USA as world police

[JerrySeinfeld]

OK we know the UN is a joke and irrelevant.

And the USA has beeen the world's policeman since the end of the cold war.

My thoughts about policemen on our streets:

Sure, from time to time they can be a bit agressive, even to a fault. Police even sometimes abuse their power and authority. But when the sh*t hits your own fan, thank god they're there.

I think this basically sums up the job the USA has been doing.

Sure, there are some posters on here who long for the days of Noriega or Hussein. Some even miss the Occupation of lebanon and the Egyptian WMD program. Others may still think Reagan was an idiot despite his obvious victory over the Soviets in the cold war.

In fact, the very same people calling Bush an idiot with no vision probably denouced Reagan and his hard-line methods back in the '80's. But guess what? He was right. And perhaps so too is GW Bush.

Those who criticize are only speculating. They really don't know the whole story or what the result will be. It may take decades - similar to the cold war, to see Bush's brilliance.

[ceemes]

OK we know the UN is a joke and irrelevant.

And the USA has beeen the world's policeman since the end of the cold war.

My thoughts about policemen on our streets:

Sure, from time to time they can be a bit agressive, even to a fault. Police even sometimes abuse their power and authority. But when the sh*t hits your own fan, thank god they're there.

I think this basically sums up the job the USA has been doing.

Sure, there are some posters on here who long for the days of Noriega or Hussein. Some even miss the Occupation of lebanon and the Egyptian WMD program. Others may still think Reagan was an idiot despite his obvious victory over the Soviets in the cold war.

In fact, the very same people calling Bush an idiot with no vision probably denouced Reagan and his hard-line methods back in the '80's. But guess what? He was right. And perhaps so too is GW Bush.

Those who criticize are only speculating. They really don't know the whole story or what the result will be. It may take decades - similar to the cold war, to see Bush's brilliance.

If the US is the worlds policeman, then they are a bizzarre combination of the Keystone Kops and the worst stereotypical corrupt Irish American Cop during the days of Al Capone in Chicago. They are very selective about where they police and who they help. More often then not, they help and prop up some of the worlds worst dictators and strongmen. The only time the US acts is if its economic or geo-political interests are threatened, otherwise the US could give a flying fig about the world.

Ask the Tibetians of '49, or the survivors of the Prague Spring of 68, or the Hungarian Uprising of 56. Talk to the people of Vietnam about the benelence of America's policing, or those in Laos or Cambodia. Ask the Panamaian's, the Hondurains, the Agentinians or countless millions around the world about how great it is to have the Americans policing their nations, installing dicators, secret police, death squads and all the other inhuman instruments a strong armed proxy needs to keep its people down in order to serve their Imperial American masters.

Don't get me wrong, America and the American people have done a lot of good in the world, sadly tho the evil its elites and leaders have done far out weigh that good.

Oh, as for Reagan beating the Russians and defeating Communism? I suggest you look the role Mikhail Gorbachev and his reforms of perestroika and glasnost played. Had someone like Gorbachev not assumed the leadership role of the former Soviet Union when he did and instead we got another hardliner like Leonid Brezhnev, then the odds are Reagan would of ended his second term still fighting the cold war and the US would be even deeper in debt. Indeed, we probably still be fighting the cold war today.

Bush is an unmitigated disaster who's only brilliance is the ability to continuously b.s. the faithful. Watching the Bushies is akin to watching Lemmings run off a cliff and into the ocean to their doom. The one thing that does set Reagan apart from Bush, Reagan was not stupid enough to get into a useless war.....hell even Shrubs old man knew where to draw the line in regards to the middle east and Iraq......guess the Shrub got his brains from his mothers side of the family.

[JerrySeinfeld]

OK we know the UN is a joke and irrelevant.

And the USA has beeen the world's policeman since the end of the cold war.

My thoughts about policemen on our streets:

Sure, from time to time they can be a bit agressive, even to a fault. Police even sometimes abuse their power and authority. But when the sh*t hits your own fan, thank god they're there.

I think this basically sums up the job the USA has been doing.

Sure, there are some posters on here who long for the days of Noriega or Hussein. Some even miss the Occupation of lebanon and the Egyptian WMD program. Others may still think Reagan was an idiot despite his obvious victory over the Soviets in the cold war.

