Can the US police the whole world?
by JH 39 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Englishman
Why does the US always have to take care of troubled spots all over the world by itself?
Hello?
Frantic waving across the Atlantic going on.....!
Englishman.
-
sleepy
Why does the US always have to take care of troubled spots all over the world by itself?
What a stupid question.Sorry but either you or your news media over there have a lot to answer for.
-
JH
What a stupid question
Now include the word Britain, and all of a sudden, it becomes a good question. Really???
It is a good question, that you didn't answer. The US may be a Super Power, but it can't take care of the whole world by itself, unless you rather stay sitting on your ass sipping tea, and hoping somebody else does the job. But other countries should also contribute actively, not just the US. The US has 2.1 million soldiers LESS than during the cold war. The US can't send troops to Iraq and NK at the same time. The US is only 4% of the total population of the world. It is also very expensive to do the job all by itself. 1 month after a war with Iraq, they will be out of cruise missiles, like they were after the first gulf war in 91. If a conflict happened elsewhere then and there, the US could not cope with it. Thats why other countries will little or no military power at all should invest and play an active role on the world scene next to the US. Also, when the US acts alone, the whole world hates us, and then blows up buildings to protest. Other countries should also back the US and act like one. The US always takes the initiative on the world scene. If the US didn't, who would? That's the reasoning behind the question you found stupid.
When I say other countries should help, I mean other countries in NATO.
Edited by - JH on 12 January 2003 19:47:0
-
blondie
Actually, until after WWII, the US was fairly isolationist, only getting involved in the events affecting North or South America. One reason the US did not enter WWI until 1918 was the isolationist feeling that prevailed among the US population. The US never even became a member of the League of Nations, which was supposed to act as a deterrent regarding wars among nations.
WWII started in September 1939, but the US did not enter until December 7, 1941, when the Japanese brought the war to US soil. Up until then, an isolationist mood prevailed in the US.
What is so dramatically different since WWII ended is the advent of nuclear weapons into the mix. Granted, the US was the first and so far the only one to use nuclear weapons in a war setting. Seeing the devastation in Japan, the US was determined not to see that occur on US soil (and even on any innocent soil). To me it seems that the US has pursued a policy to prevent "nuclear" war, which means preventing other types of wars from escalating into that type of war. Why, not for the good of the world, but because no matter where a nuclear war occurred, even if the US is not directly involved, the fallout will affect the US.
I am not a historian by education or training, but I have lived in many countries, many in Europe and have seen the European everyperson viewpoint. How would a person in the US feel having military bases from another country peppered all over the US. This is what was done in Europe, mostly to protect them from invasion from the Soviet Union, but also to protect the US by having a first line of missiles right on the doorstep of the USSR rather than launching from the US. It meant having a US standing army right there to "defend" Europe.
First and foremost, any actions by the US militarily are to protect the US no matter what they say about protecting others. If the US people and politicians were as a majority convinced they could sit back and be unaffected, history has shown that is what they will do, nothing.
Blondie
-
-
sleepy
Sorry to rub you up the wrong way JH, but in my view the question,
Why does the US always have to take care of troubled spots all over the world by itself?
is flawed because it is not true and also assumes that the US's involvement in other countries so called problems is to the worlds benifit and that of the local inhabitants .
-
JH
it is not true that the US's involvement in other countries so called problems is to the world's benifit and that of the local inhabitants .
Whose side are you on??? Saddam??? Kim ding dong II ??
-
Englishman
JH,
I really do hope that you're cracks about no-one chipping in to help the US were meant as a joke. At present, the UK is calling up it's reservists - of which my eldest son is one - as well as it's active forces to deal with the threat from Iraq. See Sky news in my post above, maybe you didn't read it because it took a minute or two to load? Here it is again:http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12222306,00.html
Englishman
Edited by - Englishman on 11 January 2003 13:46:39
Edited by - Englishman on 11 January 2003 13:48:11
-
JH
Englishman
Britain always was a great ally for the US. What I said was
But when I say other countries should help, I mean other countries in NATO.
The US and England are always helping each other. Good friends with a common goal
France doesn't seem to do much, and so many others also.
I reacted badly when you and the other one said that it was a stupid question. If I would have included britain, and said
Why does the US and BRITAIN always have to take care of troubled spots all over the world by itself?
would it have been more acceptable?
Some countries like Turkey are sending troops also, but they want 10% of the oil. Some countries will only help if they get a piece of the cake. That doesn't make a strong coalition.
Edited by - JH on 11 January 2003 13:56:34