If most non-Americans want America to stop meddling with world affairs ...

[Independent voter]

Why was it "secret"?

The article explains why.

[Deleted]

Honestly the mere presence of the US keep some regions from being absolute chaos so I'll just give the thumbs up. Sure it creates tension but most of it is just leaders comparing dicks. I'd see more problems arising if the US isloated itself.

A great example is Mr Kim the glorious leader of republic nuking the shit out of Seoul because why not. As long as the Americans are stationed in the area that's a technical impossibility as his dear republic would be turned into a smoldering crater in return.

[Skroe]

Honestly the mere presence of the US keep some regions from being absolute chaos so I'll just give the thumbs up. Sure it creates tension but most of it is just leaders comparing dicks. I'd see more problems arising if the US isloated itself.

A great example is Mr Kim the glorious leader of republic nuking the shit out of Seoul because why not. As long as the Americans are stationed in the area that's a technical impossibility as his dear republic would be turned into a smoldering crater in return.

Also don't forget, it keeps the peace by being the mutual friend of one time regional rivals.

In Europe, that was at one time, France/UK and Germany. The former were not too hot on the idea of a rich, strong and united latter.

In the Middle East, that was first Egypt and Israel. Then the Gulf Arabs and Israel, all of which we aligned against Iraq and Iran at various points.

In Asia-Pacific, that's South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. And to a lesser degree Australia/New Zealand.

I think folks underestimate how much weirder world history would have been if the US wasn't the glue between these usually grudging regional partnerships. South Korea and the Philippines would have looked far more warily at a Japan that became the world's second largest economy for decades, for example. The fact that the US was a friend to all, and sometimes kept a tight leash when it needed to, certainly kept Regional conflicts being as close to two-sides as possible, as opposed to truly bizarre multi-dimensional security situations based on historic regional rivalries.

[Deleted]

The article explains why.

No it doesn't. Unless you mean the bit about offending Latin America. Which I don't believe, as the US was killing and torturing its way through LA at the time.

[Skroe]

The US isn't the only thing preventing an attack.
Kim knows that if he starts a war, he will die. And he really doesn't look like the kind of person that is willing to die.

For many, many years it was. The "South Korea" we think of... the South Korea able to stand on it's own two feet, is really a ~post-1988 creation. Maybe even later. Democracy came late. Heck through I believe the early 1970s, North and South Korea were economically neck-in-neck. South Korea being a modern, high tech, advanced economy with a dynamic democracy is a relative new thing. Twenty five years ago, which is a historic blink in the eye, it was still quite a backwards place.

[Deleted]

I think folks underestimate how much weirder world history would have been if the US wasn't the glue between these usually grudging regional partnerships.

Let's ignore the parts of history where the US fucked everything up completely.

[Skroe]

Let's ignore the parts of history where the US fucked everything up completely.

That is actually the minority of our history, yes. Not that I expect (nor care) that you recognize that.

Anyway, we're not going anywhere and our foreign policy is looking to be more assertive, rather than less assertive, starting in less than 200 days. Too bad for you!

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...icy-president/

David Ignatius: Talk is cheap, strategy is hard
By The Washington Post | 5 p.m. Dec. 31, 2015

Making New Year’s predictions is tricky in this turbulent world, but here’s one fairly safe bet: The next president will propose a more assertive U.S. foreign policy. Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, has often sounded nearly as hawkish about use of military force as the Republican contenders.

But what would a new American assertiveness mean, in practical terms? What can U.S. military power do, realistically, to combat the Islamic State and other threats more effectively? How can China and Russia be checked militarily? The rhetoric of American power will be flexed during the campaign, but what about the substance? Projecting power will be harder than many candidates seem to realize.

The first reality check for a new president will be the Pentagon. This generation of military leaders has been through traumatic wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’ve cautioned President Obama about the potential cost in lives and money of new commitments in the Middle East, and they’ll do the same with the next commander in chief. If you want to hear arguments against deploying a big U.S. ground force in Syria, just ask a general.