In fact, the very same people calling Bush an idiot with no vision probably denouced Reagan and his hard-line methods back in the '80's. But guess what? He was right. And perhaps so too is GW Bush.

Those who criticize are only speculating. They really don't know the whole story or what the result will be. It may take decades - similar to the cold war, to see Bush's brilliance.

If the US is the worlds policeman, then they are a bizzarre combination of the Keystone Kops and the worst stereotypical corrupt Irish American Cop during the days of Al Capone in Chicago. They are very selective about where they police and who they help. More often then not, they help and prop up some of the worlds worst dictators and strongmen. The only time the US acts is if its economic or geo-political interests are threatened, otherwise the US could give a flying fig about the world.

Ask the Tibetians of '49, or the survivors of the Prague Spring of 68, or the Hungarian Uprising of 56. Talk to the people of Vietnam about the benelence of America's policing, or those in Laos or Cambodia. Ask the Panamaian's, the Hondurains, the Agentinians or countless millions around the world about how great it is to have the Americans policing their nations, installing dicators, secret police, death squads and all the other inhuman instruments a strong armed proxy needs to keep its people down in order to serve their Imperial American masters.

Don't get me wrong, America and the American people have done a lot of good in the world, sadly tho the evil its elites and leaders have done far out weigh that good.

Oh, as for Reagan beating the Russians and defeating Communism? I suggest you look the role Mikhail Gorbachev and his reforms of perestroika and glasnost played. Had someone like Gorbachev not assumed the leadership role of the former Soviet Union when he did and instead we got another hardliner like Leonid Brezhnev, then the odds are Reagan would of ended his second term still fighting the cold war and the US would be even deeper in debt. Indeed, we probably still be fighting the cold war today.

Bush is an unmitigated disaster who's only brilliance is the ability to continuously b.s. the faithful. Watching the Bushies is akin to watching Lemmings run off a cliff and into the ocean to their doom. The one thing that does set Reagan apart from Bush, Reagan was not stupid enough to get into a useless war.....hell even Shrubs old man knew where to draw the line in regards to the middle east and Iraq......guess the Shrub got his brains from his mothers side of the family.

We are talking about the US as a policeman since the end of the cold war then you provide examples that occured DURING the cold war? improper logic my friend. try again.

as for Gorby - you seriously had me laughing here. Think about it a little deeper. Gorby was a RESULT of Reagan policy!!! The US bankrupted the USSR during the arms race and when the iron curtain was pulled back it revealed a shrivelling and dying "empire". That country is still suffering the disatrous impacts of the overspending that was necessitated by the unwinable spending war they got into with the USA.

My goodness, friend. Think things through a bit eh?

[geoffrey]

[That country is still suffering the disatrous impacts of the overspending that was necessitated by the unwinable spending war they got into with the USA.

Actually, the US is suffering from that today as well.

[JerrySeinfeld]

[That country is still suffering the disatrous impacts of the overspending that was necessitated by the unwinable spending war they got into with the USA.

Actually, the US is suffering from that today as well.

Yes, another good straight across comparison. The USA and the former soviet union. Very similar.

you are hilarious.

[tml12]

[That country is still suffering the disatrous impacts of the overspending that was necessitated by the unwinable spending war they got into with the USA.

Actually, the US is suffering from that today as well.

Yes, another good straight across comparison. The USA and the former soviet union. Very similar.

you are hilarious.

JERRYSEINFELD: I agree with you for the most part.

LEAFLESS: The USSR went bankrupt with the arms race...in fact, it precipitated the need for Gorbachev.

[sharkman]

People sure have short memories. The U.S. is not 'suffering' from out spending the Soviets in the cold war, the U.S. deficit is a direct result of 9/11 when they were going through a recession and then got clobbered with the planes. There was wide spread fear and their economy almost went into a depression. That is why they lowered the interest rate again and again to the point of 40 and 50 year record lows. The only thing they could do was spend their way out of it. The sliding U.S. dollar is also a result of it and their economy may never eclipse its former highs.

