According to an AP/NORC poll, “a majority of both Democrats and Republicans agree that the U.S. should not get more involved than it currently is in the ongoing conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas.”
“The poll shows that 4 in 10 U.S. adults want America to broadly take a “less active” role in solving global conflicts. Only about one-quarter think the U.S. should take a more active role, and about one-third say its current role is about right.”
Our role as the World’s Policeman is no longer popular.
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
Trump wins much on this issue, he wants ceasefires.
Biden opposes. He just blocked a ceasefire resolution at the UN. He has blocked negotiations several times.
Morals, ethics and finances all favor ceasefires. Opposing ceasefires, the Biden position, is the prominent position here.
**Our role as the World’s Policeman is no longer popular**
Has the US role really been about being the “World’s Policeman?? OR
Has it been about globalism, domination, and money for donors, politicians, and the military industrial complex?
We have not won a war since WW2. Do we even have an active general who knows how to win a war? or is our military leadership more concerned about DEI?
Truman gave China to the Communists and attempted to give S Korea to NK but MacArthur stopped that and was fired.
In the 1950s the CIA helped fund Communist Castro supposedly to gain favor with him in case he succeeded. WTH?
October 1963 JFK tells Walter Cronkite US will not send troops to Viet Nam; JFK said we will supply them but it’s their war to win. Two months later; the CIA funded the overthrow of the Christian Democracy in 1963 S. Viet Nam. JFK also had openly stated he was going to break up the CIA into a thousand pieces. Three weeks after Viet Nam coup JFK murdered. Two weeks after that LBJ tells generals you’ll get your war. Lasted a decade with 70,000 KIA, MIA, and WIA etc. That’s a hell of a price for losing. But who won? Politicians, donors and military industrial complex.
How many proxy wars have Pentagon and CIA supported? Several I suspect. There is a story that 2015-16 the Pentagon and CIA were supporting opposite sides during Syrian civil war.
The Peanut President had Dictator Communist Nicolae Ceaușescu in the WH 1978 praising him. The Queen of England 1984 Knighted him. VP Bush and SOS Schultz 1985 praised the Romanian Dictator. Guess they couldn’t tell the good guys from the bad guys but we’ve finally learned their the bad guys.
For decades the US government has been making enemies all over the world and has forgotten they are supposed to answer to the American people. I don’t think the US is considered a good neighbor around the world except to globalist tyrannical countries.
War . . what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
Yup, according to anti-Viet Nam war song (smile), all war has tragedy attached to it. But I am certainly pleased the USA founders fought that war. Our civil war was nasty but ended that slavery, Now we have another slavery blossoming. It is my hope it does not become ugly. Ugly is nasty. I have experience with that. May become necessary though, since historically, tyrants have only been stopped with force.
Can you name any nation which fought a civil war to end slavery. Lincoln never fought the war to end slavery and said so.
You reading Howard Zinn’s anti American book?
Somehow I knew you couldn’t respond in a coherent way. You did respond in a manner reflecting your education, your intelligence, and your pathetic level of understanding.
Like most Americans you are just another illiterate in history vomiting the memes you learned in gender studies.
No other nation fought a war to end slavery skippy. Even Lincoln denied it at the beginning.
Laughing! You’re funny!
Yup tell that to the inmates of the death camps. Spoken like a gender studies major at Vassar.
Americans never want to get involved in wars where we aren’t attacked. Yet our leaders seek to get us involved. FDR had us in a shooting war with the Germans prior to Pearl Harbor (see the Rueben James). Wilson did all he could to get us into WWI after promising the nation to stay out. Truman invited the Korean war and then did everything he could to avoid ending it. Kennedy got us involved in Vietnam and LBJ gotr us tied down there without any idea of what he was doing. Nixon listened to moron Kissenger and initiated the defeat with dishonor policy. I am unaware of any Americans screaming for war. Bush could have ended Tehran with the full support of the American people but decided the real culprits were located in Peru, I mean Afghanistan and Iraq. No wonder no one trusts the government.
