Why should we? Does the rest of the world consider our opinion before using military force or any other action on a global scale? If they are with us, good. If not, stay out of our way. We will do it anyway. We protect our interests, it's our business.

. . .which is as equally stupid as refusing to listen to any nation that would be directly or indirectly affected by our historically uneven foreign policy. . .since most Americans read on a middle-school level anyway, perhaps the opinions of 'those foreigners' wouldn't kill our little-flag-waving-nobody-understands-the-planet-but-me sensibilities if we gave it just a cursory look. . .

Ah, the Bill Clinton option. Let's see if it's popular, and if it is we'll do it. Somehow, I just don't feel obligated to keep the French and Germans tickled pink with our foreign policy.

Well, if we were forced to consider it nowadays we'd have to drop the bomb on ourselves.

Absolutely we should care what the rest of the world thinks. It's great for politicians to grand-stand for whatever reason, but common sense should tell the rest of us that hey, if the rest of the world can't see the great evil we're being sold, then it just may not exist. If we'd listened to the rest of the world on Iraq, we wouldn't be mired in a mess we aren't sure how to get out of. 1600+ US troops would be alive and well, and our credibility the world over (But especially in the middle east) would be much better than it is now. One should think: If I'm the only one advocating violence, and the rest of the world knows what I know....what am I missing?

Nah.We should just blow up everyone we even suspect of disliking us,that will bring world peace right? Who will ever respect and fear us if we act like a bunch of sissies afraid to use our huge bombs on every 3rd world,rag-wearin' bunch of non-white,non-christian folks who look at us funny.We're America-we don't have to consider what the rest of the world thinks! We are ALWAYS right cause Jesus loves us.As long as we make abortion and gay marriage illegal-we can blow up whoever we please.

StanUzbeck, this is exactly the situation. Careful though, too much truth, insight, common sense and knowledge of the outside world will have you labelled a leftie by some on this site.

As soon as the rest of the world exhibits a track record of responsible, consistent, sound opinion, we should listen to them. Who, including the US, can claim such a track record over the past 20 years? 30 years? 50 years?

Let's take a look at history, shall we? It's something every American should do more often. During both World Wars, the European countries really could have used American help, and a hell of a lot sooner than when it finally arrived. But America had support during those conflicts. Same with the Korean war, which was UN mandated. Vietnam was the US acting alone and it was a disaster. The first gulf war was a success because there was an actual coalition of nations involved. This current conflict is a complete mess and we have only ourselves to blame. It seems that the US has screwed up every war they've gone into alone (excluding Reagan's dirty wars, which weren't wars, they were crimes against humanity), and had success when other nations decided to cooperate. You may think of the willingness to act alone as some kind of strength or virtue, but not when it's accompanied by such obstinate stupidity. Americans have absolutely no clue what's going on outside their borders other than what they learn in the heavily slanted media. No clue whatsoever, yet you have such strong opinions about what the rest of the world wants or thinks. They must be jealous of the US because we're so kick-a$$ powerful or They hate us because we're free or Inside every gook there's an American trying to get out. People in other countries aren't envious, believe me. They are horrified by the amount of crime and social decay that we all willingly turn our backs on. They scratch there heads when Americans proclaim themselves the most free in the world and then fail to exercise those freedoms because it's not patriotic. They get annoyed with the rude audacity of American tourists who insist that our way is better than their way, when they know damn well that most Americans know nothing about their way to begin with. So yes, America should consider the opinion of the rest of the world before using force. Europe has been through ten times as much history as the US, and they know a few things about the way the world works. America is like a petulant teenager who feels invincible, and gets angry when an adult dares to offer advice. Didn't we all have that attitude when we were teenagers? The rest of the world occasionally knows what they're talking about, and America would do well to listen, rather than going in all half-cocked and making a disaster of things. And don't kid yourselves, the situation in Iraq is a disaster, and America has only itself to blame.

