4 ms·

I think there's a distinction between being involved in conflicts and being belligerent. Post fall of the Soviet Union the U.S. took on the role of world police

I think there's a distinction between being involved in conflicts and being belligerent. Post fall of the Soviet Union the U.S. took on the role of world police, and that included getting involved in lots of conflicts that probably normally would have been fought by regional powers (ex. Desert Storm/Kuwait, Bosnia). The standout here of course is Iraq/Afghanistan, but in terms of globally belligerent behavior China seems to be the clear winner here, no (or maybe N. Korea but seems more regional)? Trying to redraw boundaries, creating artificial islands, aggressive maneuvers endangering Philippine and Japanese sailors, everything regarding Taiwan, aggressive trade tactics... the list goes on.

sudosysgen 2y ago
This distinction is far too subjective and biased. First of all, the vast majority of conflicts the US was involved in would not have been fought by regional powers, or not with that intensity, see Libya, various conflicts in South America, etc... Second, when the US was in China's position, it did everything China does right now, with even more violence. The US annexed, failed to annex or dominate every one of it's neighbors until it relented. There has been no fundamental change in policy since then.
einpoklum 2y ago
> took on the role of world police, There's a neighborhood in my city where this family has taken on the role of community police. Strangely enough, most people outside that family believe they have taken on the role of the dominant criminal gang; I wonder why that is. When accused of violence, they mention the belligerence of some of their (real and imaginary) rivals.