1. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

Is the US a "World Police Force"?

Discussion in 'Congregation of the Masses' started by XxpokemonmasterXx, Aug 7, 2012.

  1. XxpokemonmasterXx

    XxpokemonmasterXx

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    78
    • I think the US is a world police force. If some guy in pakistan scratches his balls, we send 20,000 troops. We've been in a bunch of countries with no wars going on. And even if there ARE wars going on there, it's like a bunch of animals in a forest. Who cares who wins. Whoever wins will just be killed by some other group of people, who will get killed by other people. Land of the slaves and home of oppression.

    • Is the usa a world police force?

    • We're in so many countries in the world it isn't even funny. Why are we in so many countries?
  2. THE_IRON_KENYAN

    THE_IRON_KENYAN 0 vv 0
    is a Forum Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,331


    This is so good
  3. Avatar Korra

    Avatar Korra

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    213
    1. Security benefits

    2. Economic benefits

    3. Influence

    We have good reasons for just about every base in the world. Though, I sometimes question our presence in Germany. That base would serve better in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We do what's best for our nation, we aren't a police force.
  4. Woodchuck

    Woodchuck i am woodchuck
    is a Smogon IRC AOPis a Forum Moderatoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,209
    I have to agree, that oil in Uganda would definitely be an economic benefit to the United States!
  5. X5Dragon

    X5Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,039
    US intervenes in Libya, but not in Syria militarily. Syria doesn't have oil, I think it's pretty obvious why the US or any country for that meddles into any other country, common interests.

    The US just happens to be the only country to do that constantly...well not anymore anyway.
  6. verbatim

    verbatim Red like Roses
    is a Battle Server Administratoris a Smogon IRC AOPis a Forum Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,521
    Those who fail to learn from history can still manage a 3.0 if they ace everything else.
  7. X5Dragon

    X5Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,039

    [​IMG]
  8. macle

    macle frog jesus died for your sins
    is a Tutoris a member of the Site Staffis a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Forum Moderatoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Little Cup Co-Leader

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,687
    is the sky blue?
  9. BattleStar

    BattleStar

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    637
    who hell cares. I though myself am a USA citizen. I however I am pretty confident that the USA can't maintain its current status, influence, etc if it wasn't the world police. Though you have to be a dumbass to think the US is in every conflict. It enters conflicts that is in their interest(money or threats ).
  10. Zacchaeus

    Zacchaeus
    is a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,259
    We only got involved in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran to start a fight and take oil, so ultimately just fueling the economy (ba dum tish)
    I honestly don't think that Germany deserves to be policed by foreign entities so much in this day and age. If you know anything about German culture, you would know that they police themselves enough
  11. X5Dragon

    X5Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,039
    Japan will soon drop the article that prevents itself from arming and use China as an excuse, I think Germany would find some other excuse soon enough.

    Besides, the world is much different than it was 50 years ago, even small countries can be a pain of the ass with all the weapons out there...
  12. Avatar Korra

    Avatar Korra

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    213
    Yup.
    There are so many problems in the world that US just leaves alone. If we were a police force, then we would have troops in all conflicts and uprising. We would be putting an end to the Bosnian civil war, we would be in Africa taking down war lords, we would be resolving the India-Pakistan dispute, we would be the ones in Syria helping the rebels rather than just just condemning the president, and we would be the ones protecting south-eastern Asia from China's aggressive expansion of influence.

    Furthermore, we don't put our foot down when Brazil decides to cut down another rain forest, or help Mexico out with their drug problems rather than putting a giant wall completely ignoring the problem.
  13. Zacchaeus

    Zacchaeus
    is a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,259
    But it's fine and dandy for us big countries to have tons of weapons and bully the little countries into being relatively unarmed?
  14. X5Dragon

    X5Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,039
    I don't know in which version of history Germany and Japan were lil countries that were bullied to be unarmed, but I like it, sounds more intresting than our boring "Colonist empires that were reduced to peaceful industrial powerhouses".
  15. capefeather

    capefeather no shit
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,883
    There's certainly a case for considering the U.S. as acting like a sort of police force, or, if not a police force, an entity that wants to maintain military influence on the world. If we look at the Kosovo conflict, for example, that was a time when NATO had to redefine itself after the Cold War, and the U.S. found itself needing a reason to keep having military influence in Europe, for the sake of its own interests. Then there's the obvious Iraq War issue where the U.S. went in with exaggeratedly optimistic expectations and even largely ditched the hunt for Osama Bin Laden for that war. George Bush even said the whole "you're with us or you're against us" rhetoric. If the U.S. isn't involving itself in every conflict, it's because it simply doesn't have the resources to do so. All that said, it also doesn't have the resources (or reason) to actually do anything like "If some guy in pakistan scratches his balls, we send 20,000 troops." <.<

    P.S. Sorry, somebody had to do it.
  16. Codraroll

    Codraroll
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,366
    - Syria also has a population more than four times the size of that of Libya, and the population is more spread out.

