"We're spreading our goodness in Iraq, [and] we can't do that without dropping bombs on them and killing a lot of people." Such an eloquent way of wording it. I agree that America must defend its interests abroad and spread democracy however .... I dont agree with the current way things are being handled. Why should America be the country to manage the rest of the world. Its blatant ethnocentrism. Ron Paul is a fascist. God Forbid!

Why should America spread democracy??Do they have the patent to the flawed system that is a democracy?? Whose to say that America's idea of democracy which is a two party state essentially by the way is the best in the world. America is very flawed and should solve it's problems first before starting wars in other countries in the name of democracy!!

I agree with Ron Paul and I'm surprised to see a Republican say these kinds of things.

i'm not sure if it's effective to spread what we believe across the world since there are so many different lifestyles and cultures. i think that since we're not even completely effective in our own country - we can't start to preach to others.

I don't think it's a straight yes or no. I agree with Paul on the point about dropping bombs to show them how good we are - very well put. But on the other hand, I'd hate to just blanket it and say "we should be isolationist all over again." It's a toughie.

I said Other because i do believe we should have gone to war, but i dont think we should be the worlds police.

The US is thought of that way because we have been there in all the Major conflicts, at the Request of the countries most vunerable to attacks. We are the "saviour" when they need us, and our money, but we are "police" when they change thier minds. Its not our job to spread democracy (we arent even a democracy ourselves) but i do believe that because of our power (military and otherwise) we should step in when we are threatened.

Ron Paul was condescending last night in my opinion. I thought Mitt and Rudy did the best job.

I like how there are so many votes but very few comments. That's because it's a "Duh" type question; yet why does it need to be asked? If people on Sugar can clearly see that it's a resounding NO, why can't our political leaders?

I think America hasn't been the world's saviour since World War II where something needed to be done about the extermination of an entire race and those who were considered different. Itf it truly was the world's saviour or was interested in bringing democracy to the rest of the world 800 000 people should not have been killed in 100 days. I think if you want to set yourself apart as the world's watchdog then you can't pick and choose the parts of the owrd you want to police, you either do it all or you stay out of it all.

I might get attacked for saying this, but I think the USA should stay out of other countries actions, after all, what is the UN for?
And as many of you said, it isn't like the USA is completely flawless either.

hum undecided

I really like what you said, CatterpillarGirl.

Sittingonawall. The UN. means United Nations..and we are part of that group.

We havent saved people since world war II? I will disagree with that.

* we liberated Kuwait from an Iraqi invader

* although the Korean war was a stalemate, we are still there protecting the south koreans, at the UN's request.

* we intervened int santo domingo to evacuate and stabilize after dissendents attempted to overthrow the government. we saved over 600O people (of many different nations) when we evacuated them.

* we went to Grenada and stopped a violent power struggle that could have resulted in many dead.

*we got Noreiga out of Panama.

*at the request of the UN we helped bomb yugoslavia and stabilize

*We assisted (at africas request) to bring stabilization to Liberia.

SO who havent we helped since world war II ...anyone?

I don't think that we should be completely isolationist, but we can't just trounce into any country that we don't agree with. We should be able to defend ourselves against attacks and help our allies if they really need (although that's a slippery slope; it's how Vietnam got started really), but we need to know when to leave, too. Part of the problem in Vietnam is that when the French conceded defeat and left, we didn't! We have this weird thing about never "losing" a war and we end up losing so much more in the process.

I left something out, while I dont support Paul he is right in this instance....and I agree with gigi shocking to hear this from him.

Good Points Caterpiller.

I agree with the statement by Dr. Paul. We need to adopt a nonintervention policy again- which isn't isolationism by any means.
I think people would think different about us taking troops into other countries if their family was over there.
Yes, our country is in the UN but how often do we go against everyone else in the UN? It isn't any surprise then that we don't have hardly any allies because we think we're powerful and should rule everything.

