The Obama administration is convinced that Syria used chemical weapons on its own people, and administration officials are working hard to get Congress to authorize a punitive attack. Several days ago, the House of Commons rebuffed Prime Minister Cameron’s request for military action against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons.
The Syria case raises a host of values questions that transcend the specific case itself. Today, let’s start with this one: Should the United States be the world’s policeman?
As the world’s sole superpower, the U.S. could—to some degree—act as the world’s policeman with relative impunity.
Do you think it should?
Only 11% of Americans said yes in a Rasmussen Reports poll earlier this year. Almost three of four (72%) said no—the U.S. should not be the world’s policeman. Seventeen percent were not sure.
Opposition to the world-policeman role is an area of wide agreement among the American people. There are few differences by gender, age, race, or religion. More Republicans (16%) think the U.S. should be the world’s policeman, compared to only 10% of Democrats—but large majorities of both political persuasions agree that it should not.
The Rasmussen Reports poll was taken before the allegations that the Syrian regime used Sarin gas to kill 1,400 of its own citizens, including women and children.
Do you think the U.S. should be the world’s policeman?
Does the Syria case change your mind about this issue?
If so, which way and why?
Please, take a moment to add a Comment, below. And invite friends to read along. Use the blue-“f” Facebook icon or the small envelope-shaped email icon.
- Syria: Should the U.S. be the world’s policeman?
- Syria: Why are poison gases a special crime against humanity?
- Syria: Why do many Americans oppose military retaliation?
- Syria: Refugees are fleeing in droves–does that alarm you?