As to the U.S. being world cops, they are fading in impact. North Korea taunts them. Iran rattles sabres. China ignores them and damages the U.S. economy by pirating consumer products and reverse engineering technology. The U.S. is on the wane and the barbarians are at the gates just like in Roman times. And the barbarians will not give a rip about human rights or silly things like free speech.

[ceemes]

OK we know the UN is a joke and irrelevant.

And the USA has beeen the world's policeman since the end of the cold war.

My thoughts about policemen on our streets:

Sure, from time to time they can be a bit agressive, even to a fault. Police even sometimes abuse their power and authority. But when the sh*t hits your own fan, thank god they're there.

I think this basically sums up the job the USA has been doing.

Sure, there are some posters on here who long for the days of Noriega or Hussein. Some even miss the Occupation of lebanon and the Egyptian WMD program. Others may still think Reagan was an idiot despite his obvious victory over the Soviets in the cold war.

In fact, the very same people calling Bush an idiot with no vision probably denouced Reagan and his hard-line methods back in the '80's. But guess what? He was right. And perhaps so too is GW Bush.

Those who criticize are only speculating. They really don't know the whole story or what the result will be. It may take decades - similar to the cold war, to see Bush's brilliance.

If the US is the worlds policeman, then they are a bizzarre combination of the Keystone Kops and the worst stereotypical corrupt Irish American Cop during the days of Al Capone in Chicago. They are very selective about where they police and who they help. More often then not, they help and prop up some of the worlds worst dictators and strongmen. The only time the US acts is if its economic or geo-political interests are threatened, otherwise the US could give a flying fig about the world.

Ask the Tibetians of '49, or the survivors of the Prague Spring of 68, or the Hungarian Uprising of 56. Talk to the people of Vietnam about the benelence of America's policing, or those in Laos or Cambodia. Ask the Panamaian's, the Hondurains, the Agentinians or countless millions around the world about how great it is to have the Americans policing their nations, installing dicators, secret police, death squads and all the other inhuman instruments a strong armed proxy needs to keep its people down in order to serve their Imperial American masters.

Don't get me wrong, America and the American people have done a lot of good in the world, sadly tho the evil its elites and leaders have done far out weigh that good.

Oh, as for Reagan beating the Russians and defeating Communism? I suggest you look the role Mikhail Gorbachev and his reforms of perestroika and glasnost played. Had someone like Gorbachev not assumed the leadership role of the former Soviet Union when he did and instead we got another hardliner like Leonid Brezhnev, then the odds are Reagan would of ended his second term still fighting the cold war and the US would be even deeper in debt. Indeed, we probably still be fighting the cold war today.

Bush is an unmitigated disaster who's only brilliance is the ability to continuously b.s. the faithful. Watching the Bushies is akin to watching Lemmings run off a cliff and into the ocean to their doom. The one thing that does set Reagan apart from Bush, Reagan was not stupid enough to get into a useless war.....hell even Shrubs old man knew where to draw the line in regards to the middle east and Iraq......guess the Shrub got his brains from his mothers side of the family.

We are talking about the US as a policeman since the end of the cold war then you provide examples that occured DURING the cold war? improper logic my friend. try again.

as for Gorby - you seriously had me laughing here. Think about it a little deeper. Gorby was a RESULT of Reagan policy!!! The US bankrupted the USSR during the arms race and when the iron curtain was pulled back it revealed a shrivelling and dying "empire". That country is still suffering the disatrous impacts of the overspending that was necessitated by the unwinable spending war they got into with the USA.

My goodness, friend. Think things through a bit eh?

The US as the worlds policeman today is no differant then the US as the worlds policeman of yesterday, its actions are dictated by US economic and geo-political concerns and not by any sense of alterism. To this day, numerous right wing dictators and despots are still in power due to overt and covert US support. And they will remain in power as long as they toe Washingtons line and do its bidding without complaint or questions. As soon as any of them step out of line, the US will come down hard on them and replace them with yet another bought and paid for puppet. Both the fates of Saddam and Noriega have proved that beyound a shadow of a doubt.