Half-baked ideas about projecting power aren’t likely to survive long in a new administration. There will be continuity in military advice, given that Gen. Joe Dunford and Gen. Paul Selva likely will remain into 2017 as chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, respectively. A new roster of combatant commanders, including the CENTCOM chief who will oversee the Middle East, will be appointed by Obama before he leaves office.

My guess is that before Obama departs, he will adopt some of the more aggressive military options he has been resisting, such as “safe zones” inside Syria and more aggressive deployment of U.S. special forces. That’s partly because the U.S. is likely to face more jihadist-inspired terror attacks in 2016 — increasing public pressure on the president to retaliate. A weak White House response, among other things, would undermine the Democratic candidate’s chances.

If the U.S. may be compelled by circumstances to escalate its tactics against the Islamic State, there’s an argument for doing so sooner rather than later — so as to maintain better control of American military actions and not be forced by a panicky public into overreaction. The next president will also want to control options after the inauguration rather than be a prisoner of events — adding to the likelihood of early requests to the Pentagon for new military options.

The Middle East will remain a military muddle for the next president, as it has so often been for the last two. But in dealing with China and Russia, the next administration will have clearer choices about projecting military power. The next White House will also face less resistance on these fronts from military commanders, who are well-schooled in the Russian and Chinese threats and believe they have the military tools needed to confront them.

To contain Russia, the next administration will probably examine whether to deploy U.S. forces in Eastern Europe, as a tripwire against Moscow’s aggression. That move would likely have Pentagon support. The military would also welcome more active moves to contain China’s actions in the South China Sea, including closer cooperation with allies such as Japan and the Philippines, which are bolstering their own defenses.

The trickiest military questions for the next president will involve what strategist Michael Mazarr calls “gray-zone conflicts.” In a recent article published by the U.S. Army War College, Mazarr argues that China, Russia and Iran have been using these “gray” strategies to frustrate U.S. goals without openly committing military force.

U.S. adversaries exploit power gaps. It’s easier for Russia to invade Ukraine with irregular forces out of uniform, the so-called “little green men,” than to send a conventional army that would challenge NATO. It’s easier for China to assert its maritime power by creating artificial islands in the South China Sea than by defying the U.S. Pacific Fleet with an aircraft carrier. It’s easier for Iran to send Lebanese and Iraqi Shiite militias to Syria than to commit its own military directly.

The Pentagon mostly buys weapons for black-and-white conflicts, rather than gray ones. So it isn’t well-prepared for such “hybrid” approaches.

Campaign rhetoric about more military spending and a tougher defense posture could deepen this problem — if it simply leads the next president to bolster existing forces. A genuinely assertive strategy would create new tools that can function better in the gray of future conflict.

[Deleted]

That is actually the minority of our history, yes. Not that I expect (nor care) that you recognize that.

Yeah, let's ignore slavery, the atom bomb, domestic genocide and in Latin America, Vietnam, Iraq etc etc ad infinitum.

You people are worse than the 50 rouble army when it comes to selective argument and denial. Even the pompous jingoistic bastards in Britain would struggle to compete.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway, we're not going anywhere and our foreign policy is looking to be more assertive, rather than less assertive, starting in less than 200 days. Too bad for you!

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...icy-president/

This thread is nothing to do with a more asserttive policy, it was to do with euro-us relations.

That said, warmongering doesn't seem to be working out for you as a nation, not quite sure why you are cheerleading for Hilary on this.

[Skroe]

Yeah, let's ignore slavery, the atom bomb, domestic genocide and in Latin America, Vietnam, Iraq etc etc ad infinitum.

Yes. Compared to sequencing the genome, winning World War II and the Cold War, proving that large scale democracy works, building the world's largest and most powerful economy, building the internet, going to the moon, creating the world's largest middle class, creating air travel, the modern international system, the US Code, computers... man I can keep going. Yes absolutely. Let's ignore those things.

You people are worse than the 50 rouble army when it comes to selective argument and denial. Even the pompous jingoistic bastards in Britain would struggle to compete.

No it's that you're a deeply angry, highly ideological person whose passions for his beliefs have long since given way to zealotry and hate. If you regard anything or anybody merely by the worst of what they do rather than the best, you're very far gone. I don't just disagree with you advanta. I pity you.

