US is the tyrant and the violent, it is not a global sheriff or heroic saviour. It is an corporate imperialist who does nothing to help unless it is the benefactor. This is the nature of superpowers in our world...

That has always been the nature of superpowers.

[L Ron Cupboard]

The US only protects its own interests. or at least what special interest groups in the US think are in its own interests.

[Empire of Narnia]

No. China does.

[Beta Test]

The USA doesn't protect the world right now, let alone in the past. Like every other nation, it's foreign policy has been about advancing self-interest. Also, no nation has a "duty" to "protect" others.

[Meridiani Planum]

Does the United States of America have a duty to protect the world from tyrants and violent or does it over step its bounds?

A duty? No. It may have a responsibility to look after the interests of the citizenry, but that doesn't specify precisely what it should do in specific cases.

I do think that American foreign policy is too hawkish. While I certainly wouldn't cry any tears for tyrannical regimes that might be overthrown, I wonder if more harm than good is done in the long run with civilian deaths and new tyrannical regimes that form right on top of the old ones. If you trade a cruel secular dictator with an oppressive theocratic regime, what good has actually been done?

[CTALNH]

I don't see how overthrowing democratically elected governments to only replace them with oppressive dictatorships is "protecting the world"?

To be fair, not all of our interventions ended up like that.

Sooner or later they all did.

[Stormaen]

No, no and no again.

The USA has a duty to protect itself and its people. It does not have s God mandated mission to go into another's sovereign territory (except by the stress permission of that territory) in order to "protect the world".

I would argue that US intervention under the guise of "protecting the world" has actually caused more problems than it has solved.

[Balshvik]

No, the USA does not have to be the world poluce. Let the counteries police themselves. USA should just stick to protecting it's boarder or from any counteries that want to go to war with it.

[Dukats]

HELL NO!!!

America isn't the world police.

[Purpelia]

HELL NO!!!

America isn't the world police.

In fact no one is. And no one should ever be. The nations of the world should to settle their own differences amongst one another without external intervention. And should settle internal affairs internally without judgment from foreigners.

[Sinas]

The US as with many other nations are focusing too outwardly, without working on it's own problems however I attribute that to the growing masses of politicians only interested in short term over long term. And no they shouldn't be the police, at least not in their current state.