United States of America - World Police or World Saviour

[Mehrunes]

Literally no one was forced to go into Iraq with us... Hence why almost no one did. We had one primary partner, the UK, and they fucking wanted to come.

Doesn't change the fact that it's a war US started (most likely illegally and over fabrications, no less) and that other nations followed because they felt obliged to due to their alliance with US. Without US calling its allies Poland, for example, wouldn't even fart in Iraq's general direction.

Also with regard to the bold, yeah, they did... The ISAF was unanimously approved by the UN with no abstentions... Even Russia voted yes. Not to mention several nations were already in the theater with us before NATO officially took command of the ISAF in 2003.

The part in bold was in regards to "Afghanistan fucking attacked us", not countries following you.

[I Push Buttons]

The part in bold was in regards to "Afghanistan fucking attacked us", not countries following you.

The Taliban literally openly harbored Al Qaeda for half a decade while they orchestrated a multitude of attacks, including 9/11.

[caervek]

The Taliban literally openly harbored Al Qaeda for half a decade while they orchestrated a multitude of attacks, including 9/11.

And the USA openly funded/trained/supplied the people who would become them for a decade during their war with the USSR, worked out great >.> (NB: That's sarcasm, just wanna make that clear as some US posters have openly said they think 9/11 was a worthwhile price to pay for it).

[Mehrunes]

Afghanistan?! Blame Russia for that shit and Iran was a British operation that they asked us for help with. The whole thing with Iran was that it was in the interst of one of our allies... our closest allie.

Yes, let's blame Russia for sending troops to Afghanistan, after Afghan government repeatedly requested them on the grounds of Afghansitan-USSR treaty because they needed help against an uprising, and US deciding to fund some fundamentalists to spite Russia and prevent them enlarging their sphere of influence. And Iran was two operations at the same time. AJAX was the US one.

[Deleted]

yes, let's blame russia for sending troops to afghanistan, after afghan government repeatedly requested them on the grounds of afghansitan-ussr treaty because they needed help against an uprising, and us deciding to fund some fundamentalists to spite russia and prevent them enlarging their sphere of influence. And iran was two operations at the same time. Ajax was the us one.

we dindunuffin !!

[Mehrunes]

The Taliban literally openly harbored Al Qaeda for half a decade while they orchestrated a multitude of attacks, including 9/11.

And Russia openly harbors Snowden. That doesn't make Russia guilty of NSA espionage. Since Taliban isn't Al-Qaeda and since most of 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi, it was not Afghanistan attacking you. Hell, even if every single one of the perpetrators was Afghan, it wouldn't be Afghanistan attacking you. Because, you know, last time I checked 9/11 was considered a terrorist attack. And one aspect of almost all definitions of terrorism is that it's committed by non-state actors. I do recall Afghanistan being a state, so it sort of can't meet that criterion.

[I Push Buttons]

And Russia openly harbors Snowden. That doesn't make Russia guilty of NSA espionage. Since Taliban isn't Al-Qaeda and since most of 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi, it was not Afghanistan attacking you. Hell, even if every single one of the perpetrators was Afghan, it wouldn't be Afghanistan attacking you. Because, you know, last time I checked 9/11 was considered a terrorist attack. And one aspect of almost all definitions of terrorism is that it's committed by non-state actors. I do recall Afghanistan being a state, so it sort of can't meet that criterion.

Well for starters, I never claimed Afghanistan attacked us... Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually wrote.

And are you legitimately arguing that we didn't have a right to attack AQ because they were in Afghanistan? Lol wtf? Are nation states only allowed to enact justice on terrorists if they are in outer space?

This all on top of the fact that the Taliban was entirely complicit in the attacks... I said they "harbored" them before as shorthand to make a point, in actuality they invited Bin Laden and AQ to Afganistan after they were forced out of Sudan... They fully endorsed and supported AQ's goals and provided material support and operational space for them. And then in the aftermath of the attack refused to turn them over.

So your argument is utter bullshit any way you look at it.

[Mehrunes]

What did I just read...

