First of all, I'd like to say for my good month to 2 months of intervening more in the off topic section I am quite disturbed by a lot of the quality of discussion in here.  Really it's enough for the politicians and media to have some of the worthless discussions that they do but it is in no way necessary that we do it.  Therefore, because I really like to discuss issues that are important not only politically but religious, philosophical, etc, I want to have topics that are more or less "respectable" debates.  Meaning I will try to host a topic and you come in and give your view of it.  Easy enough but the catch is you have to be able to present it with a certain amount of respect to those you are debating against.  These are people haha.  Also it'd be nice if you try to make sure your argument is logical.

So for a starting topic, I recognize this site has a large variety of people from around the world.  A heated topic since the beginning of the Cold War has been American dominance in the world.  Of course it was shared with the USSR, after the fall of the USSR America became the lone super power in the world.  This definitely has stirred some of the European powers.  Also in the Cold War and after, America has done numerous actions around the world such as promoting its businesses on an international level (globalization), intervening in Africa and South America whether for business or political reasons, and similarly in the Middle East as of late.  A lot of the world's perception of America is the "big bully" on the block as they seem to be policing the world.

The question is this view warranted?  America does seem to have this "arrogance" to them as they go and "police" the world but given that they are a superpower don't they have the means to.  Is this simply European powers of old trying to bring down the "top dog" to regain what has been lost?  Is America acting like a police force in the world?  If so are what they doing right and necessary?  And further... should America care what the rest of the world thinks of them?  Basically how do you see America in international affairs right now and how does this affect their perception or not.  Discuss.

I'm sorry that this got no hits. It was good.

Post saved to my recent threads for later response.

Outlaw- oh it's ok. I think my first paragraph scared a few people away. Thank goodness for Starcraft wanting to talk and discuss issues on a level of intellect and respect. But yea I actually thought a lot of people would like this thread considering America's view in the world has been quite a hot subject over the last few years.

Well, I can't really comment because I can't speak from a international perspective.

Well I make sure that most of these debates I raise aren't simplyh one question.  This one is definitely multi-faceted.  Such as I left a few of the questions specifically for Americans such as are the international views justifiable and even moreso should America care.  And it shouldn't be too hard for people to "step out" of the country and comment from a distant view on America in the world eh.

The problem is exactly due to the things you mention, "intervening in Africa and South America whether for business or political reasons". Yes, they did that, to promote dictatorships in our continent. Excuse us if we hold a grudge against the US, they're in part responsible for the situation that we're in now (of course, we're still the biggest responsibles)

I'd prefer that the US doesn't meddle in the politics of other countries, they proved in the 70s and 80s how much harm they can do. And I'll never forgive them for that. So yes, a very negative perception, at least from my part

Now indeed things like that would definitely cause grudges over the long term.  I don't think most Americans like to admit it (or simply schooling system makes sure they don't know about it until higher education where it doesn't matter what you tell them they will stick to early principles) but definitely something about the American history that is definitely not something to look highly upon.

However, another one of the questions I posed in there, is how much should America care about the actions they make.  Indeed they still are the lone superpower.  If it best interests them who is going to stop them?  Guess the question has now shifted to something more moral... should America care about the well-being of others in other countries even at the potential expense of its own success.  It certainly seems so that in the case of Africa and South American and recently Middle East, the shift is more about protecting Americans and American business at the expense of the other countries and its people.  But can you really blame America for doing it. 

I don't hold those views but simply trying to present another argument to such things. 

Would be nice if we reverted back to non-intervention.

Of course, that's entirely OT, but I am sure that any countries perception will be negatively affected when you try to do things that may seem like overexertion of influence on your part. I guess the other question is that of counterbalance - if we don't do it, who does?

The world community wants the United States in a leadership role. It wields a lot of military, economic, and cultural power, and everybody knows it. It's hard to get anything accomplished without US support and very challenging to do anything that the US is opposed to.

The world wants the US to lead, but doesn't want the US to dictate. Nobody likes a unilateralist, and just giving the stakeholders a seat at the table and listening what they have to say can work wonders. Even if you don't yield much of substance, taking the time to listen and explain why eases bruised egos and hard feelings. Obama's image as a patient, flexible and reasonable leader has done a remarkable job of transforming America the Dictator to America the Leader in the eyes of the world. Just try to imagine Bush speaking at the UN on any subject at all with France (France!) backing him up.

The question you're really asking is whether the US should bother with soft power (culture, diplomacy, moral suasion) or just rely on hard power (military, economic) to look after US interests.

The great thing about soft power is that it brings other countries around to your point of view at low cost, or even negative cost. One example is Hollywood movies, which are exported around the world along with their American values, and some countries even pay for the privilige of watching them (even the bootleggers still get exposed to American ideas). Skillful use of soft power can open up agreements and co-operation which makes goals easier and cheaper to attain.

The problem with using hard power is that it's expensive to use and maintain. Economic sanctions cuts off potential trading partners and military operations exact a hefty price in finance, lives, and domestic support. On top of that, you come off as a bully, so the more you use your hard power, the more soft power you burn up in the process. The next time you need to pursue a goal, you find that your soft power won't do the trick, and you have to resort to expensive hard power again, stumbling down the path of imperial overreach. There's a place for hard power, obviously, but using the expensive solution to every problem will bankrupt you.

If you want to read up on the subject, I suggest you check out Joseph Nye's book, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go it Alone.