Do you feel the term world police, starting under the Roosevelt Corollary, is still an appropriate description of the United States? Why, or why not?

Please include the name of the person or question to which you are replying in the subject line. For example, “Tom’s response to Susan’s comment.”

Also  please comment to another students comment below 

Shayna:

I do feel that the term world police is still an appropriate term for the United States in many situations.  There have been many situations that we have interjected ourselves into that did not initially involve us, such as World War II, Vietnam, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.  In WWII, we did not become involved until the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  During Vietnam, we provided food and monetary aid to help make sure that communism was not spread into Vietnam, but then became militarily involved when our military was attacked.  Operation Iraqi Freedom started in part because of our desire as a nation to promote democracy and stop the mistreatment of the citizens of Iraq by their dictator.

Other things that we have been involved in are international environmental treaties and organizations, as well as The UN.  These entities are our way of trying to regulate the morality and standards of other countries.  While I do feel that some instances have been warranted, such as retaliation for military attacks against the United States, I think that it is a waste of time and money to try to control actions (environmental, political, social, religious, etc.) of other countries.  We have so many of our own problems that need to be fixed that I think our resources would be more wisely used if we can work from the inside out.  Maybe we could be a better example in many ways so that other countries follow our lead, rather than trying to coerce them into following the same “rules” that we do.