22 Work Weeks on the Golf Course

[Typhon]

Despite what you seem to believe, you're actually not the world police.

The problem is The US has aided so many countries (some succesfully some not so much) over the past decades that it is EXPECTED of them to get involved and if they don't they are accused of not caring as much about a certain country as opposed to some. And then when they DO get involved they get accused of getting involved...it really is a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of situation...granted much of it is because of US' own making but still. When there is injustice going on in the world the US is expected to act...so the WORLD has pretty much made the US the world police...

Yes, thank you!  Finally someone who understands our dilemma.    In fact there is always some debate here amongst citizens about how much we should be involved in each of these situations.

[Billy Underdog]

This automatically grants our military the use of more aggressive tactics and weapons

Which is war, no matter what your congress choose to call it... 

Despite what you seem to believe, you're actually not the world police.

  I never said that nor believe that.
What I am trying to get you to understand is that assisting another country with their war, is not the same as being at war with the same enemy.

Did i say you've said or believe that? I used you in plural.

But can you honestly say that that's not what your country as a whole is trying to be?

And what if those wars is the result of not only the US, but the whole "western" world interfering in the first place?

Despite what you seem to believe, you're actually not the world police.

The problem is The US has aided so many countries (some succesfully

One example, please...

it is hard to call the Iraq invasion anything but a War, eventhough there was no official War Declaration.

 

[Billy Underdog]

Yes, thank you!  Finally someone who understands our dilemma.    In fact there is always some debate here amongst citizens about how much we should be involved in each of these situations.

One advise; stop it. Noone elected you to be the rulers of the world. Problem solved...

We've got this thing called the UN. You've made a habit of not following their guidelines.

[Typhon]

it is hard to call the Iraq invasion anything but a War, eventhough there was no official War Declaration.

The difference between the Iraq situation and declaring war on a country is this:
 When war is declared, then every single person of that country is deemed to be the enemy.  This was not the case in Iraq.  The enemy was strictly Hussein and his army, not the oppressed civilians.

[Billy Underdog]

it is hard to call the Iraq invasion anything but a War, eventhough there was no official War Declaration.

The difference between the Iraq situation and declaring war on a country is this:
 When war is declared, then every single person of that country is deemed to be the enemy.  This was not the case in Iraq.  The enemy was strictly Hussein and his army, not the oppressed civilians.

A pretty fucked up point of view to deem every single citizen an enemy...
But; who did ultimately suffer? The civilians... Yes, they did suffer before too, but you coming along didn't help in any way, and they're still suffering. Once again, these are not isolated incidents, but part of a continuous story stretching hundreds of years back... You had no reason to be there, and your presence did diddly squat.

[Zzzptm]

Sooo, the US is NOT at war again... Might be a good excuse right now, but go back in history to see why it've become this way.

Not the same "not at war" situation in that the missile strikes were limited in scope and the context is that they won't be repeated if chemical attacks are not repeated. I'm not happy to see the strikes, but I believe that making them with French and British cooperation provides sufficient unity in NATO to show to Russia that this is likely not an area they would want to escalate in.

Therefore, I would expect some sort of asymmetric response, such as a cyber-attack. Or leaking of certain details... As in, Putin knows how to manipulate the US media and retains a free hand there.

[Zzzptm]

Regarding the business of the USA being "policeman of the world" and civilian participation in wars...

Last one first: technically, civilians are not legitimate targets for military activity. War with a nation is *not* legally war with the entire population of the nation. However, in practice, that is now what happens. The winners put the losers on trial for crimes against humanity and justify their own desperate actions.

The USA being policeman of the world was an idea that first came forward in the early 1900s and then accelerated in acceptance after WW2. Prior to that, it was applied mostly to the Americas. Even during times of American isolationism, the Americas were always viewed by the USA as a special sphere of influence. That typically translated into Marines showing up every time the country elected the wrong government. The wrong government tended to be one that demanded things like better working conditions for their people, less pollution from companies, and more balanced trade relationships - all of which were against the interests of the large US firms in that nation that were enjoying huge profits from poor working conditions, no pollution restrictions, and asymmetric trade relationships.

Since then, the USA has kept its role as making the world safe for US businesses, with many fingers wagging at the Iraq conflict as a means of the USA placing controls on the supply of oil in Iraq, not as a means of making things better for Iraqis themselves.

To be fair, the Russians are quite adept at rolling tanks when neighboring nations make political choices that go counter to what the men in the Kremlin want to see happen. Let's not look to Russia as an example of proper restraint of power. Which leads us to Syria...