Country Betty, Dr. Paul is not a fascist.
Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
That's Bush not Dr. Paul. Paul is a libertarian and a strict constitutionalist.
Libertarian: a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will.

I agree with Ron Paul on many issues but I have a problem with the statement he made about sending our forces to prevent genocide and human suffering. He said - "I think it's a tragedy, and we can have a moral statement, but you can't use force of arms to invade other countries to make them better people. Our job is to make us a better people."

How can we be "better people" if we sit in our living rooms and watch their suffering from our couches? I'm not for forcing democracy on anyone but genocide should not be tolerated. Period.

Does anyone really believe that attacking a country that has no solid history of democracy, taking control of the power, setting up democratic structures and institutions and then trying to let the people run their new democratic country after a short period can actually work?

I'm still not convinced Caterpillar, Darfur, Congo, Rwanda, Somalia, even Liberia, to a certain extent(as the troops are raping children and women, it's so bad that they had to sned a taskforce from India of only female troops), Haiti(which is still in shambles, so much for removing a dictator), Burma and the list goes on are countries which America has failed or failed to police showing that like finnlover said you can't set up democracy in a country that is not used to democracy. Do it and do it well like I said before there are just to many cultures and mores which differ in the world for one type of ideal, America's ideal to be applied. It's easy to say we liberated and restored peace but in most of the countries you talked about stability is really non-existenet for the common man on the ground. This is not onlyabout democracy think about the millions of lives affected by these things, it's really not worth it sometimes.

Yeah FinnLover...apparently George Bush does.

So are we supposed to cure all those countries Woes or not? You say we havent helped, i tell you we have, than you say we havent helped enough or our "failures" outnumber the good. In most of those instances and conflicts the UN was also in it, but we go against them right? and well, the countries we have helped, really arent stabilized....so whatever. I am not that anti american, or wait anti-military/bush. I am an optimist who sees the freedom we have won, and also the failures and can see how all is seen as learning and growing as a nation.

IT is worth it. ask the Kurds

Eh I still say america needs to police itself and not start anything, period. I'm never optimistic about war it causes way to many problems, which in the end don't justify the violence, I can never be optimistic about that. And as for the Kurds I'm not so sure they are too happy right now.

"Spread democracy?"

What? Okay, what a minute. What is this, the 60's? I don't think any politician seriously says things like this anymore, do they? Even if this is the result, I don't think it's the intention. Not anymore anyway.

I don't think I can give a black and white answer here because it's complicated. I personally believe that it's our moral obligation, but I don't think we should go at it alone. I know the UN can be red tape galore, but it's the best method we have of really keeping each other in check at the moment.

Country Bush cant go to war without congress. so "yes, congress does" is the right answer.

And let me just say that My statements here arent in defense of Bush, i dont think he is perfect, they are in defense of statements that we havent helped other countries out.....I love my country and am very patriotic (not all flag in my yard, bleed red white and blue bumper sticker) but proud nevertheless.

there are checks and balances in place to "police" ourselves already.

the kurds arent happy, so are we supposed to police them to make them stay happy? or leave them happy, and let them alone? which one?

Nyar - "This is not onlyabout democracy think about the millions of lives affected by these things, it's really not worth it sometimes."

So it's worth it sometimes? When is it worth it to you?

Nyar- "Eh I still say america needs to police itself and not start anything, period."

So you do or do not think, "it's worth it sometimes"? I'm confused.

I think American polices other countries where our interests lie.

And yes, we do have checks and balances in place to "police" ourselves, but that is diminishing. W is giving more power to the executive branch and needing less approval from the congressional branch, really not much checking and balancing if the president gives himself more power and doesn't allow congress to their job.

Ron Paul is really a Libertarian, just running in the race as a Republican, so he says a lot of things typical "Republicans" aren't going to say.

That's why, even though people might think he's nuts, I think it's great that he's in the mix. His ideas might seem crazy, but at least they're ideas, based on principles he believes in, that he does NOT waver on. I respect him more than many candidates for that alone.