Things that don't conform to the standards of your ivory tower of wisdom and put the interventionism of the glorious Murcia in bad light so you outright dismissed them, despite them being more or less correct (though Afghanistan was politically unstable, in part due to reactionary movements against the modernization) once again proving you're clueless about any topic you decide to comment on?

Well, derpkitteh talked about the time before the involvement... At those times they were basically medieval theocracies, and the Western involvement is the only thing that made Iran approach the developed world by 60-s. Afghanistan, as far as I know, has always been an extremely poor rural state, although before the Soviet involvement life there was relatively peaceful.

Because it was prior to the involvement. US/British coup toppled the democratic progressive government and brought back the monarchy (and then led to Islamic revolution because if there's one thing US covert interventionism is known for, it's complete disregard for long term consequences). And as far as the real world knows, Afghanistan was shaken by coups prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, but when did facts stop you from spreading abject horseshit. Let's hurrdurr about how things were wonderful until the evil Soviets arrived and glorify Murcia. What's next, US involvement in the Soviet-Afghan war brought democracy to these lands?

I actually chuckled when you said that.

No western europe country should speak about our intervention in the world, or wanting us to not be involed in the world.... it's just silly. Western europe relies heavily on our military might and economy. The fucking world relies on our economy. if we just pull out of everything and say "fuck earth" you can assure your own economic woes.

EU is the second economy after US and not that far behind. What you said goes both ways. You could try to tone your jingoist chestbeating appropriately to the context.

The mess in Iran started with the Islamic revolution in 1979, and in Afghanistan with the Soviet invasion also in 1979, before the US started training any religious zealots.

Let's omit how Islamic Revolution was against the king installed by US and UK, with significant anti-west undertones precisely because of that. And how Soviets sent forces at the request of Afghansitan, as required by their treaty, to defend the progressive government against an uprising of conservative nutjobs with nutjobs winning only because US backed them (which was exactly the mess that formed in Afghanistan in the aftermath of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan).

[I Push Buttons]

Let's hurrdurr about how things were wonderful until the evil Soviets arrived and glorify Murcia.

Let's omit how Islamic Revolution was against the king installed by US and UK, with anti-west undertones because of that. And how Soviets sent forces at the request of Afghansitan, as required by their treaty, to defend the progressive government against an uprising of conservative nutjobs with nutjobs winning only because US backed them (which was exactly the mess that formed in Afghanistan in the aftermath of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan).

The fucking irony lol... Bitching about people white washing in favor of the US while you are not just white washing, you are fucking bleaching the history in favor of the Soviets...

Afghanistan was ruled by various monarchies, established by the British... The last monarchy was overthrown by someone actually considered a progressive, Mohammed Daoud, who enacted many reforms in Afghanistan...

Mr. Daoud's government was overthrown in a communist revolution backed by the USSR in 1978 since Daoud's government was getting closer to the West and was highly critical of the communist party within Afghanistan... The communists were in power for all of seven months before signing a treaty with the USSR that allowed them to call on their aid, which they did to cement their own fucking power.

Do you have any knowledge on this topic at all?

[Mehrunes]

Well for starters, I never claimed Afghanistan attacked us... Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually wrote.

I know what you said. Doesn't change the fact you justify war on Afghanistan over actions of not-Afghanistan. Which is idiotic.

And are you legitimately arguing that we didn't have a right to attack AQ because they were in Afghanistan? Lol wtf? Are nation states only allowed to enact justice on terrorists if they are in outer space?

Can't recall saying that. Though borders are a thing and since US actually is not the world police, it's bound by them in case of lack of cooperation. Is the concept of countries not having authority, be it in terms of justice or otherwise, over other countries new to you? Why do you think extradition exists? But hey, it's US. If you don't cooperate, they'll just invade you.

This all on top of the fact that the Taliban was entirely complicit in the attacks... I said they "harbored" them before as shorthand to make a point, in actuality they invited Bin Laden and AQ to Afganistan after they were forced out of Sudan... They fully endorsed and supported AQ's goals and provided material support and operational space for them. And then in the aftermath of the attack refused to turn them over.