Because the US acts in such a manner, nations such as Iran feel that it is in their best interest to develop a suitable deterant, nukes if you will. North Korea has shown the world that having just a few nukes is enough to stay the American hand. Other small nations will soon be delevoping their own nuclear programmes or attempting to buy nukes from others. This is the post-cold war world we now live in. Before, the US and the USSR counter-balanced each other, sure they had their wars of proxy, but for the most part keep each other in check. This balance allowed smaller less powerful nation to keep relatively small Armed Forces and away from the nuclear option, because they knew that they were protected by which ever sphere of influance they feel under. Even non-allined nations enjoyed this freedom.

But today, we no longer have that balance and instead we have a rogue super-power who feels it has the right to control the world and tell other nations and cultures on how to live. Is it any wonder why nations such as Iran and North Korea want the bomb? If I was them, I sure as hell would want it as well. And it is not just smaller nations who feel threatened by the current US position, even other near or ex-Super Powers are feeling the pinch and this has had some interesting results. China, Russia and India are traditional enemies, and have been so for centuries and yet today, they are forming alliances with each other. All three are currently in the nuclear club and have the fire power to destroy the US. Recently, China and Russia conducted joint military exercises, namely an amphibious assult. However, the main purpose of the exercise was to find way to harmonize their command structures into a unified entity. China has also made alliances and signed deals with two OPEC nations on the US's shit list, Iran and Venezalia. Vietnam, which not only defeated both the US and France but also fought short war against China in the mid 70's has made moves to improve relationships with China, this includes exchanging military officers for cross training.

What is happening throughout the world is a realinement of nations into new cooperative spheres of interest and mutual defence to counter the threat that the US of today represents. This includes the EU which is hardening its attitude towards US trade and foreign polices. Russia is currently seeking if not actual admitance to the EU, but at least an alliance.

Given the on-going disaster that is Iraq and the current hardening of attitudes towards the US around the world, I think that within the next twenty years, America will find itself completely isolated, broke and friendless.

As for the reforms that Gorbachev brought in, Reagan had little to do with it. I strongly suggest you study more about what happened in the former Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era.

[ceemes]

People sure have short memories. The U.S. is not 'suffering' from out spending the Soviets in the cold war, the U.S. deficit is a direct result of 9/11 when they were going through a recession and then got clobbered with the planes. There was wide spread fear and their economy almost went into a depression. That is why they lowered the interest rate again and again to the point of 40 and 50 year record lows. The only thing they could do was spend their way out of it. The sliding U.S. dollar is also a result of it and their economy may never eclipse its former highs.

As to the U.S. being world cops, they are fading in impact. North Korea taunts them. Iran rattles sabres. China ignores them and damages the U.S. economy by pirating consumer products and reverse engineering technology. The U.S. is on the wane and the barbarians are at the gates just like in Roman times. And the barbarians will not give a rip about human rights or silly things like free speech.

Actually, the US went bankrupt back in '72. Back then, the US dollar was pegged at $35US per troy ounce of gold, mainly because by the end of WWII the US held the vast bulk of the worlds gold reserves. During the post war reconstruction, nations were basically told to use US$'s to pay their bills because the the dollar was backed by the US gold reserves. They were told also that they could exchange any access dollars for gold. By '72 both France and Germany had extensive US dollar reserves they could not use and wanted to exchange them for gold as per the deal. Problem was, the US gold reserves had been tapped out and the US defaulted. The only thing that saved the US dollar was a quick deal cut with the House of Suad and OPEC in which OPEC agreed to accept only US dollars for exchange for oil. Today, the US dollar is under threat of being replaced by the Euro. The soon to open Iranian Oil Burse has stated that it will only accept Euro;s as payment. Other oil producers have also stated an interested in doing business in either only Euro's or a mix of Euro's and Greenbacks. Canada has played with the idea of accepting only the Canadian dollar in exchange for its oil exports. This is the big fear of America, its empire is back by its dollar, and if the world starts to opt to use another currency for trade, the US will go bankrupt and its empire will fall...just as the Soviets did.

[GostHacked]

[That country is still suffering the disatrous impacts of the overspending that was necessitated by the unwinable spending war they got into with the USA.

Actually, the US is suffering from that today as well.

Yes, another good straight across comparison. The USA and the former soviet union. Very similar.

you are hilarious.