In regards to these comments, I think he's spot on. We have intervened too much, and the consequences are coming back to bite us. He's said before, and I agree, that we should lead by example, not by force. Plenty of people used to love America because of what we stood for, but people stop loving something when it's shoved down their throats.

However, I don't think that we should become isolationist, and I don't beleive that's what Ron Paul is advocating. I think it's the use of force and physical intervention he's in favor of, not closing our doors and never talking to the rest of the world again.

Caterpillar, you brought up patriotism. . . I do know that there is the one view of "My country, right or wrong," but I'm not an apologist, and I agree with FDR when he said, "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president." So I agree with what Mitt says, and feel that ironically, going into these countries under the guise of spreading democracy is actually a deeply UNpatriotic thing to do because it not only casts the US in a very negative light today, but it puts our tomorrow in jeopardy as we breed American hatred in fundamentalist Muslim countries.

The closest metaphor I have to my love for the US is that of a parent: I deeply love my country and want it to be the best country it can be. When its leaders steer it in an alarming direction, I feel that it's my duty as a citizen to raise my voice and get involved. This can mean criticism, and recently there has been an unfortunate amount of it, but since we are (at least in part) a democracy, I am proud to do so.

Who hasn't America helped? Um, I don't know, how about the people of Iraq? Using the attack on the World Trade Centre to go stomping off to the middle east to try to push their square peg into a round hole even though there was no Iraqi connection to that event makes the war on Iraq an invasion. It's an illegal war which hasn't benefited the people of Iraq at all, has resulted in hundreds and thousands of tragic, senseless deaths (Iraqis, Americans, British, Australian...) If the US was looking for someone to blame for 9/11 it should have looked a little closer to home.

Who else? Asides from the African countries mentioned by Nyara, what about Banana Republics and those South American countries who's people still live in abject poverty because their economies were destroyed by dictators installed by the US government?

A perfect system it definitely is not, but the United Nations already has the role of policing the world, and it can only succeed in its peacekeeping missions if every member is on board. Including America! When the UN decides that intervention is necessary that's when the peacekeeping forces go in, from every country, not just America swooping in to save the day, and certainly not America invading other countries without UN sanction.

In short, the US shouldn't necessarily "stop policing the world" but it should stop thinking of itself as the Dirty Harry of the world and start working as part of the international community.

Caterpillargirl, I wouldn't worry about what Nyar says. She likes to rant on everything she can find, and never has anything concrete to bring.
I, however, agree with most of what you say. It seems nothing America does pleases everyone; we can only do what we hope is right.

I don't understand why democracy has to be the only option. Let other countries govern themselves the way they do it best and leave us out of it.

You can't stuff democracy down other countries throats if their history is the polar opposite. We went to iraq for oil and no other reason. We have done no good there and we should get out. Its bankrupting our country.

I don't think we should be the world's police. i do believe that we shoudl rpotect our country and defend those who need help when they ask for it. I think the idea that the purpose of this country is to spread democracy throughout the world is imperialistic and wrong. We don't have the right to tell other people how to live any more than we have the right to go to a neighbors house and tell them how to discipline their children. I think one of the biggest ways we could actually provide aid to warring nations or nations under the rule of dictatorships would be to stop supporting the factions putting these people in power. How many conflicts have we been a part of that could have been avoided if we hadn't helped the tyrants aquire their power in the first place? How many clean up missions do we have to go on before we decide to mind our own business and fix our imperfect system before we try to be the savior of the world. and to the point that we cannot call ourselves good people if we can sit at home and watch these atrocities I say you can't help anyone else until you learn to help yourself. Are we really making a difference in the lives of others when we have so many domestic issues we cannot resolve

Country Betty you said Dr. Paul was a facist, you must have been confused with the current administration.

Divine Debris I agree with you completely. They are trying to whittle away the checks and balances, it's very clear.

Personally, I don't think we have any business occupying anyone else's land. We would never let China or Iraq come and build bases here, so why should they let us do that to them? I'm all for trading with and having great relationships with all countries, just not invading them to stay.

