IF the U.S wants to be a super power how can such be done from a purely non conservative stance. What I mean by this is not conservative in a typical manner such as term denoting republican. What I mean is how can the U.S truly say it represents the welfare, morality and simply the best fit decisions for all people of the planet. If you want to involve the idea that the U.S currently is the figure piece of international power overall how can the U.S use such power to police the world in a manner truly uncorrupt of personal desires for gain and power?

The people of the U.S at large I doubt to understand such an issue. Television can bring you the more bitter realities of human life, but such is viewed by millions from the comfort of a home in the U.S. The standards of which are far more comforting then that found at a refugee camp for instance. I just don’t understand how the public can fully realize what it means when the government tries to be a global police force when in reality far to few even vote.

Even when Clinton tried in Somalia and the eastern block such conflict had connections to the U.S that would benefit it. As such stands with the term “liberal” attached to Clinton how could any individual in the truly represent lasting goodwill as such a global police officer.

Its not a question of selfless service for the world by the U.S, but more or less one of ethics. Could the U.S successfully police the world in a manner at all not self serving in nature, and in reality could such an attempt at policing the globe from a far less the selfless stance actually last really?

I don’t see how it can. No super power which has involved its militaries in extensive global campaigns to date has lasted to some point of historical immortality. Even with the advance of modern technology leading up to today’s military technology lasted. Is the occupation globally with such activities something to be used sparingly overall with extreme planning?

I don’t want to compare this to traditional warfare activities nations have engaged in, example being the gulf war. I wish to discuss more or less if the series of campaigns a nation will involve its forces in between large scale conflicts such as global war actually ever equals lasting success.

Even if one wants to engage the idea that such behavior has lead to overall cultural survival giving the times and environment I would have to disagree giving the reality that conflict seems to pervaded such gaps between people in a great many ways. I think a perfect example is relations between the U.S and France.