The debate "It's important that the United States remain powerful" was started by
April 7, 2016, 4:19 am.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
oscar90000 posted 1 argument, bennie posted 1 argument, Alex posted 1 argument, ProudAmerican888 posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 4 arguments, Pugsly posted 2 arguments, RyanWakefield posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
oscar90000, bennie, ProudAmerican888, Sosocratese, Alex, Thomas_Jefferson, mike5193 and 4 visitors agree.
RyanWakefield, Pugsly, swat and 3 visitors disagree.
With the global economy and balance of power the way it is, it is important that the US remain strong or the power vacuum will cause unrest and conflict.
The flip side of that is that it is not really all that important that America remain strong from a wider view since empires have risen and fallen throughout history. The Mongols have been referenced, but Rome, Spain, England and Egypt have all been powerful in their times and within their circles of influence. As each waned, another took its place. If American power diminishes, someone else's will grow and it will just be another empire in history.
Ah, my apologies, must have scrolled over that comment.
the author clarified what he meant. it's the third comment.
if the majority of the population wants to commit genocide it is not the responsibility of government to carry it out. imperialism is an out dated system that has killed a great many people and suppressed the rights of many more. just because the people want something does not give a government license to commit terrible crimes.
It doesn't say anything about "... To stabilize the world" in the topic....
I would say the US does in fact have a duty by its constitutional decree to enact emperialistic tactics if that is the will of the populous. Being a representative Republic means that the government ought to act in the will of the people. If we keep electing emperialistic leaders we are telling them that we would like to engage in emperialistic activities.
the Mongols have to do with debate because at one point they were the most powerful empire on earth as the Americans are now. if you had asked them whether it was important that they stay powerful they would certainly have agreed. they saw themselves as uniting the world under their leadership. they murdered millions to do it. now it is the Americans that use their power to kill millions to protect their own empire. the reason I am bringing them up is because both are empires who have killed millions and believed they were bringing peace to the world, through war.
yes and no. every nation should try to push it's own interests. but I would hope that doesn't extend to the kinds of imperialist policies that America has used in the last few decades. they destabilize foreign governments they don't like and cause massive amounts of suffering and death. they back dictator's and despots to further their own goals with no regard for what the people of those countries might want. they are justified in pushing for their own interests. they are not justified in destroying other countries to do it.
also the debate says that it is important that the US be powerful to stabilize the world. not because they have a right to push for their own interests.
Historybuff I can't help but ask what the f*** do Mongols have to do with anything
hmm. I would put military at 2, only because diplomacy needs to have a strong military threat, or bad deals can be made.
I might put them as a tie, since you need both to deal with other countries successfully, just if I had to pick one I would pick military.
I'm seeing a lot red here, so I'll propose this position if anyone wants to debate:
The US is justified in, and obligated to use any and all of its foreign policy tools in order to push it's interests on the geopolitical stage.
This is sort of an arbitrary statement. Power can be obtained in any number of ways. Economics, like Germany being able to dictate the conversation in the EU about financial policies. Diplomacy, like the US as UN veto holder among other things. Military, like the US. Debt, like China is able to place pressure on the US; or how the US uses the IMF to insert it's interests into foreign policy. Nationalism, like Russia is using to unite behind a cruel dictator. Societal, like Norway and Switzerland have; their standard of living is very high giving them very robust, though not very strong economics, but most importantly a higher economic independence from the world markets.
So it's a matter of where we want to derive our power from. And it is also a matter of how we want to be perceived as deriving our power. While we need the ability to pressure other governments through loan interest hikes, trade embargos etc.... It's not where we want to be seen deriving our power. The military should be an option but not our main reason for being seen as powerful (although it should be feared). The reason for this is because we the use if military undermines our other modalities of power. Cost undermines our economic influence, conflict makes us look bias in the UN, economic sanctions may have to be lifted on other countries in order to finance wars. Our standard of living is hurt by the cost of wars, etc....
If I had to rate our priorities in order to maximize overall power, I'd have have to say
1. Standard of living/economics (the two should go hand in hand I would argue, I.e economic policies in place to encourage high standards of living through private industry)
4. Debt and economic pressures (this would include foreign aid since it's a great pressure tool)
it shouldn't bully any nation, but it needs to stay strong and protect the nation. strengthen the economy and focus on the National Guard a butout of foreign affairs.
America is not superior, and has no right to bully other nations.
Well, if we go into the middle east and try to take it would make more sense at this point.
the Mongols brought stability too. it was said a woman could walk around with a big chunk of gold on her head and no one would touch her. stability is not in and of itself a good. the Mongols did it by killing millions. it can certainly be argued that America does the same thing. millions have died to maintain American hegemony and the world is not safer than it was under the Mongols.
well both economy and military, to stability in the world, like in middle east
What do you mean by powerful; like military or economy.
I'm sure if you had asked the Mongols they would have said the same thing about themselves. every empire thinks the world is a better place with them dominating it.