Gyroscopic Investing

I'm about 5 glasses into my bottle of wine for the evening and not able to speak coherently on the subject but I wonder what the other  members here think any way. Maybe it is our best time of thinking on the subject.

Personally, I think no - we should not police the world. It would be nice to be just a normal country in between Canada and Mexico doing our part and fuck'em if they expect more from the U.S. taxpayer.

But I don't run U.S. foreign policy and neither do you, so what is your opinion, assuming that it even matters a whit?

And after my morning coffee,  I say "Generally no". 

If you extend the principle of personal accountability for ones actions to the country level, it seems we should pretty much be "nice" to other countries and not try to force our will on them.  Perhaps give them aid and help if they ask for it and can assure it gets to the hands of those needing it; and by aid, I do not mean fighter jets and bombs.  The reason I modified my "no" is I do expect there are some limited cases that are appropriate, such as maintaining intelligence operations in other countries; that could be construed as policing.

... Mountaineer

Is there any evidence that the U.S. can actually police the world? Aside from the suppression of Somali piracy (which was an international effort that arguably was primarily accomplished by the private efforts of ship captains themselves deciding to arm their crews and hire mercenaries, often in defiance of international law), I'm having a hard time coming up with any great successes of "international policing" in the last few decades, unless one's definition of "international policing" involves a lot fewer goals achieved or a lot more wanton slaughter compared to domestic policework.

Should we "police" the world? No.

Should we attempt to strongly "influence" the world in our favor? Absolutely yes!