Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should the U.S. get involved in other countries' affairs?

By Howard B. Owens
Jerry Buckman

What an interesting choice of words for your question, Howard. It leads to the answer "NO." How about something like "How should the U.S. proceed when its national interest competes with the sovereignty of another country?"

Mar 25, 2011, 10:12am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

It's a very basic question -- should we be interventionists or not. The way you phrased your question presumes there could be a justification for interfering in another country, which is a essentially a yes answer to this poll question.

And of course it's unclear what you mean by "national interest."

Mar 25, 2011, 10:45am Permalink
Jerry Buckman

Yes, there could be justification in dialog / interfering / even strong arming another country. "National Interest" = something a country needs/wants in order to stay viable as a country. Example: OIL. Without it, everything stops.

Mar 25, 2011, 11:03am Permalink
matt riggi

I think Jerry's question is a "very basic question" as well. The national interest would depend on what country we are intervening with. Unless of course, this poll is directly aimed at a certain situation going on, which really wouldn't make it a "basic question."

Mar 25, 2011, 11:06am Permalink
bud prevost

The question is answered by our forefathers. Check out Jefferson's thoughts about two spheres, or JQ Adams and Monroe's thoughts in the Monroe Doctrine. We have no skin in the game, and we are not the world's police. If we ever had a beef with Libya, it was after Lockerbie, and we should have anhilated libya then.

Mar 25, 2011, 12:11pm Permalink
Brandon Burger

Bud, we do have skin in the game - a lot of it. Our economy depends upon it. It is a global economy and we are thoroughly enmeshed within it. Jefferson, Monroe, and J.Q. Adams had no idea just how interconnected the world would become.

Mar 25, 2011, 12:37pm Permalink
Doug Yeomans

Hey Bud, it's never too late! Seriously though, here's some food for thought. If you looked out your window and saw your neighbor just beating the holy crap out of their 10 year old kid in the front lawn, what would you do?

I realize that's not quite an accurate analogy, but it is kind of the same thing happening in Libya. People are sick of being ruled by Gaddafi and he in turn is attacking his own people and killing them.

Don't we have a vested interest in trying to make the Mideast a more peaceful place? If the President ordered our our military to attack United States citizens, how would you feel if the rest of the world just stood back and said "screw them..it's their problem?"

Mar 25, 2011, 12:44pm Permalink
bud prevost

Then, why aren't we addressing human rights issues in China, or Iran? How about the civil wars going on in some African nations? How about Sudan, or the Ivory Coast? Just seems to me we pick our fights for all the wrong reasons, and it's pretty inconsistent. I can see where European nations would have a keener interest than we should, yet they wait for Sheriff Uncle Sam to assert the authority.

You can call me a protectionist or isolationist, I don't care. Our nation is in the position it is in because of the global economy. Trillions of dollars in debt to China, need I say more?

Mar 25, 2011, 1:08pm Permalink
Brandon Burger

Bud, I'd say our actions in the world are incredibly consistent. We consistently act in our national interest in situations that we know (or think) we can reasonably control. Humanitarianism is a veneer that we brush onto the action so that it will sit well with world opinion. Like it or not, though, as I said before, we are thoroughly entrenched in the global economy and to disentangle ourselves could be disastrous. I believe it would be wiser and ultimately easier to reform our policy within the frame of global engagement.

Also, like it or not, the United States is still the country that the world looks to for help. And despite our often cynical intent and less-than-benevolent actions, we remain to be the brightest light in the darkness for the multitudes who suffer under the weight of oppression, indifference, and natural disaster. That still means a lot.

Mar 25, 2011, 2:13pm Permalink
bud prevost

Brandon, perhaps you are comfortable with the concept of a world government, but I'm not.
And how is ignoring Iran, but bombing Libya, not inconsistent? Two middle east nations, with crazy rulers, who inflict brutality on the public if the public doesn't agree with them. Our country did a very good job for the first 150 years avoiding overseas conflicts, we could(and should) get back to that mindset.

Mar 25, 2011, 2:20pm Permalink
Doug Yeomans

Like it or not, Mideast oil, whether we use it or not, affects the price at the pump HERE. Saying we don't have an interest in bringing peace to the Mideast is like saying I hate apple pie, beer, the Pike fair, wood heat and women with a lil' extra padding.

Mar 25, 2011, 2:24pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

We'll never bring peace to the middle east. As long as we intervene, it will nothing be but a big sucking hole of our money and the wasted lives of young men and women who are killed, maimed and traumatized by endless war.

Peace in the middle east will only come when the people of the middle east want it. We can't force it on them and our interference only enables endless turmoil and only to our determent.

