Should the United States get involved with other countries?

Let's hear it.

The united stats is already "involved" with so many countires already. For trading, defense, finances. Also other things as well such as political affairs and country relations. So technically they are already involved.

So really I don't understand the question

Yes I definitely think they should be involved with other countries. If they wouldn't, things would be very different today. For one, WWII probably would've ended differently if we didn't go over and help out. A lot of wars r like that. It also protects the united states by doing that because if we didn't go help end a war, it could've gotten way out of hand and effected many more countries including ourselves

However sarah we got dragged into WWII because we got were involved with other countries. George Washington said in his goodbye speech/letter that we shouldn't make alliances with other countries because they would drag us into a war that we couldn't afford. The national debt is at about $17 TRILLION. I think we should have listened to George

Darth Pyrinikon wrote:However sarah we got dragged into WWII because we got were involved with other countries. George Washington said in his goodbye speech/letter that we shouldn't make alliances with other countries because they would drag us into a war that we couldn't afford. The national debt is at about $17 TRILLION. I think we should have listened to George

But the USA could have then ended up being invaded by Germany once the brittish and other forces had been killed. So without involvement, the consequences could have ended even more horrifically

If the land you are invading does not belong to you, (like the falklands belonged to Britain), then you have no right to interfer with the internal politics of that land.

But dont forget its not just America that is involved in world politics atm, other countries are also being dragged into wars that they have nothing to do with.

Short Circuit wrote:If the land you are invading does not belong to you, (like the falklands belonged to Britain), then you have no right to interfer with the internal politics of that land.

But dont forget its not just America that is involved in world politics atm, other countries are also being dragged into wars that they have nothing to do with.

Well actually kyle members of the united nations have this saying

"An attack against one member, is an attack against us all"

So really it is about the UNITED part.

The UN never approved strikes on Iran and Iraq, America and Britain decided they would be the world police and then went into those countries under the assumption there were weapons of mass destruction there, and did they find any? NO

Short Circuit wrote:The UN never approved strikes on Iran and Iraq, America and Britain decided they would be the world police and then went into those countries under the assumption there were weapons of mass destruction there, and did they find any? NO

But at the time there was HIGH suspicion. Have you ever heard of the saying "better safe than sorry". Also Al-Qaeda had even announced that they had weapons of mass destruction. So Tony Blair at the time made the choice. I for one do not support the idea. However if it had turned out there was weapons of mass destruction and they were found they would have congratulated Blair on his correct movement.

So you know what. I would say that he made the right choice. what if there was nuclear weapons and he did not act on these romours then there would have been even bigger blame. He had to act with the evidence he had. Considering Al-Qaeda stated that they did. Well they had to act.

The UN does not have to sanction war. However the UN did act in the attacks to remove muammar gaddafi in Libya. Some say that was wrong. Some say it was right. You must admit war is never pretty but sometimes with the possible threat or evidence you have to act.

Also Kyle partly the UK got involved to back up America. (almost sure America went in first) America went in because they needed to remove the terrorist thread AND PREVENT the terrorist from getting nuclear weapons from Pakistan and invading Pakistan. While the threat was minimum that they already has nuclear weaponry in Afghanistan. They went in to try and stop Al-Qaeda from moving into Pakistan to get the weapons.

So really involvement can lead to death but in these cases involvement could have prevented a lot of deaths.

So by that logic, I should punch the next person who walks past me, "just incase" he was going to hit me first?

It was all propaganda to try and get the UN to support a totally unjustified invasion.

I am convinced that 9/11 (America) and 7/7 (UK) were done by thier own governments just to try and get support for these unjust wars

Short Circuit wrote:So by that logic, I should punch the next person who walks past me, "just incase" he was going to hit me first?

It was all propaganda to try and get the UN to support a totally unjustified invasion.

I am convinced that 9/11 (America) and 7/7 (UK) were done by thier own governments just to try and get support for these unjust wars

9/11 happened in 2001. The invasion did not begin until after that.

Also that is a silly example Kyle. They had evidence and Al-Qaeda had said they did have the weapons through threats even though it turned out to not to be there. Also Kyle the war was also due to threats that Al-Qaeda could have invaded Pakistan and Pakistan HAS nuclear weapons that Al-Qaeda could have taken easily.

To be honest we cannot tell what could or could not have been avoided.