We have the responsibility to police world affairs, because that is our duty as a permanent member of the UN security council. We, as a country, and more so as the leading world power militarily, should enforce the international laws set in place by the United Nations to help further the globalization and safety of the planet.
The United States as the dominant power in this world has the responsibility to police world affairs. We have the highest GDP and strongest military, it only makes sense that we would use our power to benefit not only ourselves, but the rest of the world.
Obviously, we have not done a great job of policing the world. We take advantage of our power to do what best benefits us, rather than what benefits the world. This is especially true in instances such as Operation Ajax. While this is all true, it's undeniable that we still have the responsibility to police the world. It's not what I prefer, or what anybody in their right mind would prefer, but it's the truth. If not us, then who else? Even if numerous other countries joined us in policing world affairs, we would still have that responsibility.
What I'm focused on is not outcomes, because if outcomes was what I was focused on, my stance would definitely be NO. I am focused on the fact that no matter what way you look at it, the responsibility falls with the US. I'm not saying we should be responsible, but we are responsible.
That's like saying since California is the dominant economy/power of all the states in America, it has the responsibility or right to govern or police the rest of the nation. That's not how it works.
Secondly, the United States' "peacekeeping" efforts or efforts to "spread democracy" haven't exactly gone smoothly.
We waste our resources while the UN should be the one handling the world's problems. It is not up to one nation that is already hard pressed to be the "international policeman". Our government should be tending the citizens of our own country before trying to take care of other nations.
By definition it should be deemed unlawful under international law for the US to "police" internal affairs of separate sovereign states. The US, although still termed the global hegemon, is no longer that far ahead in power. Will we ever be overruled? Unlikely, but states are no longer minute ants to our iron boot. So acting as a global police officer we are obviously doing so with good intentions, but it does nothing but anger and discredit international law and norms by doing so. If there is a UN resolution passed then yes I believe the US will/ should intervene, but on its own dime and justification? That'd be a no from this voter
We gave up the mantle of world policeman after George W. Bush and his cadre drove America into the ground like a three ton bus off a forked cliff. I'm not sure we will ever recover from the transgressions of that administration. But the question is interesting - THE responsibility implies a singular responsibility to police world affairs, as opposed to A responsibility which might imply that the US is one among many world powers who could intervene in another country (that's what we mean by 'police world affairs' - attacking or invading or 'compulsive interventionism '). I think it's about time we start cleaning our own house, look inward, fix what's going wrong in America so we can be better off in the long run.
If it's anyone's job to police the world, it's the UN, not ours. Ignoring that it's not our business. We are hard pressed enough with our own government bickering like little children. Our economy is on the verge of collapse. And domestic terrorist are a problem as well. Take Iraq for example. That is the product of us trying to "Police" the world.And all that is done is get thousands killed, and cost us money.