This thread is nothing to do with a more assertive policy, it was to do with euro-us relations.

That said, warmongering doesn't seem to be working out for you as a nation, not quite sure why you are cheerleading for Hilary on this.

This thread is about US meddling in world affairs. Nice try.

We're not gonna stop meddling. After all, the world we live in? The US largely built it. We're a core part of it. THE core part of it.

[bufferunderrun]

Europe doesnt want americans to stop interfering. Europe wants free military service from the US. When Israel attacked Arafats compound around 2004, they suddenly were begging the US to play world police and stop Israel. Europe not only wants that free military service but they want to issue orders to the US on where and how to use it. And if they dont obey, they complain about it all. But what Europe WONT do is assemble their own army to deal with these issues because that would hurt their precious social program spending. So they complain and do nothing.

This sum up the whole thread.

[Destump]

This thread is about US meddling in world affairs. Nice try.

We're not gonna stop meddling. After all, the world we live in? The US largely built it. We're a core part of it. THE core part of it.

damn, the delusions of grandeur in this thread. you are like those jersey shore people, nobody likes you, and your country has done terrible things but somehow you twist your mind in such a way that you actually think you are a force of good in this world.

[Deleted]

The difference being the Russian government actively encourages their troops to do that. The Flying Tigers were volunteers and weren't explicitly supported by the US govt. There have been many theories posted about why the Japanese attacked... Pretty much all of them point to economic reasons (i.e. Oil embargo), and nothing to do with any "harassment"

The flying Tigers were created by the American Government (/cough "volunteers" from branches of US armed forces)because they could not create special air units due to not being in a state of war. The creation of that volunteer unit was approved of by Roosevelt. Even if it was not the US Government did nothing to control its citizens or "former" Troops from fighting abroad.
Money for that unit was directly loaned from the US Government via China Defence Supplies and other tricks.

It is exactly the same as the Russians are doing in Ukraine with their Soldiers on Vacation nonsense. The difference is you believe one is right because America did it and are against the other because the Russians are doing it.

Furthermore, can you show, link or post a source that states, that the American harassment of Merchant shipping had nothing to due with the attack on Pearl Harbour?

[Slant]

Yes. Compared to sequencing the genome, winning World War II and the Cold War, proving that large scale democracy works, building the world's largest and most powerful economy, building the internet, going to the moon, creating the world's largest middle class, creating air travel, the modern international system, the US Code, computers... man I can keep going. Yes absolutely. Let's ignore those things.

What is the "US code"?

- - - Updated - - -

This sum up the whole thread.

Nice generalisation you got going there, mate. Practiced long for that?

[Deleted]

Yes. Compared to sequencing the genome, winning World War II and the Cold War, proving that large scale democracy works, building the world's largest and most powerful economy, building the internet, going to the moon, creating the world's largest middle class, creating air travel, the modern international system, the US Code, computers... man I can keep going. Yes absolutely. Let's ignore those things.

Yet, they still use the most outdated feet/inch/miles distance measuring system, the backwards 12-hour time system, an ancient nonsensical temperature scale, and can't even write the date in the correct order. Besides half the stuff you listed were invented by Germany, and democracy by ancient Greece.

[Ahovv]

Non-intervention? Great idea when a Democrat spouts this idea, but apparently horrible when a Republican does it.

Gotta love partisans.

[Skroe]

Yet, they still use the most outdated feet/inch/miles distance measuring system, the backwards 12-hour time system, an ancient nonsensical temperature scale, and can't even write the date in the correct order. Besides half the stuff you listed were invented by Germany, and democracy by ancient Greece.

Tell me how Germany put man on the moon and sequences the human genome, to start with. Your entire post is baseless.

Also science, engineering and government have used the metric system for decades. In school, we did our science in metric units of course. Shouldn't be too surprising from the country that spends more on science and technology, has most of the prestigious science and engineering universities and journals in the world, and wins more Nobel prizes than any other.

Sincerely,

A Scientist.

- - - Updated - - -

What is the "US code"?