Mar 25, 2011, 2:38pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

"Then, why aren't we addressing human rights issues in China, or Iran?"

That's the million dollar question. I'll take Political Expedience for $1000, Alex.

Mar 25, 2011, 2:44pm Permalink
william tapp

Doesn't make sense, does it? Homeless in the US go without eating. Elderly in the US go without needed medicines. Mentally ill in the US go without treatment. American troops go without proper equipment. American veterans go without benefits that were promised. Yet we donate billions to other countries before helping our own first.

Mar 25, 2011, 3:31pm Permalink
Doug Yeomans

Howard, isn't that what the people in Libya and other Mideast countries are trying to do there? Protests are being squashed by the dictators who have all of the weapons. Libyan rebels are trying to wrest control from the nut job whs is currently running their country so don't we owe it to them and to ourselves to help them?

Should we not have helped liberate Europe from Hitler's reign of power?

Mar 25, 2011, 4:01pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Further, if you're going to argue dictator vs. populace, then why not Iran, Bahrain, Syria, China, North Korea, et. al?

The cost of one cruise missile would fund Genesee Justice for two years.

Mar 25, 2011, 4:24pm Permalink
Brandon Burger

Bud, we do not engage in military actions with Iran because, like I said, we do not apply the same pressures to all crises. What you see as an inconsistency in US policy is actually quite consistent with US policy; we only engage in military intervention when our vital national interests are at stake and we feel that we can reasonably control the situation with minimal losses.
You called "bullshit" when I said that we bomb Libya and not Iran because we can control that situation with mininal costs. How is it bullshit?

A war with Iran would cost more than the US could or would want to deal with reasonably, both financially and in terms of human life. A mission in Iran (on humanitarian grounds) would not be so simple as running some bombing raids over largely defenseless military installations or maintaining a no-fly zone against a handful of jets as it has been in Libya. Actions against Iran would entail a full-scale military operation on the order of Iraq. But unlike Iraq, The US and its ostensible allies would be going up against a military that learned lessons through observation of US strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq, who had been under the restrictions of a no-fly regime and had suffered constant bombing runs and weapons inspections for the twelve years previous to the attack, Iran would be ready with Russian- and Chinese-made anti-aircraft weapons and installations unknown to Western observers. Also unlike Iraq, the population of Iran is largely homogenous - Farsi-speaking Persian Shi'ites who are fiercely proud of their culture and who might respond ovewrwhelmingly to a nationalist call for defense against an America attack. There are no large, pre-existing ethnic fault-lines for the US to exploit in their attempt to subdue the population. It could turn out to be a long, drawn-out, and devastating war.

Iran also has influential financial dealings with China and Russia, both of whom maintain veto power on the UN Security council. To wage war against Iran, the US would have to borrow heavily like they did and are doing to fund the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. That credit largely comes from China and Germany and really - how long could we expect China to provide credit for a war against one of their major petroleum suppliers? Don't forget that Iran also all but controls the Strait of Hormuz. Oil traffic in and out of the Persian Gulf would come to a halt. And what would happen then?

All of this constitutes a major challenge to our ability to reasonably control a situation within which we might use our military to enforce a "humanitarian' policy. Libya does not even come close to presenting the dangers that Iran does and that is why we are bombing Libya and not Iran. Or is this still bullshit?

Mar 25, 2011, 4:46pm Permalink
bud prevost

"Or is this still bullshit?"
To answer the question, yes it is.
Brandon, my thoughts on U.S. involvement in foreign fights has always been, and,I'm almost certain, will always be the same. We don't need our troops stationed in 175 countries around the world, we don't need to re-build any nations but our own, and we shouldn't be the police force for the world. I agree with Mr.Tapp, we should be focusing on our homeland, and let the middle east to itself.

Mar 25, 2011, 5:09pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

When the Chinese people want a new government, it will be unavoidable- no government can contain resistance of 1/4 of the world population- one of the oldest consistent world culture's spread across 10 million square kilometers housing the world's premiere banking houses and the second largest economy. It would occur much the same as the Soviet Union unraveled.

Mar 25, 2011, 5:14pm Permalink
Brandon Burger

Bud- I do believe we are arguing two different things. I have been trying to say that there IS a consistent policy in play regarding US interventions around the world. You are arguing against any intervention at all.

Sorry for the long-winded confusion.

Mar 25, 2011, 5:20pm Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

The UN has a lot to do with foreign policy. I think the time is long overdue for some of the other member nations to step up.
Let the idiots in the middle east keep killing each other, it would appear thats all they know how to do. Keep our soldiers out of it, because it also appears they like killing Americans even more than each other.
Just my opinion.

