U.S. Military Interventionism

U.S intervention has been incredibly destructive and feared by those we mean to help. Without it, we would be far better off than we are today. We would have more economic prosperity, and a true moral high ground over our enemies. The use of interventionist force is unwarranted and illegal according to both the U.N. and the U.S. constitution. In discussing Iraq, it's important to recognize, in my opponents own words, "We originally had no reason for involvement." This is a constant trend in interventionist foreign policy. The idea that the U.S. should act as a world police simply because of the size of our military is a naive one. The U.S., as the most interventionist country in the world, came in at first place, in a gallop international poll, as the greatest threat to world peace.{1} Why is this? Interventionism. That idea that, because we have the most powerful military, we should intervene in conflicts outside of ourselves. This is what interventionism is, the idea of getting involved in confrontations whether or not directly involving us. What happens afterward? We stay in the region and "help" to place a government " a government that will abide by us. It's all done under the ruse that we have some kind of responsibility, that we're doing good for the world, and that we're the good guys. This is the same logic that Britain used when they were conquering half the world and colonizing India " the idea that "we're the good guy, and we're giving them democracy." U.S. intervention in foreign affairs is neither viewed as nor is helpful in the grand scheme of things. I would not argue against acting against the Nazi"s earlier than we did, as that would be moronic, but arguing that WW2 has any relevance to this discussion is also moronic: Britain and the U.S., a decade before, were on the brink of another war; the U.S. was just coming out of the great depression; and, even with this in mind, getting involved in an instance such as WW2 would not be interventionism as it was a classified world war before the U.S. even got involved. This is an entirely different instance, and the comparison is not there. The only real comparison that could be made in the context of this debate is that the U.S. is acting similarly to the Nazi regime in the sense of Imperialistic tactics. WW2 is not relevant to this discussion. Bosnia also holds a nuance the seems to disqualify it from this discussion. The fact that the U.S. did not seem to be in direct conflict. Rather, the U.S. appeared to be under U.N. obligation to aid and assist U.N. and NATO officials in their order of a no fly zone.{2} The U.S. had a minor role in assisting the U.N. In any case, considering my slight inability to understand this completely, as the only informative historical knowledge you can gain as to the effects of this war are propaganda and, as a consequence of being bias, are not reliable. So, let's assume this is a full on U.S. military intervention. Even if this intervention had gone well, there's an argument to be made that it had turned the U.S. into a larger target as we've now created an enemy who, before hand, had no reason to stand against us. For this one instance of possible good outcome, (and I should stress the world possible) there have been at least 3 that entirely contradict the implication of what my opponent has presented. The bad far outweigh the good, especially when the good is entirely objective. The best possible outcome is neutral at most, and we don't even get that most of the time. {1}http://www.ibtimes.com... {2}http://en.wikipedia.org...