So your argument is utter bullshit any way you look at it.

Afghanistan was under no obligation to turn them over. And I can't recall any direct involvement by Taliban in the 9/11 attacks. Quick glance at Wiki doesn't result in anything other than them harboring Al-Qaeda. Again, if they were involved, it'd be an act of war, which didn't really happen. And material support to Al-Qaeda is something Saudi Arabia was involved in. I don't see US invading them over that, nor is it an actual casus belli. Sorry, but the only bullshit here is what's flowing out of your mouth.

[Deleted]

Why does this thread sounds like an American Dong Show?

[I Push Buttons]

I know what you said. Doesn't change the fact you justify war on Afghanistan over actions of not-Afghanistan. Which is idiotic.




Can't recall saying that. Though borders are a thing and since US actually is not the world police, it's bound by them in case of lack of cooperation. Is the concept of countries not having authority, be it in terms of justice or otherwise, over other countries new to you? Why do you think extradition exists? But hey, it's US. If you don't cooperate, they'll just invade you.




Afghanistan was under no obligation to turn them over. And I can't recall any direct involvement by Taliban in the 9/11 attacks. Quick glance at Wiki doesn't result in anything other than them harboring Al-Qaeda. Again, if they were involved, it'd be an act of war, which didn't really happen. And material support to Al-Qaeda is something Saudi Arabia was involved in. I don't see US invading them over that, nor is it an actual casus belli. Sorry, but the only bullshit here is what's flowing out of your mouth.

Well the fucking UN disagrees with you, champ. So your opinion is worth just about nothing on the matter, let me know when you you seize power over the Earth and become the judge, jury, and executioner of international law.

[Mehrunes]

The fucking irony lol... Bitching about people white washing in favor of the US while you are not just white washing, you are fucking bleaching the history in favor of the Soviets...

Afghanistan was ruled by various monarchies, established by the British... The last monarchy was overthrown by someone actually considered a progressive, Mohammed Daoud, who enacted many reforms in Afghanistan...

Mr. Daoud's government was overthrown in a communist revolution backed by the USSR in 1978 since Daoud's government was getting closer to the West and was highly critical of the communist party within Afghanistan... The communists were in power for all of seven months before signing a treaty with the USSR that allowed them to call on their aid, which they did to cement their own fucking power.

Do you have any knowledge on this topic at all?

And what you said negates the parts you chose to bold, how, exactly? Because I can't recall saying that the previous government wasn't progressive either. Or that Taraki's government was in power for long. I do actually recall telling May how Afghanistan was rifled with coups prior to Afghan-Soviet war, so perhaps you could take your head out of your ass and read whole posts instead of cherry-picked snippets.

And if you want to claim that Taraki's government wasn't progressive, be my guest, but given how it introduced things like legal equality of the sexes (you know, one of the reasons for conservative uprising) weren't progressive you'd only make a fool out of yourself. Soviet backing during the Saur Revolution wasn't actually that great though, their influence was stronger prior to it (helping the unification of PDPA) and afterwards.

Well the fucking UN disagrees with you, champ. So your opinion is worth just about nothing on the matter, let me know when you you seize power over the Earth and become the judge, jury, and executioner of international law.

Yes, yes, you already mentioned how UN authorized ISAF before. No need to repeat yourself while you flail around. Just so happens said authorization happened after war was already ongoing via Operation Enduring Freedom, which UN did not authorize. After Taliban already fell, to assist the newly created Interim Authority. But hey, let's conflate and simplify things.

[Skroe]

Yes, yes, you already mentioned how UN authorized ISAF before. No need to repeat yourself while you flail around. Just so happens said authorization happened after war was already ongoing via Operation Enduring Freedom, which UN did not authorize. After Taliban already fell, to assist the newly created Interim Authority. But hey, let's conflate and simplify things.