I'm refering to the 'Code of Laws of the United States', which is the 52 chapter consolidation and codification (by subject matter) of the general and permanent laws/statutes of the United States.

It repersents one of those small, but truly meaningful achievements. US Code is the largest and most comprehensive codification of it's kind. It's not exactly ancient - US Code as we know it dates to the 1920s. However assembling US law into one formal colleciton was quite the project and in the decades since it's been a model around the world for new Democracies and reformed older countries to organize their systems of laws in an easily referencable and logical fashion.

The 'model' aspect, makes it kind of a legacy project that has been and will be emulated for centuries to come. Catholic Cannon Law, the Napoleonic code, the German Civil Code, the Code of Justinian and the Code of Hammurabi all represent some other major legal codes that have had significant legacies and diverse (general) implementations. US Code is on that list.

From what I've read, it's not the content so much as the comprehensive nature and manner of organization, that makes it of historic importance.

[Slant]

Tell me how Germany put man on the moon and sequences the human genome, to start with. Your entire post is baseless.

Also science, engineering and government have used the metric system for decades. In school, we did our science in metric units of course. Shouldn't be too surprising from the country that spends more on science and technology, has most of the prestigious science and engineering universities and journals in the world, and wins more Nobel prizes than any other.

Sincerely,

A Scientist.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm refering to the 'Code of Laws of the United States', which is the 52 chapter consolidation and codification (by subject matter) of the general and permanent laws/statutes of the United States.

It repersents one of those small, but truly meaningful achievements. US Code is the largest and most comprehensive codification of it's kind. It's not exactly ancient - US Code as we know it dates to the 1920s. However assembling US law into one formal colleciton was quite the project and in the decades since it's been a model around the world for new Democracies and reformed older countries to organize their systems of laws in an easily referencable and logical fashion.

The 'model' aspect, makes it kind of a legacy project that has been and will be emulated for centuries to come. Catholic Cannon Law, the Napoleonic code, the German Civil Code, the Code of Justinian and the Code of Hammurabi all represent some other major legal codes that have had significant legacies and diverse (general) implementations. US Code is on that list.

From what I've read, it's not the content so much as the comprehensive nature and manner of organization, that makes it of historic importance.

Ah ok. I thought it was some sort of standardisation code. :P

As an outsider who worked with the German civil code AND had to find something in the US code (now that I know what you mean), let me tell you, you still got plenty of work to do. It's not that easy to find something in it if you're getting it into your hands the first time.

[Wildtree]

If most non-Americans want America to stop meddling with world affairs shouldn't they be Pro-Trump because his platform is for isolationism?

I believe he has been quoted as saying that "America can no longer police the world". Is that what everyone on this board wants?

No, he does not represent isolationism. He proposes intimidation. That's the very opposite.

[Kalis]

No, he does not represent isolationism. He proposes intimidation. That's the very opposite.

Apparently "isolationist" has a very broad definition to some, see pages 7-8 of this thread for an example.

[Ghostpanther]

The flying Tigers were created by the American Government (/cough "volunteers" from branches of US armed forces)because they could not create special air units due to not being in a state of war. The creation of that volunteer unit was approved of by Roosevelt. Even if it was not the US Government did nothing to control its citizens or "former" Troops from fighting abroad.
Money for that unit was directly loaned from the US Government via China Defence Supplies and other tricks.

It is exactly the same as the Russians are doing in Ukraine with their Soldiers on Vacation nonsense. The difference is you believe one is right because America did it and are against the other because the Russians are doing it.

Furthermore, can you show, link or post a source that states, that the American harassment of Merchant shipping had nothing to due with the attack on Pearl Harbour?

It was right what the flying Tigers where doing in China because the Japanese were acting like animals there. Ever heard of the "Rape of Nanking"? http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...ape-of-nanking The Japanese had no choice but to attempt to cripple the American fleet at Pearl Harbor if they wanted to continue on with their expansionism. America was doing the right thing with Japan with it's sanctions.

The difference with the Russians is, Ukraine use to be a part of the USSR and there are many Russians living there who still have close ties to their roots. Not justifying it, just showing there is a big difference between what Japan did in China and what the Russians are doing.