3 ms·

First, that is not the US's decision to make. This whole idea of the US being the world police is absurd at face value, there are many other countries in this w

by throwaway2016a 10y ago

First, that is not the US's decision to make. This whole idea of the US being the world police is absurd at face value, there are many other countries in this world and just about all of them are more threatened and geographically closer to North Korea. At the very least South Korea needs to be involved. A strike against North Korea will put South Korea immediately into an expensive all out war even if they didn't start it. Second, even if the US military was "still" mighty[1] we would need the blessing of Russia and China or at least their promise not to retaliate and start World War III. To the person who said... > There are also credible reports of genocide. That'd be reason enough don't you think? NO! Many times no! This is one of the reasons the world hates us. We think it is our position to unilaterally police everyone in the world. Everyone should universally decry genocide, absolutely and aggressively. But we are citizens of the world not dictators. We should not be pre-emptively striking. We should not be sending money and weapons to other countries (or at least only send them to one side of the fight for god sake so we don't have two sides fighting each-other with our own weapons!). Every time we have been interventionists either overtly or covertly it has caused unintended consequences and often disastrous ones. When will we learn that it hurts more than helps? * I say this as a born American. [1] We spent more on our military than any other country by a huge margin. I really don't understand

s_q_b 10y ago
>Every time we have been interventionists either overtly or covertly it has caused unintended consequences and often disastrous ones. When will we learn that it hurts more than helps? That is patently false. The United States alone has a long history of successful humanitarian intervention, beginning with Tripoli and running through World Wars I and II. Even within our lifetimes, there was the NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I believe you may be looking at this through a post 9-11 lens, which is causing you to place too much emphasis on blowback. Obviously Operation AJAX, the alliance with Baathists, and funding of the mujahideen in Afghanistan had significant negative unintended consequences. However, that is by no means an ironclad rule. For further information I'd suggest A Problem from Hell by Samantha Power and Freedom's Battle by Gary Bass.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  World War II was not an intervention. Even if you are talking our limited pre-Pearl Harbor involvement, the war was an immediate threat. And if you were talking after Pearl Harbor, that by definition is not an intervention, it is a retaliation. I'm not familiar enough with Tripoli to comment on it. So scratch the word "every" from that statement and replace it with "most" I'm also don't consider it an intervention when our allies are being attacked and our allies ask explicitly for our help. Edit: let me make this very crystal clear. I am not a pacifist. I'm a non-interventionists. There is a difference. If we are attacked or there is an imminent threat (I'm talking a battle ships with guns pointed at us right at our or our allies border kind of threat not "credible intelligence" from a "confidential source") we can and should respond with overwhelming force. This is not one of those situations.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  All your link that you added proves is that we have intervened. It does not prove that those did not have "unintended and often disastrous consequences" Heck, some of the ones on the list are on US soil and many others are rescue missions not aggressions. I think it was implied when I said intervention I was talking about offensive posturing. Also, that poem is nice and all but I didn't say I don't know what Tripoli is. I said I don't know enough about it to comment on it. I make sure I know what I'm talking about before I write on it. Edit: From YOUR OWN ARTICLE: > U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Literally the whole "Common Themes" section of the article you yourself cited speaks about how intervention doesn't work. You posted a source that defends my point. Thank you.
stupidcar 10y ago
This isn't about the US acting as the "world police", intervening in some conflict in which its interests aren't threatened in order to protect some supposed moral order. North Korea has made explicit threats against the US and its allies, and is pursuing a nuclear programme with the purpose of being able to carry them out. Every nation has an inviolable right to defence under international law, and North Korea has explicitly threatened the US, and its allies, continually and belligerently, for years. A country does not have to sit around and wait for its enemies to strike before it acts. Even Russia, one of North Korea's allies, has warned it that its continued threats of nuclear strikes put it at risk of creating a legal basis for an attack by the US and South Korea: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/08/russia-warns-north-korea-nuclear-strike https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/08/russia-warns-n...
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  If we attacked everyone who threatens us we would be at war with half the entire world. Ever been bullied at school? Acknowledging the bully shows your own weakness and gives the bully power. From your own quote: > put it at risk of creating a legal basis for an attack by the US and South Korea Exactly AT RISK. Let's wait until there actually is legal basis first rather than talk about attacking with no legal basis what-so-ever.
  - throwaway2016b 10y ago
    Ignoring the bully is a great way to signal weakness to him and everyone around you, and tends to end with getting stuffed into lockers, laughed at by even weaker kids, and waiting on the tarmac for someone to roll a staircase out for you. Punching him in the face is, in the long run, a much better way to protect yourself and earn respect.
    - throwaway2016a 10y ago
      Lol, love the screen name. But in that scenario the bully is being actively aggressive. I guess to carry on the analogy, what other posters are suggesting is to punch the bully for threatening to beat you up with a baseball bat. First, the bat is not a threat to you yet and second if you do punch the bully you can be pretty sure that unless you knock him out permanently he's going to come back swinging, and his friends will be with him. In fairness, I did punch my bully in the face in high school and it did effectively get rid of him in my case. But it certainly could have gone differently. And one possible reason it went that way is because my allies were stronger than his (my friends were on the football team and his were potheads). But Russia and China are not weak. Edit: On the tarmac comment. So? It's politics. You need a thicker skin than that. The best way to handle that is to show you don't give a shit what they think. If you show them that doing something that stupid and petty hurts you it only encourages more. Let them have their laugh and let them push harder if they want. Stay strong. And one day they will either give up or push too hard, and when they push too hard you destroy them. Part of being strong is knowing when to use your strength and when to use restraint.
blahi 10y ago
>his is one of the reasons the world hates us. We think it is our position to unilaterally police everyone in the world. You are being incredibly naive. The US is the de facto hegemon on Earth. We have been living in Pax Americana for close to 100 years and knew about it for around 70. All pretenses fell around 30 years ago. When it comes to military power, the US is in a league of its own with one empty league between it and everybody else. The US is an empire (and the mightiest one yet) and will act like that until it isn't capable to do so any more. Historically, that's around 100 more years but I'm not sure history is predictive here.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  Assuming we can hold our alliance system together, we've got a good 15 years before anyone can think about direct military confrontation with the US. As long as 30. Of course, that assumes China's trajectory remains the same and doesn't change. If China fails in some way, then the US remains sole hegemon for the foreseeable future.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  > You are being incredibly naive. The US is the de facto hegemon on Earth. We have been living in Pax Americana for close to 100 years and knew about it for around 70. All pretenses fell around 30 years ago. "Incredibly", eh? Sounds like hyperbole. Also, let's not result to personal attacks shall we? Right now we are seeing a para-military terrorist group that is a global threat. We have that because the US created a power vacuum that started by intervening in the middle east. Which both Bush AND Obama contributed to. And for that matter the first Bush and Clinton as well. And there is a strong argument to be had that the 9-11 attack was because of prior middle east interventions especially with Israel and Saudi Arabia. But by all means let's create another vacuum in Asia too that will destroy our ally South Korea and create a vacuum that will probably be filled by China not South Korea as much as we'd like that to be the case. > We have been living in Pax Americana for close to 100 years and knew about it for around 70. All pretenses fell around 30 years ago. I'm not sure this is not the point you are actually making so I might actually be agreeing with you. But before we were in this place we didn't assert our power like we do now, yet -- just an observation -- all the sudden we have all these problems. Not to be treasonous but when the "de facto hegemon[sic]" comes into power and the world falls to shit maybe the world and Americans are better off with a more even power balance. > When it comes to military power, the US is in a league of its own with one empty league between it and everybody else. Yet somehow we are weak according to many Americans.