The War in Afghanistan was authorized under Chapter VII the UN Charter. It was self defense. ISAF was also authorized under Chapter VII.
http://www.nato.int/isaf/topics/mandate/

- - - Updated - - -

The negative attitude is due to how America behaves in the world. To put in it perspective, in just under 28 years time the phrase "America has done more damage to the world in the last 100 years than Germany" will be a fact (assuming Germany don't do anything crazy in the next 28 years).

Ridiculous. Germany started the two largest wars in the history of mankind, with a cumulative death toll of near 100 million people. The second of those wars devastated Europe (and with Japan, Asia). The first of those wars brought an end to the European Empires.

The United States's police actions in these minor, and barely meaningful (in the big picture) brushfire wars may hit a couple of million, and that's using creative counting. It's happened in a handful of trouble spots, in countries with rather small populations and are largely economically insignificant.

It's because the USA goes around the world trying to police it and generally ends up making things worse (due in part to short term solutions).

The United States built the international system and occupies a privleged position in the world. It has a responsibility and a direct interest in upholding the order it underwrote.

As far as making things worse... I think in 2017 we can put that to bed with the whole Syria situation. Even the completely fucked Iraq War did not produce in 8 years, anywhere near the level of carnage, mayhem, murder and devastation that Syria managed to accomplish all by itself in just a couple of years, and then in the years since then, its doubled that toll.

One of the dumbest arguments in the Early Iraq War was how the Iraqis might have eventually overthrown Saddam themselves. Syria has illustrated EXACTLY how that would have gone. Anyone think Saddam wouldn't have gassed the opposition, just as he did with the Kurds, or Assad has twice?

Moreover the vast majority of US "world police" presence doesn't actually involve fighting. It involves conventional deterrence. Like troops in Europe warding off Russia, fighters in South Korea... that sort of thing. The vast majority of the $600 billion the US spends a year on defense does not go to fighting.

Well, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Cuba and a dozen other places would be much better off.

Iran is our enemy. You are griping that we respond with hostility to our enemy? Okay.
Afghanistan? After 9/11 it was lucky it existed considering how angry Americans were. And it's far better off today than under the Taliban.
Libya? Go talk to David Cameron and Sarkozy. That was their scheme. We were the muscle.
Cuba? Again. They were our enemy. You are griping that we respond with hostility to our enemy? Okay.

The USA helped in Yugoslavia,

The US helped in Yugoslavia, after Tony Blair twisted Bill Clinton's arm. The US was reluctant to get involved. But the Dayton accords produced a sustainable peace.

The USA took the lead in helping in Desert Storm,

With UN approval.

the USA helped out at the end of WW1

The US was just becoming a world power then. We were a backwater in 1913. We were an emerging superpower in 1918. It's a process. Looking back, because of the presence of America today it's hard to imagine. But the US played a comparatively minor role in terms of combat troops in World War I because it played a minor role in the world at that point.

To put it simply, the European Empires ran everything, and thought we were weird, rich hermits living on the other side of a (still very large at that point) ocean. The less our democratic ideals interacted with them the better.

But that said, US oil was a major reason the Allies were able to beat the Central Powers, even before direct US military involvement, something that would repeat itself in World War II (in these decades, the US was by far the world's largest oil producer... it made the US rich).

and WW2.

The US was fighting in North Africa and Asia-Pacific by 1942. The allies debated an "early" invasion of Europe. Discounting the Southern Europe campaign, landing in France was a military decision made by consensus. The allies needed the resources of their colonies under siege and were concerned about German remant presences in these areas if they attacked Germany. They also moved to directly cut off German resources before moving into Europe. One of the reasons the War in the Western front was how it was is because Germany's armor and vehicles were starving for fuel.

The US also was engaged in a major war effort in Asia-Pacific that our allies played only a minor role in (British aside). And it was that war effort that pulled us into the war.

Aaaand I can't actually think of any other examples in the last 100 years where the USA wasn't the one causing the problems.

Yeah let's just ignore the whole 50 years between 1949 and 1989 that the Soviet Union spread communist totalitarianism like a virus around large portions of the globe.

