Should the U.S. intervene in the affairs of other countries?

again, wars wont solve anything

Alliances are okay as long as the Country we are allied to has similar interests/goals. If both parties start moving in different directions, then the alliance should be re-evaluated. Don't take an active role in the affairs of the other country, just stand by them.

Active involvement through non-military means.

Don't start the wars and this will not be an issue.

Intervene less but not completely.

We should focus on passively trying to help our allies reach peace, but not fight their wars for them, unless our allies sovereignty is threatened by a foreign enemy.

be involved with every nation to avoid warfare.

The US should play an active role in a multi-national community, not as a strong-arm front man relied upon to do the UNs dirty work

We should not avoid alliances, necessarily. We should, however, not be willing to fight other country's wars. Generally (and morally) speaking, battles should only be diplomatic. Just killing people that don't agree with you is pure foolishness. It only becomes more ridiculous when the only reason you are fighting them is because your friend doesn't like them.

Only support nations that openly support the U.S. and its policies.

Gradually scale back involvement in non-critical states, timed to coincide with reducing interests (energy, threatening regimes). Stabilize, when necessary, with powerful, but very short, military intevention.

Active alliances such as we have had with England.

If it does not involve the National security it is unconstitutional.

Become less involved in foreign conflicts unless there is US interest involved.

The US should maintain a policy of "enlightened self-interest" when dealing with foreign countries. Our policy should be to encourage behaviors from foreign governments that benefit the USA, and discourage behaviors that damage or place at risk US assets and interests. All forms of actions for the US government should be available.

Keep out of foreign affairs except a black ops team to keep tabs of threats to the US.

Best way to lead is to be the leader. Show how our country works so others will want to be like us. Use pressure on existing governments to redirect their focus.

We should be actively involved in other nations with programs like the Marshall Plan instead of maintaining a military equivalent to the next 20 countries behind us. Build a reputation as a force for good and watch the terror threat drop.

Bombing is not an acceptable foreign policy.

Alliances for defense, not for joining aggression.

Each case is decided on its own merits. Always mindful of the best interest of AMERICA

The US should maintain alliances with other nations

Only to end government dictators that oppress their people.

Work toward the creation of a United Earth rather than petty tribal squabbles.

just do what is right!! We are here to help each other. So help each other. Stand up for those who need it.

Maintain the status of current alliances while gradually pulling down military pressence and actively diversifying unarmed aid to at-risk nations.

The U.S. should expand its borders and make strategic alliances that will benefit the country.

Isn't this why we have the UN?

Let's create a super nation, for example: the fuckin American Nation from the tundra of Canada to the tip of South America

Work cooperatively with friendly nations. Generally avoid lone wolf military adventures.

Active role in ceasing crimes against humanity.

Military involvement should only happen if the people of that country, not it's leaders, ask for it.

create alliances but intervene on a case by case basis

We should only get involved in military actions supported by the U.N.

manage our own affairs

Support when requested by NATO

Not sure

maintain alliances but eliminate any unsolicited involvement in the affairs of other countries.

participation and alliance with world organizations, military interventions based on international perspective.

No

Focus on increased national defense, but open alliances for trade and other financials.

We should form alliances based on our self interest

support our historical friends england'france'ect.

Honor longstanding alliances with Europe and other U.N. members but limit involvement in all future conflicts.

Multi-national response to regional and global threats

Stop trying to create American Corporate Colonies. Stop American Foreign Agression.

Kinda all depends.

No, lessen our current level of involvement in the affairs of other countries

Alliances should be based upon non-predatorial economic criteria with regard to human rights standards.

No, increase the diplomatic alliances with other countries

Each situation is different and each country is different. You can't make a blanket statement about foreign policy.

Active involvement in the world is a requirement of US national security both in economic and military terms; however, involvement must be tempered by what is ACTUALLY in the interest of the American people not just what's good for a political party or some big businesses.

pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy, with possible active involvement when aid is explicitly requested by a given country.

Active involvement through non-military needs unless necessary/requested for assistance and we have received payment or are bartering our military services.

We should actively support liberty and human rights by any means necassary, in accordance with our constitution

Only intervene to prevent genocide.

Start to cut involvement financially.

When asked, or when international efforts are needed

Support our friends

Yes, U.S. assistance should be decided on a case by case basis that involves many factors but mostly if the cause is just.

we should move towards a global level of thinking...which should hopefully lead to less war....as no humans truly want to kill on a mass scale in that situation. (crazy people maybe, but shouldn't we look at the comparison in our minds where the only people that would are crazy people?)

A blanket policy on this is stupid. Depends on the country and the circumstances.

Pull out of all countries and let them determine their own fates.

Support the building of collective security alliances which can effectively respond to armed aggression between states and against their own citizens SO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO DO SO.

Continue alliances for a good relationship with other countries, but don't get so completely involved as in the past; make it clear that we will involve ourselves if we deem it necessary, but not in all situations and not to such an extent as we have in the past.

Alliances with other nations should be along with ideological lines supporting nations that allow the self-determination of its citizens over authoritarianism.

No, but involvement should be decided by the citizens of both countries where possible, but at least by ours by a clear 60% majority. (Not representative but direct voting.)

Address threats while they are far away in time and distance. Promote freedom and democracy where and when possible. Fight and oppose evil where and when possible and/or necessary. Recognize we have limits but actively work for freedom, democracy and prosperity in the world.

Yes, but only alliances of mutual defense against outside attack.

Send them in before our own troops.

Relationship with everyone, alliances with none

Let them help themselves

We should stick by the principles of Thomas Jefferson, but with a modern approach. Essentially, true free trade (not NAFTA or GATT), strong economic partnerships, and strong diplomatic partnerships. However, we should avoid meddling in the internal political affairs of nations, avoid war altogether. We should always seek the diplomatic approach.

We should not allow ourselves to be sucked in and used as the spearhead of the assault just because the U.N. wants us to, we supply more far aid and funding than any other country and hence should be expected to only participate in peacekeeping actions on the level of every other member nation

Fix America's problems first then consider more involvement

No, but lessen our involvement in the affairs of other countries.

we need to keep our noses out of other countrys, but we have to support our allies but not to the extent that we are now

End financial aid, but verbally support those countries that aline with our beliefs.

No, but we should determine on a case by case basis whether or not to get involved in wars based solely on our own national security interests

Only become involved when our interests are at stack

Just keep to ourself

Stop causing problems.

Non-Paulestinian option #3, Isolationism.

poorl worded question

Keep other countries in check, like in Libya.

No, because no other nation on earth draws other nations to war as often as America.

Maintian alliances but military involvement and only in response to threats against the US.

Protect our interests (particularly energy security) by whatever means necessary.

We should support other true democratic nations and also support strategic allies

If the nations do not actively support the US then they should get no support from the US.

No, a country's war is their own problem unless there are human rights issues (in which case the U.N. and NATO forces are more appropriate). Alliances should be kept for mutual financial prosperity.

No, alliances with other nations are vital to our national interests around the world and our national security. But we should never provide any kind of foreign aid to nations that are not our allies.

Case by case basis.

If it involves vodka and tacos, then yes, otherwise no.

unless congress declares war, we should not be engaging in war.

no but we need to use *smarter* methods of involvement than what we already have. throwing money at the problem is not a useful solution.

Be involved with our "friends".

The U.S. should maintain a cooperative and progressive role in the international community, while eliminating it's personal involvement in foreign affairs with its own military forces.

Only take an active stance when it involves human rights, not money, oil, weapons, etc.

this is situational