Should the U.S. use its military and financial power to act as the world's policeman?
- Unstable regions can be havens for terrorists.
- Nations cannot grow and develop with constant threat of warlords and terrorists trying to gain power.
- Humanitarian aid often cannot reach its intended recipients.
- Genocide and atrocities can be avoided or lessened.
- Citizens and governments are hesitant to invest in unstable countries, and they may be reluctant to donate hard-earned money to charities for which the money may not reach its intended targets.
- Militant ideologies could expand without us, threatening the lives and resources of democratic countries.
- Living with oppression and a constant state of terror throughout an entire population is worse than the risk of a few deaths.
- It could eventually lead to a united, stable world.
- We can protect U.S. interests (trading partners, military allies, countries with needed resources, etc.).
- No other country in the world has the power to play this role.
- It could increase an already growing anti-American sentiment around the world.
- We could make many wrong decisions (e.g. when we armed & financed Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden).
- U.S. soldiers would be put in harm's way and could lose their lives in the process.
- Civilians would be killed on many of the missions.
- Much of a country could be destroyed in a liberation attempt, as modern weapons can be very destructive.
- The financial cost of being a world policeman is extremely high, and the world economy would be brought to its knees if the U.S. economy continues its spending path to bankruptcy.
- People from other countries have different cultures & values; thus, we must respect the rights of those citizens to determine their own government.
- Acting as a world policeman is not an enumerated power given to the federal government by the Constitution.
Page Last Updated: 05/27/2011