Why Does The United States Resolve Its Own Issues Instead Of Invading Other Countries

Should the United States stop invading countries, or at least invade less?

Not necessarily. The United States has found itself in the position of, admitting too many people, AND having a rising population for its own good. Most of the land west of the Mississippi River is owned by and belongs to the Federal Government and people are not allowed to settle on this land and live on it.The United States therefore needs must develop the posture and role as a colonizer. Led by our Armed Forces, the U. S. must take over other land masses which can be used by our increasing populations. These colonized areas would be under the American Flag, American Military protection and jurisdiction and eventually under American civil laws, rights, courts, municipal rules and regulations, etc.America needs to become the 21st Century equivalent of Britain, France, the Dutch, the Portugese, the Spanish and all of the “Old World” nations who sent their explorers, adventurers, military, religious and secular folks to what was then considered an unknown or “New World.” It is incumbent upon America to solve at least some of her 21st Century problems by colonizing other land masses in other parts of the world to ease our population(s) and their crises.

Why does the USA interfere in other countries?

An excellent question. I rather wish we wouldn’t.In my humble opinion, it’s the fault of the Holocaust. That taught a generation of Americans that terrible things happen when we stick our heads in the sand and ignore problems overseas.I also blame Japan and Germany, who were arguably “better” as a result of American intervention.That gave us the woefully mistaken impression that we could — in the words of JFK — “bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”Then came Vietnam.There are a lot of reasons for that debacle, the fear of communism perhaps foremost among them. But it should have taught us that sometimes our intervention makes things worse instead of better.We didn’t learn the lesson.And continue to skip class.I think our leaders honestly believe we intervene not for our own benefit, but to help the downtrodden. And it is hard to look at the devastation in Aleppo and say “not our problem” before turning away. And while we rarely admit it, our own national interests are right up there on the Motivations list, as shown by the Iraqi oil that Trump now wants to “take” as payment for destroying that country.But look at what happened when Obama tried to stay out of conflicts in the Middle East because he understood our chances of actually improving things were negligible. He was pilloried for showing weakness. The destruction in Syria was said to be his fault, a result of “lack of leadership”. The American public simply isn’t willing to hear “yes, it’s a horrible situation, but we can’t fix it so let’s stay the hell out.”They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That pretty much describes US foreign policy since 1945.

Instead of building a wall, why don't we try and help Mexico with their problems so they don't have to immigrate?

Building a wall is impracticable and unfeasible, but it theoretically is possible- unlike (I believe) the US’s ability to just “fix” the economic problems which cause illegal immigration.First, the US has many of the same issues on a smaller scale such as unemployment. If we can’t fix it in our country, doing so in another seems far out of reach. Regardless of how much the country develops, there will remain the disenfranchised who are looking for a better life. The US is still seen as the land of unparalleled in their eyes. A good illustration of this (though referring to Haiti rather than the continental countries) is when a coworker recently described to me how there are a fair number of Hatians who literally believe that, if you make it to the US, to can find gold lying in the streets.Assuming maybe that we could do something about the economic perils, rampant poverty, unchecked corruption, and institutionalized racism in Mexico- that would just be the start. Many of the people who illegally immigrate are just passing through Mexico from a country further south. This can be especially dangerous to the immigrants, as Mexico’s immigration policies are nowhere nearly as kind as those in the US. Prepare to economically reform all of Latin America.Finally, assuming we patch up all these economies, we still have the issue of the drug trade. Personally, while I am sympathetic to the plight of the immigrants I really think something has to be done on the border because of crime. The demand in the US for drugs ensures that the crime syndicates will remain intact in norther Mexico and that a porous border shall remain a problem. We now have to fix the US social structure as well. Since we already have to fix almost the entire Western Hemisphere, lets just make it the whole world then we have have our peaceful global utopia.So cutting the problem off at its source, while a nice thought, is even less practically than making a wall of cement and metal embedded 50 feet in the ground and stretching the same length into the air. Illegal immigration is a difficult issue to deal with, because there really don’t seem to be any easy answers.