Should U.S. military troops be deployed into combat situations for humanitarian reasons (e.g. to prevent a dictator from slaughtering his citizens), even if there is no other direct American interest?
Agreed. One current example is Bahrain. We're supporting a pretty nasty regime right now, but they let us have a military base there. Interventionism requires having questionable allies.
peace through strength.
So in your opinion, our military, our United States military that swears an oath to protect America and American freedom, must also serve as world police any time something unsavory happens in another part of the world...?
Our troops need to prevent massive bloodshed wherever it may be. The U.S. Should have been more proactive in shutting down concentration camps in WWII. They could have done much more to save lives from the Holocaust.
We need to let people decide the culture they want to live by. But it is fair that they are aware of our beliefs.
We should not be so arrogant as to assume we can decide who is right in another nation's conflict. We decided to throw off British rule. We decided to fight a war to preserve our union. Would it have been right for a stronger nation to step in and prevent decide on a different outcome? No.
We already have ways of helping developing countries, e.g. The UN, and the Peace Corps, just to name a few. There's no reason why our military should be deployed for humanitarian reasons, they're there for our protection, not theirs.
It's sad but what are we supposed to do after we save somebody else's country? Should we set up the government too? If the citizens don't feel like they were the ones that overthrew the dictator and set up the replacement govt, they'll just blame USA for anything unsavory about the new govt.
U can't put a single navy seal in Syria to stop all the fighting. We are AMERICANS, the leader of the free people of the world. We can't just sit back and watch thousands of innocent women and children get slaughtered.
Small crew or single man shooter, yes!
Marine recon sniper + .300 Win Mag? Cheaper still.
We shouldn't turn a blind eye, no. But we should be sensible and cost conscious about how we offer aid. US Military? Expensive. CIA cyanide pill? Not expensive.
Generally no. But I'm not too concerned about a CIA agent poisoning an evil dictator or two. Emphasis on evil dictator, not inconvenient dictator.
That's tough. We go and the world calls us the "great devil"(Iraq). If we don't we look like we only care about our selves (Darfur). Genocide should be stopped wherever it happens. Maybe the rest of the world could step in? then we could stop sending US troops into a blender (Somalia).
No.. Doopy your are definetly doopy thats for sure.. We have the will to win wars and yes our econemy is improving but its not there yet (obama2012) so your just wrong.
Sad how many are all for sending someone else to die!
We didn't enter the second great war because of genocide. We entered because of Pearl Harbor. It's okay though, you were probably regurgitating what your liberal teacher taught you. ..
For the 3,120 or so that voted YES, by all means go straight to MEPS and sign right up, you'd make a great bullet catcher... but something tells me you won't. (sentiments from a Marine combat veteran [thrice over in three years])
American defense should always be first, not helping someone who we do not have a direct interest in.
The us did not enter WWII for humanitarian purposes. We did not intervene when we knew about the atrocities and never even declared war on Germany. Only when our interests were threatened did we declare war on Japan.
This is an important question. Foreign policy is a tricky situation and I have not fully developed my philosophy in this area. However, in Syria maybe we should do like we did in Bosnia and just use air power? Our brave troops would be safer and the slaughter would stop. Thoughts?
No. Even though Mitt Romney wants to plunge us deeper into debt with another war on top of giving the military 2 TRILLION dollars they didn't request.
To those that voted yes, visit your nearest recruiter's office. We'd love to have you, since most of us are tired of fighting for the past 10+ years for an American public that can't even spell Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone find it on a map. In the meantime, I'll continue to proudly serve.
Don't believe in war so turn a blind eye while fellow humans are slaughtered? Kids, women, families?
More privileged countries wouldn't help you. These numbers are disappointing.
Really? So we should have stayed out if WW2 and allow genocide? Many Americans are pampered and selfish. We are all humans living on the same planet. We should be there to help out people in dire need who have no one else. Imagine if you were that person who needed the help but one of the richer
A 30-year Marine mustang said no. I know the cost of these "great ideas" better than most.
Ask Saddam Hussein how being our friend in the '80s worked out for him...
Are troops should never leave our soil without a declaration of war and common defense rules in the constitution. That other humanitarian stuff isn't our problem.
Every time we send in forces we are told the reasons are humanitarian. Hasn't been true yet.
As long as we are part of a multi-national force. We should do our part in the world but not enable others to sit back
A consensus of Allies yes. UN NO! We should get out of the UN now!
All of you saying yes have never been in the military. Supporting your troops means bringing them home not putting them needlessly in harms way. No matter where in the world it is.
There are more advanced techniques than sending troops. Sending our kids to war should be a last resort and only in cooperation with other nations. We can't and shouldn't be the world's police.
Why not? Its better than dicking around in afganistan.
How do you tell the difference?
Send drones to eliminate the dictator and get out of debt at the same time
Anyone that wants to send are soldiers in harms way to play police man congratulations you are part of the reason why the world hates us right now. :)
If we weren't so far into debt then yes.
All those that say yes, be prepared for a Mogadishu incident every year, is that what you want?
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
We cannot turn a blind eye. However, we can't do expensive mass deployments we can't afford. Appropriate responses with some bite.
Though the price tag is duly noted and is more reasonable (both examples being equal)
Doopy, then the rape statement still doesn't make sense. You have no national (of personal interest, to scale it down) in that woman getting raped, just your personal values (which I agree). It seems to matter more what you see directly, but that can sound callous I suppose
eyeopener, what I mean is that I don't approve of sending someone to do something I myself wouldn't commit to. I as a civilian wouldn't send our soldiers to fight a war of no national interest, especially when the first question most people will ask is "how much will it cost".
Pragmatic with a utilitarian flair. You're spitting distance from totalitarianism
@ commonsense, isn't that a matter of perspective? One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. One man's dictator is another's leader.
But should they? And do we want to be on equal level with people like that or should we hold ourselves to a higher standard? Just asking.