Mar 25, 2011, 7:12pm Permalink
RICHARD L. HALE

Ask the victims of Katrina in New Orleans what they think. Over 5 years and the city still isn't right. We are too busy policing the world, to take care of our own. We should all be ashamed. I saw G.W. the other night at Lincoln Center, flashing that sly little smerk, I wanted to puke. What a poor excuse for a human being.

Mar 26, 2011, 12:19am Permalink
Doug Yeomans

We don't consider overthrowing oppression in China for obvious reasons. They make all the cheap crap that is sold in every WallyMart and they loan us enough money to take care of our irresponsible "entitlement" culture. They also outnumber us 4 or 5 to 1 and they have nukes. Attacking the hand that feeds us, especially one with a bark so large would be suicidal. In other words, they own us, literally. Better brush up on Mandarin because it'll be the new language here soon enough. Thank you, Bill Clinton.

Mar 26, 2011, 5:13am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Richard if you really believe that it is the federal governments responsibility to restore New Orleans then it is only 2/3 Bush's fault and 1/3 Obama's. In another year, if New Orleans is still not restored then they will share equal blame. Bush bashing is beyond old.

Mar 26, 2011, 9:18am Permalink
Jeff Allen

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yAyCdfOXvec&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&v… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yAyCdfOXvec&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&v…; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Mar 26, 2011, 9:29am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Here's what I would do if we were all part of the federal government rather than just grumpy citizens. I'd promise to become a strict non-interventionist in the Middle East if everyone would agree to pump the money we're spending on military actions into clean-renewable energy research to get us off of oil (foreign or otherwise) forever.

I'd propose removing our military immediately from all foreign conflicts and reducing troop levels on foreign soil to minimum treaty requirements. Then I'd ask for about a trillion dollars to be spent over ten years on wind farms, solar grids and a few well placed nuclear plants instead of missiles, and other equipment that the DOD doesn't even want. I'd even agree to opening ANWR for those ten years to fill the oil gap.

Mar 26, 2011, 9:43am Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

Chris, I couldn't agree more, but everyone has to get over the nuke fear, and the "not in my backyard" mentality. I feel we should have been looking for alternative energy back in the 70's after the oil embargo. We have had 30 years to think about it.
Our elected officials have been sleeping with big oil for far to long, and now we get to pay for it.

Mar 26, 2011, 10:27am Permalink
Frank Cook

I feel like the difference between action in Libya and actions elsewhere is that in Libya, the revolution is led by the Libyan people. In Iraq, the revolution was started by America. Any revolution that doesn't start with the people responsible is destined for failure.

America received aid in its war against England, but ultimately it was a movement of the American people. After Ghaddafi is deposed, we don't necessarily have to go through an extensive rebuilding process, just as France didn't rebuild the U.S. following the revolutionary war. After the people are no longer being massacred by the mercenaries hired by Ghaddafi, they can decide for themselves what they want for their government.

Ultimately, we are humans before we're Americans. We are almost genetically identical to our brothers and sisters in Libya and Bahrain, as well as China and The Congo. People are people, even if they have brown skin and a different fashion sense.

Mar 26, 2011, 10:01pm Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

Frank, Americans are for the most part emphathetic, but do you realize the pain and suffering going on in our own country? 60 cruise missles could have funded a lot of programs, or fed a lot of hungry people.We cannot continue fighting other peoples wars when our own people are suffering from a miserable economy. Let the Europeans fight for Libyan oil, after all, they are the consumers of that oil.

Mar 27, 2011, 10:27am Permalink
John Roach

Mr. Cook,
Today, the administration (Sec. Clinton and Gates) said they will not help or intervene in Syria. There the people are raising up, like in Libya, but then again, they do not export oil, do they?

Mar 27, 2011, 11:05am Permalink
Frank Cook

John,

My statement was not a defense of the Obama administration. I would say that this is a job for the UN and not specifically the US, but I agree that it would be very telling if there were no effort made toward Syria.

Politics is an ugly business.

Frank,

It is unfortunate that the motivation is likely largely for oil. I'm no military man, but I am hesitant to believe the cruise missiles were even necessary. After the application of the No-Fly zone and the attacks made by France, I would think that it may be possible to pressure Ghaddafi to step down. Regardless, I agree that there are people in need in this country, and I think it would be a good idea to look at our budget and see how we might help those people. Unfortunately, political campaigns are financed by corporations, with largely corporate interests at heart.

Mar 27, 2011, 1:38pm Permalink

Authentically Local