s_q_b 10y ago

>Every time we have been interventionists either overtly or covertly it has caused unintended consequences and often disastrous ones. When will we learn that it hurts more than helps? That is patently false. The United States alone has a long history of successful humanitarian intervention, beginning with Tripoli and running through World Wars I and II. Even within our lifetimes, there was the NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I believe you may be looking at this through a post 9-11 lens, which is causing you to place too much emphasis on blowback. Obviously Operation AJAX, the alliance with Baathists, and funding of the mujahideen in Afghanistan had significant negative unintended consequences. However, that is by no means an ironclad rule. For further information I'd suggest A Problem from Hell by Samantha Power and Freedom's Battle by Gary Bass.

throwaway2016a 10y ago
World War II was not an intervention. Even if you are talking our limited pre-Pearl Harbor involvement, the war was an immediate threat. And if you were talking after Pearl Harbor, that by definition is not an intervention, it is a retaliation. I'm not familiar enough with Tripoli to comment on it. So scratch the word "every" from that statement and replace it with "most" I'm also don't consider it an intervention when our allies are being attacked and our allies ask explicitly for our help. Edit: let me make this very crystal clear. I am not a pacifist. I'm a non-interventionists. There is a difference. If we are attacked or there is an imminent threat (I'm talking a battle ships with guns pointed at us right at our or our allies border kind of threat not "credible intelligence" from a "confidential source") we can and should respond with overwhelming force. This is not one of those situations.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
throwaway2016a 10y ago
All your link that you added proves is that we have intervened. It does not prove that those did not have "unintended and often disastrous consequences" Heck, some of the ones on the list are on US soil and many others are rescue missions not aggressions. I think it was implied when I said intervention I was talking about offensive posturing. Also, that poem is nice and all but I didn't say I don't know what Tripoli is. I said I don't know enough about it to comment on it. I make sure I know what I'm talking about before I write on it. Edit: From YOUR OWN ARTICLE: > U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Literally the whole "Common Themes" section of the article you yourself cited speaks about how intervention doesn't work. You posted a source that defends my point. Thank you.

