Should the U.S. only use military force in defense of itself?

[quinnox]

I posted a couple of threads about how we Americans view other countries, and what countries we think we should defend with our military. I got a surprising number of answers that we should only use our military in defense of this country, as in defending from an attack by another nation, for example, Japan bombing Pearl Harbor.

So, I was curious how widespread this is on DU. Do you think we should only use the military in defense of our nation? So this would mean not using our military to defend any foreign country against attacks.

9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, the United States should only use the military in defense of the United States itself
	3 (33%)
	No, the United States should also use its military to protect allies and other countries we regard as "friends"
	6 (67%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[WatermelonRat]

1. Our military should primarily be geared towards self defense...

But in the even that an ally comes under attack, I think we should be ready to come to their aid.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Might depends on whether or not members of the administration have vested corporate interests

CIA Director Dulles and his brother, John Foster Dulles, the US Secretary of State; they mislabeled the Árbenz Government of Guatemala as proof of the political infiltration of the Western Hemisphere, by the international communist conspiracy of the USSR. Each man owned capital stock in the United Fruit Company, and some have claimed that each man flouted that inherent conflict of interest with his government job; thus, the Dulles brothers’ conflation of public policy (duelling hegemonies) and private profit (corporate ownership) made feasible the coup d’état against President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, in June 1954.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBSUCCESS

Guatemala needed protection against its own workers.

[Scuba]

3. The US should use military force to defend our allies ONLY WHEN ALL OTHER OPTIONS ....

... HAVE BEEN TRIED, RETRIED AND RETRIED, THEN EXHAUSTED.

[Lost_Count]

9. ... And everyone's dead and the issue is long settled...

[Scuba]

14. So you're advocating the Bush Doctrine?

We should just preemptively strike against anyone who might pose a threat to us or our allies?

In fact, just to be sure, let's kill everyone outside of the good old US of A. That'll guarantee our safety and security, eh?

[Lost_Count]

15. You're the only one talking about that...

The grown ups are talking about honoring diplomatic requirements in the form of treaties, agreements etc...

You know, that ability to apply force as needed to save lives, property, preserve legal borders and protect the economic, social and military interests of the civilized world.

Or ...

You can hide under the covers and count on everyone's good intentions.

[Scuba]

16. Oh, cute smear! I'm not a "grown up"! What a well-crafted argument!

Of course my original post allowed for the use of force, but only after all other options were exhausted. You were the one advocating striking early, as you apparently have no faith in diplomacy.

[Lost_Count]

21. The point...

... that went screaming over your head, was that always running everything into the dirt before turning to force is just as stupid as going in guns blazing every time. Sometimes folks are dying and don't have the time to wait for the bureaucracy to process their request.

However, nuance doesn't seem to be a strong suit.

[Scuba]

22. So why aren't we going in guns blazing, in for example, North Korea? People starve there every day.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Defending other nations should only be done through the UN.

We've used the "we are just defending our friends" bullshit to justify garrisoning the entire planet, declaring an official policy of permanent military hegemony, and conducting offensive wars over and over again for the last 60 years. Enough is enough.

[truebluegreen]

5. ^^This^^

[Jenoch]

6. Russia can block those kinds of UN resolutions

since they are one of the five permanent member of the UN Security Council.

On the otber hand we have obligations to NATO via treaties.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Yes they can, and so what? Consensus on resorting to military action is a good thing.

Our treaty obligations to Nato were based on a post wwII conventional warfare standoff in Europe. They have, since the end of the cold war, been transformed into a vehicle of US Global Military Hegemony, used to provide a fig leaf of legality around our various wars of aggression, our meddling with the internal affairs of other nations, our insistence on regime change where and when we see fit, etc.

There is no conventional warfare threat that justifies the continuation of the north atlantic treaty organization. It should go away.

[Jenoch]

10. Since you can predict the future,

you should fill out an NCAA basketball tourney bracket and collect $1 billion from Quicken and Buffet.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. I forsee that you lack an actual argument.

[Jenoch]

13. I guarentee you there will be times when the UN

will need to send a combined force somewhere and Russia will block it. That is a problem.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Still hazing a sad over Syria?

The fact that we could not pursue regime change via the UN was a good thing.

[Jenoch]

23. Nope,

not Syeria. I was thinking more about what happened in the Balkins a decade ago.

[polly7]

18. +10000. nt.

[Lost_Count]

8. 11 people don't understand the concept of diplomacy...

[The Straight Story]

11. No.

Defending others can, in the long/short term, be a defense of the US.

We have agreements with other countries to defend them, we have a responsibility because we have the capability to defend others. Would you defend someone weaker than you if they were being attacked?

[gollygee]

17. I had to think about it

and I think it's more complicated, like it depends on the specifics, but let's say a very close ally was attacked, I think we'd have to get involved as we'd hope they would if we were attacked.

But I don't think we should be "the world's policeman" either.

However, my vote goes to "no" obviously as I can easily think of situations where we should use our military to protect another country.

[reddread]

19. The US is the greatest threat out there, to its own citizens as well

who ya gonna call?
our police are killing citizens without a second thought or judicial process.
who watches the watchmen?