No over spending in the US? Then why is the national debt allowed to slip to 9 trillion? That is not chump change. That is nothing to laugh at.

[Black Dog]

Sure, there are some posters on here who long for the days of Noriega or Hussein. Some even miss the Occupation of lebanon and the Egyptian WMD program.

Okay: who? Names and quotes please (oh, by the way: Egypt's WMD? I'm sure you meant Libya, since Egypt has never had a nuke program and still has cehmical and biological weapins. Of course, even if you did mean Libya, you're still wrong.)

Others may still think Reagan was an idiot despite his obvious victory over the Soviets in the cold war

The USSR fell because of the utter incompetence and wholesale corruption with which it was designed, built and run. I've always wondered why, if Reagan-era military spending was such a clever strategy to drive the Soviet Union to the brink, noone (not even the U.S. intelligence community) predicted its collapse.

The only reasons Reagan gets any credit at all is because the U.S. grossly overestimated the Soviet's strength for pretty much the entire duration of the Cold War (at one point, the CIA estimated the Soviet economy was twice as large and productive as it really was) particularly during the mid to late '70s during the first Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era.

If anything, given Reagan's belligerancy and aversion to the decades long (successful) strategies of containment and detente, it's a miracle he didn't bring about World War 3.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Sure, there are some posters on here who long for the days of Noriega or Hussein. Some even miss the Occupation of lebanon and the Egyptian WMD program.

Okay: who? Names and quotes please (oh, by the way: Egypt's WMD? I'm sure you meant Libya, since Egypt has never had a nuke program and still has cehmical and biological weapins. Of course, even if you did mean Libya, you're still wrong.)

Others may still think Reagan was an idiot despite his obvious victory over the Soviets in the cold war

The USSR fell because of the utter incompetence and wholesale corruption with which it was designed, built and run. I've always wondered why, if Reagan-era military spending was such a clever strategy to drive the Soviet Union to the brink, noone (not even the U.S. intelligence community) predicted its collapse.

The only reasons Reagan gets any credit at all is because the U.S. grossly overestimated the Soviet's strength for pretty much the entire duration of the Cold War (at one point, the CIA estimated the Soviet economy was twice as large and productive as it really was) particularly during the mid to late '70s during the first Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era.

If anything, given Reagan's belligerancy and aversion to the decades long (successful) strategies of containment and detente, it's a miracle he didn't bring about World War 3.

You're just mad because Reagan won the cold war.

Just, for once guys, be happy the world is run by republicans and not oprah winfrey.

Face facts: the US as police man is obviously the best choice available. Live with it.

[Liam]

As an American, I think there are pros and cons of having the US be the world's police. First, it costs us a lot, both in terms of $$ and in terms of alliances, etc. On the pro side, though, I don't think I'd rather live in a world that was policed by China or Russia or India. The only other country I think we could all tolerate in that role would be Britain, but she's not up to the task anymore.

[Black Dog]

You're just mad because Reagan won the cold war.

Just, for once guys, be happy the world is run by republicans and not oprah winfrey.

Face facts: the US as police man is obviously the best choice available. Live with it.

You do know that generally, when confronted with information countering your statements, the usual course of action is to marshal information or facts to support your opinion? Not simply restate your opinion more emphatically? It's not hard.

[JerrySeinfeld]

You're just mad because Reagan won the cold war.

Just, for once guys, be happy the world is run by republicans and not oprah winfrey.

Face facts: the US as police man is obviously the best choice available. Live with it.

You do know that generally, when confronted with information countering your statements, the usual course of action is to marshal information or facts to support your opinion? Not simply restate your opinion more emphatically? It's not hard.

I provided the fact that Reagan won the cold war. I provided the fact that the USA is the best option for a world enforcer.

You've provided a weak opinion to the contrary.

[Riverwind]

I provided the fact that Reagan won the cold war. I provided the fact that the USA is the best option for a world enforcer.

Regean did not win the cold war - the soviet union would have collapsed on its own at the end of the 80s no matter what Reagan did because of its flawed economic model. The soviet union was able to keep going in the 70s because the high price of oil provided enough cash to keep the machinery working. When the price of oil collapsed the system could not sustain itself.