We can't save the world. We really do have plenty of problems to deal with here, like our own homeless.

Kiki, we havent helped the Iraqis? not at all?

(speechless)

everyone needs to read the constitution, bill of rights, what our governments roll is, what our roll is in the UN, what the UN is, what the presidents powers are, what resolutions are, all the bits and pieces that add up to information about declaring war, keeping peace, treaties,read up on foreign policy, Government aid, world leaders, weapons,.......

its not black and white, its not even grey. Its faulty at points, but America is not the bad guy, no matter how much the media tells you.

Caterpillar Girl, you honestly think the US invasion helped the Iraqis? You really believe that if you stopped an ordinary Iraqi on the streets of Baghdad he would tell you that he is happier and more secure now?

Assuming it was even safe enough for you to be on the streets of Baghdad...

(speechless)

Ron Paul continues to pleasantly surprise me.

Having read all the comments, I have to say that I agree with Caterpillar Girl-- everyone else is just unhappy with the current administration, and thus, their comments reflect that. Bush doesn't necessarily equal America, but alot of people seem to lump the two together.

Having read all the comments, I have to say that I agree with Caterpillar Girl-- everyone else is just unhappy with the current administration, and thus, their comments reflect that. Bush doesn't necessarily equal America, but alot of people seem to lump the two together.

It is impossible to "spread democracy" by military force. Democracy is a government by the people, for the people, therefore it must be the people of a nation who instate a democracy.

Furthermore, it is not our job to solve the problems in the rest of the world. CaterpillarGirl mentioned that she thought Dr. Paul seemed "condescending" last night, but what is more condescending than thinking the US has the right to station troops in whatever country we please or overthrow a country's democratically elected officials(it happened in Iran, look it up). The United States' foreign policy is arrogant, condescending, and is the underlying reason that terrorism is being directed at Amerians. And frankly, it is partially responsible for the economic problems here at home.

And on a side note, Dr. Paul is constantly pointing out that we haven't declared this war. That is unconstitutional and should be unacceptable to the American people.

Also, for those of you who are surprised to hear this non-interventionist attitude coming from a Republican, you should do a little research on the party's history. That has been their position for a very long time. In fact, President Bush ran on this very policy in 2000. I can't be the only one who remembers him saying that we must not police the world. It is not Dr. Paul who has strayed from Republican ideals, it is the rest of his party.

Sugarbecky, I do not take my position simply because I am unhappy with the current administration. Surely the current administration has failed to live up to many of its promised principles, but the foreign policy problems have been around for much longer than President Bush. Our troops have been stationed in the middle east (as well as in Korea, Germany, and others) for a very long time.

Okay Caterpillar, maybe I am mistaking the tone of your recent post, but it came across as pretty condescending. You're just listing off all those things as if you're extremely familiar with them yourself and therefore your opinion is more valid than ours, but you're not actually saying what in those documents and resolutions justifies your stance. . .

I don't think it was condescending. Good advice actually, if we all read those things we'd sure be able to debate in a more civilized way, that's for sure.

I happen to work in the senate and therefore am familiar with those things, but it still seemed condescending, and I have happened to notice that the only people who have used ad homine attacks and sunk into less than civilized debate have been Bush and Iraq war supporters. . .I even posted before that we need to all respect each other despite differences of opinion.

Jovian I haven't been rude so please don't be rude to me, I don't get personal so don't cross that line with me.

Kiki, my brother in law is over there right now, and he has Iraqis thanking him all the time, women children men old and young. this is his 3rd tour of duty, and every time he gets thanked.

to quote the IAFA "We will honor those who have sacrificed for our freedom by building a new Iraq that lives in peace with the nations of the world, without fear of war, torture chambers or terrorism"

City Girl, if you really feel that we all need to respect each other then you shouldn't group all Iraqi war supporters into the group that you deem less than civilized. I think that is pretty ad hominem thing for you to say.