stupidcar 10y ago

This isn't about the US acting as the "world police", intervening in some conflict in which its interests aren't threatened in order to protect some supposed moral order. North Korea has made explicit threats against the US and its allies, and is pursuing a nuclear programme with the purpose of being able to carry them out. Every nation has an inviolable right to defence under international law, and North Korea has explicitly threatened the US, and its allies, continually and belligerently, for years. A country does not have to sit around and wait for its enemies to strike before it acts. Even Russia, one of North Korea's allies, has warned it that its continued threats of nuclear strikes put it at risk of creating a legal basis for an attack by the US and South Korea: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/08/russia-warns-north-korea-nuclear-strike https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/08/russia-warns-n...

throwaway2016a 10y ago
If we attacked everyone who threatens us we would be at war with half the entire world. Ever been bullied at school? Acknowledging the bully shows your own weakness and gives the bully power. From your own quote: > put it at risk of creating a legal basis for an attack by the US and South Korea Exactly AT RISK. Let's wait until there actually is legal basis first rather than talk about attacking with no legal basis what-so-ever.
- throwaway2016b 10y ago
  Ignoring the bully is a great way to signal weakness to him and everyone around you, and tends to end with getting stuffed into lockers, laughed at by even weaker kids, and waiting on the tarmac for someone to roll a staircase out for you. Punching him in the face is, in the long run, a much better way to protect yourself and earn respect.
  - throwaway2016a 10y ago
    Lol, love the screen name. But in that scenario the bully is being actively aggressive. I guess to carry on the analogy, what other posters are suggesting is to punch the bully for threatening to beat you up with a baseball bat. First, the bat is not a threat to you yet and second if you do punch the bully you can be pretty sure that unless you knock him out permanently he's going to come back swinging, and his friends will be with him. In fairness, I did punch my bully in the face in high school and it did effectively get rid of him in my case. But it certainly could have gone differently. And one possible reason it went that way is because my allies were stronger than his (my friends were on the football team and his were potheads). But Russia and China are not weak. Edit: On the tarmac comment. So? It's politics. You need a thicker skin than that. The best way to handle that is to show you don't give a shit what they think. If you show them that doing something that stupid and petty hurts you it only encourages more. Let them have their laugh and let them push harder if they want. Stay strong. And one day they will either give up or push too hard, and when they push too hard you destroy them. Part of being strong is knowing when to use your strength and when to use restraint.

blahi 10y ago

>his is one of the reasons the world hates us. We think it is our position to unilaterally police everyone in the world. You are being incredibly naive. The US is the de facto hegemon on Earth. We have been living in Pax Americana for close to 100 years and knew about it for around 70. All pretenses fell around 30 years ago. When it comes to military power, the US is in a league of its own with one empty league between it and everybody else. The US is an empire (and the mightiest one yet) and will act like that until it isn't capable to do so any more. Historically, that's around 100 more years but I'm not sure history is predictive here.

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
Assuming we can hold our alliance system together, we've got a good 15 years before anyone can think about direct military confrontation with the US. As long as 30. Of course, that assumes China's trajectory remains the same and doesn't change. If China fails in some way, then the US remains sole hegemon for the foreseeable future.
throwaway2016a 10y ago
> You are being incredibly naive. The US is the de facto hegemon on Earth. We have been living in Pax Americana for close to 100 years and knew about it for around 70. All pretenses fell around 30 years ago. "Incredibly", eh? Sounds like hyperbole. Also, let's not result to personal attacks shall we? Right now we are seeing a para-military terrorist group that is a global threat. We have that because the US created a power vacuum that started by intervening in the middle east. Which both Bush AND Obama contributed to. And for that matter the first Bush and Clinton as well. And there is a strong argument to be had that the 9-11 attack was because of prior middle east interventions especially with Israel and Saudi Arabia. But by all means let's create another vacuum in Asia too that will destroy our ally South Korea and create a vacuum that will probably be filled by China not South Korea as much as we'd like that to be the case. > We have been living in Pax Americana for close to 100 years and knew about it for around 70. All pretenses fell around 30 years ago. I'm not sure this is not the point you are actually making so I might actually be agreeing with you. But before we were in this place we didn't assert our power like we do now, yet -- just an observation -- all the sudden we have all these problems. Not to be treasonous but when the "de facto hegemon[sic]" comes into power and the world falls to shit maybe the world and Americans are better off with a more even power balance. > When it comes to military power, the US is in a league of its own with one empty league between it and everybody else. Yet somehow we are weak according to many Americans.