Back in 2010, Qatar was trying to get a pipeline built from their gas fields to Europe. The idea was simple: sell Qatari gas so cheap that the Russians would be cut out of the European energy markets and the Russian economy would then tank. To build that pipeline, Qatar could not transit Israeli territory. The pipeline would have to terminate in Turkey. That meant the path for the pipeline would have to cross Syria.

Assad in Syria would have nothing to do with that pipeline. Meanwhile, events in Tunisia developed to overthrow the ruling family there. Unrest in Egypt unseated Mubarak. While the Saudis machine-gunned any demonstrators in their eastern provinces, the USA made a big noise about spreading democracy through the region through Twitter and Facebook. Iran had a big outpouring of pro-democratic statements from its people... until that nation pulled the plug on the Internet connections coming into Iran and then went after everyone that had a pro-democratic status or tweet...

Over in Syria, the USA fomented a rebellion there. Fighters from Libya made their way to Syria to fight Assad - quite a few of which became ISIS, which was propped up for the longest time by Erdogan in Turkey because his family was able to skim off the profits from ISIS-produced oil. Russia backed Assad to the hilt for two reasons: one, Russia had to prove its credibility as a military ally; two, like hell they were going to let Qatar build that pipeline. Russia backed Assad out of a survival instinct.

Shortly thereafter, the USA toppled the pro-Russian Ukrainian government, which precipitated Russia's grab of Crimea and support of a "breakaway" Donbass region. Like hell the Russians were going to lose the most important parts of Ukraine.

While Ukraine has settled to a stalemate, Assad keeps flinging gas at his own people, which triggers US/NATO responses. This really messes with Trump supporters, many of whom were very much against hawkish internationalism. This also messes with Trump opponents, many of whom were very much for hawkish internationalism. But why the USA continues to support Syrian rebels? It's not to demonstrate the credibility of US support, the world already has a sick joke that the surest sign your faction is headed for destruction is when the USA backs it.

[Billy Underdog]

Sooo, the US is NOT at war again... Might be a good excuse right now, but go back in history to see why it've become this way.

Not the same "not at war" situation in that the missile strikes were limited in scope and the context is that they won't be repeated if chemical attacks are not repeated. I'm not happy to see the strikes, but I believe that making them with French and British cooperation provides sufficient unity in NATO to show to Russia that this is likely not an area they would want to escalate in.

Therefore, I would expect some sort of asymmetric response, such as a cyber-attack. Or leaking of certain details... As in, Putin knows how to manipulate the US media and retains a free hand there.

And we've got a snowball rolling. That bank controlled cartoon character of yours is playing with fire, and the whole world is at risk.
If you guys could keep your wars and conflicts for yourself, between you and whatever country is in question, i wouldn't mind that much.
But as long as you insist on being the world police, it affect the rest of us. In that regard USAians should loose their right to vote, and let the rest of us deside instead. That, or start focusing on yourself a bit more, being a so-called "third world country" in the western world one would think you've got enough to deal with without needing to be part of every international conflict.

[Charger]

Yes, thank you!  Finally someone who understands our dilemma.    In fact there is always some debate here amongst citizens about how much we should be involved in each of these situations.

Yes. It is not something that the US has done itself but the world has even demanded the US to be the world Police...starting back with World War 2. And if all of a sudden the US would stop getting involved the outcry would be immense. In fact it has already been with the situation with Boko Haram in Nigeria where the US decided not to get involved and leave it to the UN...which hasn't really been able to do anything.

One example, please...

Korea, Somalia, Kuwait during the first desert storm, Afghanistan (although that ofcourse started as something different, but it lead to a democratic goverment)...there are quite a few more too in smaller scale. It's not all bad. And there would be quite a few evil dictators out there without the US even now.

[Billy Underdog]

Yes. It is not something that the US has done itself but the world has even demanded the US to be the world Police...starting back with World War 2.

Ehhh... Who was asking/demanding? The reality is that the US was just looking for an excuse to control the agenda...

One example, please...

Korea, Somalia, Kuwait during the first desert storm, Afghanistan

Sorry, i forgot how peaceful those countries are... Successful indeed.

[Typhon]

Yes. It is not something that the US has done itself but the world has even demanded the US to be the world Police...starting back with World War 2.

Ehhh... Who was asking/demanding? The reality is that the US was just looking for an excuse to control the agenda...

  You are loosing your mind.  The U.S. did not have a thing to do with WW2 until Japan attacked us.   