    - The Syrian army is the third biggest in the Middle East, with Anti-Air Defense being a separate branch. They are also backed heavily by Russia, who provides advanced anti-air weapons. Libya's military equipment was rather outdated.

    - The intervention in Libya was under a UN mandate. Muammar Gadhafi (or however the heck you decide to spell it, there are more than eighty "official" ways to do so) had publicly announced a bloodbath in Misrata and was bombing his own population. It was pretty clear that things would go down the drain quickly unless somebody did something. Al-Assad actually enjoys some support in the population, unlike Gadhafi at the time before his fall.

    - Libya has a relative proximity to France, Malta, Greece and Italy. All places suited for bases from which air raids could be conducted. Neither of the neighbours were likely to object strongly to NATO intervention. Syria is smack in the middle of the world's powder keg, and air raids would involve flying over troubled territory.

    - Libya had no close allies in the region. Not after the fall of Ben Ali in bordering Tunisia, at least. Attacking Libya wasn't likely to involve any neighbours in the war. Attack Syria, and suddenly Lebanon and Iran shows up for the fight, and Russia is likely to cut diplomatic bonds all over the place. Then Saudi-Arabia and Bahrain pick up their sticks as well, and the situation may escalate quickly.

    - What we learned from Libya was that weapons involved in the revolutions go all over the place afterwards. Lots of heavy equipment is missing from Gadhafi's former arms depots. Most of it probably went to Mali, where it is being used in the pseudo-civil war they've got going now. Syria also has chemical and biological weapons (the poor man's nukes) which nobody really wants to lose their hands on, as well as weapons that can easily down passenger aircraft. At the moment, the Syrian army has relatively good control of those weapons. Attacking the country would stir the kettle too much. At the moment, it's still possible that Assad is removed without too much fuzz (unlike Gadhafi, who fought to the bitter end), and the structure and control of the armed forces survives the civil war. As we learned from Germany and Iraq (albeit with 60 years in between), it's a lot easier to deal with a defeated nation with their armed forces intact, than a country where the military and their weapons are scattered all over the place.


    TL;DR: The situations in Syria and Libya are vastly different. The question (bomb or not) might be the same, but the implications and logistics of bombing Syria is a lot worse than it was in Libya. It's not as simple as the oil.
  17. cookie

    cookie Adominnustrata
    is a Super Moderatoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    Soc. Forums Leader

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Messages:
    7,728
    good points overall but you're forgetting that Syria borders Turkey, who would probably help out and provide bases (as well as generally being chummy with the US) with any Syrian intervention ever since relations soured between the two this year.
  18. Princess Bubblegum

    Princess Bubblegum

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,983
    I don't think we go to war for oil at all, if you were to consolidate all the oil ever found in Iraq it would feed the US for about one week. In contrast Libya has much more oil and Eygpt controls of the main routes of oil out of the subcontinent, if your argument for oil was true, we would of gone to war against them for sure.

    Im actually ok with all this, I like America as a big ass imperial power, it keeps the world stable overall. Id rather a ton of piss ass wars then another world war, but that is just me.
  19. Galladiator

    Galladiator

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,944
    In a way, we are a "world police power", but it's really nothing new. I'm doing a report on the Monroe Doctrine for school, and as far as I can tell we've been using laws and loopholes to stick our asses into everyone else's business almost since the beginning. James Polk and Teddy Roosevelt are the biggest examples of the "America first, everyone else last" mentality, although Polk wasn't quite as bad as Roosevelt in that regard.
  20. Zacchaeus

    Zacchaeus
    is a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,259
    Tell me why the US invaded Iraq then
  21. X5Dragon

    X5Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,039
    And like Libya, most of the population is concentrated in two cities while the entire Eastern half of Syria is literally desert.

    Saddam had the world's fourth largest army and supposed advanced Russian weaponry with zero army deserters and populace helping out during the invasion, I don't see how the hype of Syria is any better with tens of thousands of army deserters and lots of territories out of government control is any better.

    And like Libya the only way Mu'ammar was abile to sustain any offense was through air force. The NATO took them down and he was finished.
    The Syrians who support Basshar are the same type, government policy beneficiaries, nothing more and 10% being Alwaite, which is a broad statement to say seeing how many have joined the opposition or are silent protesters. In Libya entire tribes and a main city (Sirte) were fiercely loyal to Gaddhafi and after the war the rebels amounted to revenge attacks for their support to the previous government.

    As for Syrian massacres, 20k and counting, and there was a Misrata moment too in Hama.
    None of them even close to the support they can be found in Iraq and Turkey.

    That would be true but since Iran is already helping militarily in Syria as well as Russia, America wouldn't be out of place if it started delivering weaponry or enforced a air ban.
    A NATO like intervention wouldn't suit Syria, however the obvious solution which was asked many times by the opposition, an Air ban and heavy weaponry being delivered to the army deserters would have saved lots of blood and ended the regime sooner.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)