Does American has responsibilities to liberate people who are in oppressions

America is a great country and a democratic nation with freedom. but I think it is selfish for American to put the whole world aside when American are enjoying free and democratic air. There are millions of people in the world who are in oppression from their governments, such as people in Africa and south America. It was right to break up Iraq Saddam power and Afghanistan terrorism power. These regimes were backward. However, there still are many countries in the world which are violent powers. American government should put its armed forces to those area to eliminate all illegal and violent regrimes. Any countries that are not democratic should be put into hell by America.

It's not our problem.

I don't understand why American don't like President Bush. Bush is absolutely hero of free world.

Um I don't think by means of War America or any other country has the right to break up their country and force them into a democratic regime.

In the end just because you live in a democracy and think its great and the rest of it, doesn't mean other countries do.

Its also prudent to remember that half the countries in the world would probably be described by you as 'oppressive regimes', so whats the answer, go to war against half the world to indoctonate them into democracy?

Whilst I believe we should help people, going to war is almost always not the answer, and blocking medicines and the like from countries isn't the answer either.

They could free a lot of countries from oppression by removing McDonalds from the map.

I Think America has to understand that it doesn't run the world. By all means it should support other countries but only take action when neccessary to protect the plight of suffering civillians and not for it's own financial gain

It's not the duty of America.

It's the duty of one human being to another.

I'd doubt anyone who passes problems overseas as 'not their problem' either
doesn't know what's happening or is ignorant/selfish enough to the extent that
they think they'd last an instant in said circumstances.

But this is not on democracy.

Humanitarian aid, yes.

Democracy? No.

Democracy doesn't work for everyone.

no hes not!!!
hes caused more problems than hes solved !!!
And he f***ed up Brittain

Some American leaders may have the idea that they "run the world", but I don't believe the majority of Americans agree with that mentality. That would be why the current President is not that well respected here and elsewhere. To be fair though, America was certainly not the first country to ever act on its own behalf. Many much older countries have hundreds of years more practice at it than us..and while some places in dire need of assistance go without our help, we still have a pretty impressive track record of taking action and helping those in need.

I appologise, I didn't mean to imply the American people

No apology necessary. I knew what you meant. Was just throwing my thoughts on the topic in there.

What makes the West (Conservative and Nationalists the most) believe that
Democracy is such a fool-proof and perfect system of government? Add onto
this that they appear to believe in democracy and a right to say what you believe so
much that they'll force it onto other cultures.

Democracy is something that works fantastically in theory but in practice
relies on handing more power to the powerful and less to the underdogs
(Somewhat defeating the purpose of democracy - power to the masses!). In a
country like, say, Iraq, where the powerful can throw as much as they want
around (Money, resources and even human lives), who do you think will
benefit from installing democracy? Who do you think will fight, claw, tooth
and blackmail for a spot of power?

At the end of the day, democracy isn't going to help a struggling country.
However, aid and support from countries with no political agendas (Say oil in
Indonesia being the incentive to aid by Australia) and military action to quell violent
groups would be quite a different story.

Installing democracy in countries during contemporary times has very rarely
succeeded (African states and Cambodia, for example). However, in situations
where there are armed rebels attacking civilians, American help is definitely
needed! There should be no question that, as one human to another, we
should help out our brothers and sisters in need.

Have a look through history where America has decided that helping a
particular cause was 'no longer their problem'. Rwanda, early 1990's.
800,000 Tutsi's were butchered to death. Somalia, early 1990's, America
decided to withdraw it's support and immediately 8,000 men, women and
children were massacred. Haiti, early 1990's, the UN and US pull out due to over-stress
and instantly Macoutes swoop down and execute all the informants who were promised
freedom and safety by western forces. But no, that shouldn't be their problem!

Without Western influence, these people died and will die. With Western influence, we can
push the violent and malicious people out of the worries of day to day civilians.

None of this requires the supposed superiority of democracy. As long as the
people are fed, have water and are open to opportunity (Something
democratic countries lack as much as communist, monarchal or anarchistic
societies) there should be no need for any discussion of a change of system of
government.

This 'answer-all' ideology you've associated with democracy is incredibly
misleading and unrealistic. Democracy does not solve problems within societies. They
will continue to exist within a democratic society.