One example, please...

Korea, Somalia, Kuwait during the first desert storm, Afghanistan

Sorry, i forgot how peaceful those countries are... Successful indeed.

Is there some fighting in South Korea I haven't heard about?  Is Kuwait at war with anybody?

[Billy Underdog]

Yes. It is not something that the US has done itself but the world has even demanded the US to be the world Police...starting back with World War 2.

Ehhh... Who was asking/demanding? The reality is that the US was just looking for an excuse to control the agenda...

  You are loosing your mind.  The U.S. did not have a thing to do with WW2 until Japan attacked us.   

I was talking from when the war ended. 

But if you wanna go down that route, it's well known that FDR was VERY eager to join the war, but couldn't because the US public refused. Pearl Harbor was the excuse he needed.

I'm not going to go down the conspiracy route, but Japan really had no reason to attack PH, as they weren't in any animosity with the US at the moment, and their war interests was centered in the Asian Pacific. Weird how that worked out for US's benefit...
And none of this is any reason for the US to become the world police after WWII...

So i repeat the question: who demanded they became so? (A question originally directed to Charg, btw, though everyone is free to answer)

One example, please...

Korea, Somalia, Kuwait during the first desert storm, Afghanistan

Sorry, i forgot how peaceful those countries are... Successful indeed.

Is there some fighting in South Korea I haven't heard about?  Is Kuwait at war with anybody?

Ehhh... South Korea've got a neighbour in the north, and Charg's example wasn't divided in south/north. US's involvement in the Korean war did nothing to solve that problem, as we're still dealing with it. The fact that the country is divided in a north and south is proof enough...
Kuwait is smack in the middle of the least peaceful area in the whole world. Apparently, as been said earlier in this thread, a war declaration isn't needed to actually be in a war...

War is the lack of peace, not a declaration.

[Zzzptm]

Kuwait: not a democracy, goal was restoration of an absolute monarchy.

South Korea: democracy, even though it endured a period of militaristic rule and a coup attempt by the Korean CIA.

Somalia: ooooooh wowwww that still hasn't ended well.

Afghanistan: There's an Afghan proverb, "Nobody wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghans." The US intervention there led to conditions that permitted Afghan opium production to hit record highs. Politics in Afghanistan are heavily influenced by opium and heroin producers. That proverb still stands...

[Typhon]

US's involvement in the Korean war did nothing to solve that problem, as we're still dealing with it.

You have no right to make this statement.  How do you know what the situation in Korea would be today, if the U.S. had never gone there?  It could be 10 times worse.

Kuwait is smack in the middle of the least peaceful area in the whole world. Apparently, as been said earlier in this thread, a war declaration isn't needed to actually be in a war...

Is Kuwait fighting with anyone?  No.  So your complaint is based on Kuwait's location.  Ridiculous.

War is the lack of peace, not a declaration.

I never said war was a declaration.  I tried to explain this in reply #86.

[Zzzptm]

Back to WW2... The USA certainly picked a side in 1940 when FDR started lend-lease to England and had an unofficial war with Germany in the Atlantic. Germany held back on its submarine warfare so as not to draw the USA into war.

In Asia, Japan's aggression in China certainly was not popular in the USA, so putting embargoes on that nation were popular measures, but they were also calculated to force Japan to either withdraw from China or expand its conflict. The USA also sailed an unflagged battleship into Japanese territorial waters - The Inland Sea, no less - and almost got the war started there, had not a Japanese commander recognized the battleship's silhouette. The US' deployment of its battle fleet forward in Pearl Harbor was absolutely a provocative measure.

Just before Pearl Harbor, the US Naval Squadron in Manila was ordered to make steam for the Japanese base at Cam Ranh Bay and to start shelling it. That order was canceled a few hours later after Pearl was hit.

The Japanese strategic justification for hitting Pearl was that it needed to cripple the US fleet in order to take the Philippines in order to secure the oil in the Dutch East Indies. Japan was absolutely on an aggressive track in the Pacific and the USA was taking advantage of that in order to draw the foul and to get Japanese aggression to draw us into war.

To that end, Germany's declaration of war on 8 December is a bit of a head-scratcher. They didn't have to do it... but Hitler's staff thought better to have the war now than to have the war later, that if they could finish off Russia in 1942, they'd be able to limit US involvement to be shoring up British holdings and not much more.

Hitler's biggest mistake, as British Air Marshal "Bomber" Harris said, "... was that he bombed others without expecting them to bomb him back."