This is a highly situation dependent issue. We should conside, or be aware of, the opinion of the rest of the world (or of the part that counts in a given situation)before using military force, but as someone else said, we shouldn't be totally constrained by it. It seems to me that everyone answering this question is assuming that the inference in this question is that there is a situation in which the US just decides to engage in military action against the wishes or opinion of other nations - what if there were a situation in which, let's say, for some reason all of the European nations agreed that the US should go into Country X (let's say Albania, as a for instance) to stop saome kind of genocide there, but that the Europeans themselves were unwilling to join us. OK, world opinion strongly favors, indeed,maybe even demands that the US go in to stabilize the situation because the French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, etc., don't have the muscle or political will to do it themselves, or their laws forbid sending their own troops to deal with the situation under the circumstances, or whatever. Should we then be bound to go in just because world opinion says we should? I don't think so. So, why should the exact opposite be binding on us, i.e., everyone says no so we can't go? I'm wondering if any of this makes any sense. It's too damn circuitous, even for me, and I wrote it!

definitely not, with the exception of the british and a few other countries, the other nations of the world are a bunch of candyasses.

It should be only a minor consideration. Our sense of security should not depend on other people's heads, as the saying goes.

Never the rest of the world doesnt give a rats a** about america. Most of the world is very jealous and hateful toward america and wish us no good.

Depends. Is someone attacking us? Do we have five minutes to send up fighters and shoot down incoming? Of course not. Should we initiate a campaign to root out terrorist training camps in an unstable, remote, and desperate country? Yes, build a coalition first, then go do the job, and make sure we leave the place better than we found it. Should we initiate an adventurous war against a country irrelevant to the war on terrorism under false pretenses? For the third answer, while the opinion of older and wiser countries *could* help us decide the obvious, we could just as well use our native wisdom (somewhat lacking in the White House) and decide the obvious: NO.

Of course, we should. It should be considered but it does not necessarily need to be followed. Some country's opinions are more relevant than others, like England's for example, but we should at least listen to everyone before taking action.

Consider it? Absolutely. Be irrevocably bound by it? Absolutely not. Any sovereign state has as its first responsibility the defense of its citizens. That does not mean it has free reign to indulge in adventures across the face of the planet, but it does mean that it does not have to check with the the global body politic before defending its crucial interests.

Yes, we should. The US does not exist in a vacuum.. and it would be a mistake to ignore the world community. That doesn't mean we shouldn't go ahead and use military force if we think it is absolutely vital to our national interests. But we can't be the schoolyard bully. We have to have a dialogue with the rest of the world community. We have to explain ourselves and seek understanding for our actions.

Yes, we should. Due to the invasion of Iraq, the United States is now enemies with most of the world. I understand why so many nations are now so fearful of America. Due much to the United Nations, the world has come so far since World War II in maintaining peace; we don't want to stop that success. In addition, we should not hold grudges against countries that do not agree with our government's policies (i. e. France).

I give five stars for the question. Yes, we should consider the rest of our ALLIES when trying to determine when to use military force. We also must be prepared to go solo when our national security or the world's international economic interests are put in danger. It's tough being number one.

No, not in most cases.

No. We have the right to defend ourselves and out national interests without asking someone's opinion. If a murderer kills your wife, do you ask permission from your neighbors before pressing charges against him? Of course not.

Yes, we do need allies. There is strength in numbers and really does help our cause when we have the world on our side. Look at the war on terrorism. We can't do that on our own. From France to Indonesia to Latin America we need the support of regional government in tracking down the sources of terrorism. That's something that America, for all it's power, can't do on our own. We need to be wary of overstretch as well. Major powers have fallen in the past because they get so large that their internal debt begins to eat them alive! I'm not a pacifist by all means but I believe that America shouldn't be an arrogant power, as Bush said in his 2000 campaign. I don't know what happened to that Bush! We don't have all the answers and we should not go around making the world into our image. Let's just take care of what's an immediate threat to us (i.e. Al Qaeda) Excessive power breeds resentment among the world. 9/11 was not a license for us to go around to nation-build or to make the world safe for democracy in the Wilsonian sense. Democracy comes when a population demands it, not when it's imposed from above. When military force is used, it ought to be collectively with as many allies as possible because it shares the burden of war among all parties involved. We don't have to pay the maximum cost of going to war and we have moral support by having the world on our side.

We should consider it, but not let it control our sovereign rights. Communication is the key. It's important to explain exactly why and how we're going to war and listen to the concerns of other nations. As long as they feel that we are open and honest with them and we try to include them in the process as much as possible, there should be fewer critics.