Right on Ann, please read my post as well!
This is a very interesting topic, and one that has many important parts to consider.
One concept that should be considered with this, is the concept of the USA Hegemony. For more information I highly recommend watching this video by Brass Facts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVYe-IMgoLs
How do I personally feel about it? (I wasn’t included in this pool, and as never asked)
I don’t like war, it leads to deaths. That’s never a good thing. We live in an imperfect world. If you’ve watched the video I linked, once of the things covered is overall death counts from wars over time, before and after the establishment of the US Hegemony.
Based on stats, you can argue that that the US working as a global police force of sorts has lowered the number of deaths.
I think that In the context of the US acting as a global police, it needs to be extremely careful and wise about deciding which conflicts and incidents with which it get involved.
I personally think that the Ukraine/Russian war could have been handled differently, and a lot better. In the past US/Russia relations have gotten very good, and could have gotten better. But it is hard to let go of the “boogy-man” When you need the boogy-man for political reasons.
I like the idea and the results of the US working as a global police, some of the time, depending on how actions are taken, but sadly more often than not, with recent, and even past actions I feel like the US is playing the “bad guy” more often than the “good guy” There will always be situations where you have to be the “bad guy” in a situation in order to resolve it in the best way, but I don’t always feel that was needed when it happened.
One current example where I feel the US should actually do more, is in the Red Sea, with the Houthi drone strikes. Quick and short extreme overwhelming violence against those launching these strikes would be best.
Anything long and drawn out is a problem, but this is where politics and money come into play. :\
So I guess in many ways I feel the US should play a more active role, but a different role. Especially a different role that results in less US and non-US deaths.
Wow spoken like someone who has never served but she quite prepared to send someone else’s children to die for their preconceived fantasties about the world. Why should Americans fight savages in nations bordering on the Red Sea if no one else is willing to do anything about it? If we cannot defend our own borders why send our military to the Red Sea?
That is a harsh accusation, you don’t know my military history and shame on you for saying I want children to die. That is the exact opposite of what I said. I question whether you read what I wrote.
First, the US should absolutely do a better job of defending its own borders. And in my opinion, people responsible for the current situation should be held accountable for their violation of law, and their oaths.
Second, as for why the US should do anything about the Red Sea. There are US citizens directly affected, both their lives and livelihood, by these attacks. In any instance where US citizens are killed, or affected, that’s where the US government should care, at varying levels depending on the situation.
I am not suggesting going to war over this, either directly as Authorized by congress, or indirectly through proxy wars. There are many ways to address these situations, and I even very specifically said a different role is what I wanted to see.
What an incoherent response. “in any situation where American citizens are directly affected.” And this doesn’t apply where skippy to your attacks on the US as a world policeman? Americans who choose to place themselves in harms way bear the responsibility for their thoughtlessness and foolishness not the nation. Those who think its a great idea to go sight seeing in Yemen have to claim on the US government’s intervention aside from the usual useless diplomatic protest.
As for your military background, please forgive me, I can tell you have experienced years of suffering and witnessed the results of a Claymore or fleshette.
You can therefor tell us what golden footprints are. You can also tell me why I would want to stand behind a 106 recoilless rifle, or what three on a match means. Describe to me the contents of a mre.
If military action is required it should be done with acknowledgment of Congress for a specific time period with a specific force. If major forces are required a declaration of war should be used. Attacks on US military forces, US terrority, merchant shipping should be regarded as acts of war and treated as such. Tourists, wandering businessmen, adventurous hippies, religious types do so at their own peril and always have.
You have advocated the use of other people’s children as cannon folder as most warmongers do. Its what the Hildabeats;s Obamas, Brandons, LBJs, Clintons do. Its why they wind up in the industrial-academic-government war machine like Niuland will do.
Warmongers who never serve like Biden, Clinton, and Obama.