[Black Dog]

I provided the fact that Reagan won the cold war. I provided the fact that the USA is the best option for a world enforcer.

You've provided a weak opinion to the contrary.

I see you're a subscriber to the theory that "If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, then baffle 'em with your bullshit."

Run along now.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I provided the fact that Reagan won the cold war. I provided the fact that the USA is the best option for a world enforcer.

Regean did not win the cold war - the soviet union would have collapsed on its own at the end of the 80s no matter what Reagan did because of its flawed economic model. The soviet union was able to keep going in the 70s because the high price of oil provided enough cash to keep the machinery working. When the price of oil collapsed the system could not sustain itself.

Good theory but with no evidence.

Reagan obviously won the cold war. I know guys, it's hard to take. Just live with it.

[Black Dog]

Riverwind: the problem is you're not stating your opinion emphatically enough. You need to give it some "oomph", maybe by advising your opponent to "deal with it". Only then does the Fact Fairy come and magically transform your humble opinion into a solid fact.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Riverwind: the problem is you're not stating your opinion emphatically enough. You need to give it some "oomph", maybe by advising your opponent to "deal with it". Only then does the Fact Fairy come and magically transform your humble opinion into a solid fact.

Reagan kicked USSR ass by outspending them at their own game. They ran out of money, Gorby saw it was over and folded with Perestroika and Glasnost.

At the end of the day, Gorby saw that the freedoms prevelant in the USA were the only way to go.

If we had gone the lefty route, we would've stopped spending on military and the Soviets could have won.

Typical lefty mentality. Knuckle under and wimp out.

Superimpose that wuss mentality onto Iraq and we'd still be "containing" Saddam with sanctions at the cost of millions of civilian Iraqi lives.

Boy, it sure sucks when you're wrong doesn't it lefties.

[Black Dog]

Getting better, champ, but all you're doing is spouting conventional wisdom, which is not neccesarily accurate.

Here's a good read: Misreading the Soviet Threat

Recent scholarship and memoirs by his son have detailed Nikita Khrushchev's conscious effort to contain his "thick-headed types you find wearing uniforms's" by curbing military spending. He accomplished this by subordinating other elements of Soviet military power to the development of a few ballistic missiles. Yet it was fear of nuclear war that persuaded him to reject "Lenin's theses concerning the inevitability of war and the role of war as the 'midwife of the revolution,' and replace them with the principle of 'peaceful coexistence between states with differing social systems.'" The subsequent and substantial military buildup by his successor, Leonid Brezhnev, was attributable, in part, to a powerful, self-interested defense industry. To that extent, according to Nikolai Sokov, the ominous strategic military posture of the late 1970s was "unintended." But it clearly was subordinate to a bona fide commitment by the civilian leaders against using nuclear weapons first; Brezhnev's "Tula Line" of 1977.

Such cumulative evidence further underscores doubts about the extreme militarization of America's Soviet policy (so notably decried by George Kennan) during the late 1970s and early 1980s - the very period when the Soviet Union actually was slowing or reducing various defense expenditures.

[Riverwind]

If we had gone the lefty route, we would've stopped spending on military and the Soviets could have won.

Won what? The US and Britian had enough nukes in the 70s to ensured the Soviets could do nothing more than rattle sabres. The massive military spending did nothing to affect the final outcome other than possibly make it happen a few years sooner.

Superimpose that wuss mentality onto Iraq and we'd still be "containing" Saddam with sanctions at the cost of millions of civilian Iraqi lives.

At what cost? Bankrupting the US economy and creating another generation of terrorists out for American blood? Embolding Iran to the point where it is determined to acquire nukes no matter what the rest of the world says?

[newbie]

Maybe the U.S. should start policing itself, instead of propping up puppet regimes and interfering in world affairs.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

[JerrySeinfeld]

Maybe the U.S. should start policing itself, instead of propping up puppet regimes and interfering in world affairs.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

What's wrong with puppet regimes?

[geoffrey]

Maybe the U.S. should start policing itself, instead of propping up puppet regimes and interfering in world affairs.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

What's wrong with puppet regimes?

Uhhh.... whats the point of 'democracizing countries then? Hypocritical.