In 1947 the United States was easily the world's most powerful country. It wasn't even close. It was the only major industrial power untouched by the war. It suffered comparably light casualties in it. It was the leader of the emerging international system. Liberal Democracy looked set to flourish across Europe and Asia.

By 1960, the United States was the world's second most powerful. China fell. North Kore afell. South East Asia fell. The Eastern bloc fell. Africa went to hell. Civil Wars begain in Latin American The Soviet Union spent most of the 1950s expanding aggressively. It was a global-scale collapse of American post-World War II surpremacy that the country spent the next 30 years - from 1960 to 1990 - rolling back. That is the real way to think about the Cold War. The 1950s was an aggressive Soviet expansion, that came to a screeching halt after the Cuban Missile Crisis, which lead to a US counter-push over the next few decades.

The Soviets did try again in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, such as with support to Vietnam, support to African movements, and the Afghanistan invasion. But they never saw their 1950s success replicated.

Because Europe gave up on superpower-ness and empires after WW2, we had had enough, don't worry you'll get there eventually you're just still new as a country.

The Europe didn't give it up. The US and USSR conspired to kill it. The UK and France tried to hold onto the Empires, and re-assert their relative power in the Suez Crisis, which saw the US and USSR rarely on the same side.

World War II ended not with two superpowers, but with three. The British Empire was in dire financial straights, but it's overall power was still enormous, second only to the US.

But the US didn't want to share power with another western superpower and the USSR didn't want to a 2v1 situation, so to speak. Deconstructing the British Colonial Empire was a key US foreign policy goal directly after the war because of this. As a matter of political philosophy, our leaders had strong moral objections to imperialism and the lack of self-rule of the colonies. As a matter of strategic priorities, our leaders didn't want to share "first among equals" status in the West with another superpower. The British Empire had to go.

The US is not an empire. It's something extremely different and far more sustainable, because we don't rule you. Your governments cooperate with us out of mutual self-interest and common principles. And we extremely economically underwrite a global order that's made us incredibly wealthy. Furthermore the notion of "American leadership" and "American exceptionalism" is part of our DNA.

We're not Europeans. We're different. You'll never see the country walk away from it's global role. It has too many interests to do so. It's more likely that as Russia declines and as the Europe ages, the US global role will increase rather than decrease, especially if we plan to prevent China from having it's own "1950s USSR" style success in Asia-Pacific against the US in coming decades.

[TwoNineMarine]

I think America should be willing to help out other nations in absolute dire times only. The fact that we get involved in every little thing is beyond me. Let nations help themselves. Or let other nations help those nations.

The amusing thing about it is this: Tons of nations across the globe bitch about how America gets involved waaaayy too much and that we need to stick to ourselves. BUT if we did stick to ourselves and let them get invaded or not help them when a pandemic or natural disaster hits then they'd FREAK the fuck out about how we aren't helping.

At this point there is literally no win for the US.

If it was my choice we'd pull back our efforts a bit and only help on such occasions as we saw fit (IE Russia invades Europe or some shit). We'd still have open trade with the nations that want it and all of that but we'd hold off getting involved beyond that.

[Rooflesstoofless]

The US needs to stop policing the world. If we can put a ultra high tech fuel air bomb over the cave complex of some inbred goat fuckers on the other side of the world but can't get lead free drinking water to our own people something is seriously wrong.

[caervek]

Ridiculous.

I see you didn't read the post before quoting it (or just misread it).

[Skroe]

The US needs to stop policing the world. If we can put a ultra high tech fuel air bomb over the cave complex of some inbred goat fuckers on the other side of the world but can't get lead free drinking water to our own people something is seriously wrong.

Lead-free drinking water is the responsibility of state and local governments to provide, with federal assistance.

The Federal Government is not your housekeeper.

[Shadowferal]

We ignore the bitching and moaning and continue trade...

[Rooflesstoofless]

Lead-free drinking water is the responsibility of state and local governments to provide, with federal assistance.

The Federal Government is not your housekeeper.

...which have less money because of our bloated military budget. It's almost as if not getting involved in other country's bullshit would mean more money for our own infrastructure.