Should the USA get involved in wars for humanitarian reasons?

we would obliterate china in a war....

 

And what are your credentials in military planning and tactics? Are you privy to some information the rest of us aren't?

Bullets still kill, bombs still blow up, They got nukes and an incredibly large sized territory... how do you manage to bring that under control without significant losses? Regardless of the fact that we'd win. What is 6% of the debt worth? the western seaboard? 2 trillion in military expenditure and losses? Fighting with china would cost us significantly more than we owe to them. How do you justify it? You can't unless you admit that you just want to see people dead.

 

we will never succeed as a country and economically prosper like we did back in the 1940's-60's again as long as we are slaves to china's products. we need to start building everything back home in america.... weather we break trade with china or destroy it.... doesnt matter. as long as we start producing most things back here in america it will be beneficial in the long run and essential if we ever want to see economic prosperity

 

HOW ARE WE SLAVES TO CHINA'S PRODUCTS? cite sources... because you'll find that we import more from other sources than we do from China... your information is so bad that nobody can put up a counterargument to your 'logic' when your 'logic' comes from a fantasy world.

As for the 40s-60s, there was a whole different world of economics back then... One that we can't go back to. The real height of american productivity was in the 1800s anyways. Not to mention that a large part of our prosperity was because of technological advances that we gained by being at the front of education in the world... And now we aren't because we spend all our money on destroying things instead of on education.

Also, china is the fastest growing market for US goods. It's not their fault production left the country.

 

bring it back....

 

You mean the Gold-dollar standard? hahahaha.

 

we would obliterate each other.

 

Yes, but we have to remember that the goal is to make the peoples free, not war in itself. So if there's better means than war, take them first. I believe it's the strong's burden to help the weak. The US doesn't have to be alone however, imho all rich western countries should take part. And it could be anything from diplomatic pressure, gun boat diplomacy, embargoes, give them money if they better themselves, and of course bomb them back to the stone age if they so insist.

 

No. We should avoid all wars that don't involve defense of ourselves or an ally.

If a bunch of people are getting killed in the Congo, that's their problem, not ours.

Besides, even if we did enter a war primarily for humanitarian reasons, we'd get slandered for it later by the various miscreants who hate us no matter what.

It's time we focused more on our own affairs and let the world beg for our intervention should it ever need it again.

In general, you tend to be less appreciated if you're always around.

 

You are the superpower, you are bound to get blamed for everything no matter what you do, it's a curse. If you don't intervene people will blame you for having no heart, but they wont care about the others not doing anything because they know they cant. If you intervene they'll run around screaming that you're nothing special and have no right to intervene. And there'd be idiots saying you only did it for the money..

Yeah, I understand how you feel. Have a go at not helping the world with anything, it would be fun to watch. See how they like the biggest foreign aid donor to stop, see how they'd like it if there weren't any convient crusiers around to rescue people after disasters, how they can't turn to US medical institutions when they need help.

I guess I don't have to tell you how strong the anti american sentiment, or more like jealousy, is in europe and sweden in particular. People really do not care about the good things you do, and they are suprised to find out you even give foreign aid let alone being the biggest contributor.

 

The military should be used sparingly and only for the defence of our nation. No more vague mentions of our national security interests that get us into wars that last for years, drain our resources and get our brave men and women killed and end in defeat or stalemate. Enough. It is a dreadful thing for us to send troops to die, lets do that as little as possible. The military's purpose is to kill and destroy an enemy that attacks us. We have a State department and charitable organizations to do the humanitarian stuff.

 

Yes. He with the power to help who turns a blind eye to the suffering of innocents is no better than he who oppresses them.

To put it another way, if you saw a man raping a woman in front of you, would you help her or would you walk away and say, "Not my problem?"

 

But, would you risk your life to do so?

 

If you're not willing to give your life to do the right thing, then how much do you really believe in doing what's right?

 

Me personally, hell no. I'm far to valuable to be just thrown away like that.

But don't have to get killed do they? americans that is. Can't one just use air and naval power to bomb their stuff and shoot at them until they stop and do what we want? I mean, only the threat of america using it's muscle would make sweden compliant for example. And an demonstration of that power, by blowing up lots of governmental buildings say, would surely convince anyone if they iddn't agree firsrt.