Thread: America The worlds police

The 'moral obligation' stuff is as mushy as Pollyanna.

Can any plausible reason be given as to why the US has to 'have a far greater role sorting out the world's problems'? What is the overriding constraint that force the US to be a do-gooder? Does the US have surplus money to squander and not use it for her more pressing needs? And US has pressing needs.

If indeed the US had taken 'moral obligation' as an aspect of her foreign policy, then she should have been in Rwanda, Zimbabwe, DR Congo, Cote de Ivory, Sierra Leone, Mauritiana, Darfur, South Sudan etc etc. These are real humanitarian issues and with a huge stench of genocide or stifling of 'Freedom and Democracy' and not in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the Central Asian Republics, Ukraine, Georgia etc sicne no genocide was at play. If Iraq gassed its own, then they should ahve been addressed then if morals was indeed the Foreign Policy.

The subchiz boils down to geostrategic requirement and nothing to do with morals and other such fizz. That's all hot air. Such proclaiming may give US citizens some sense of righteousness about unilateral actions of the US, but seen bareboned, it is but pursuing of bare and unmitigated US intersts.

The US supports Israel because it is the bastion in the middle east of US interest and a launch pad for errant Middle East oil countries (in case every other country goes against the US).

If morals were the principles for foreign policy, then China would not have become overnight chums after such horryifying tales that we read in the Readers Digest of the tortures done in China to its population. Obviously, China could not have changed into a Polyanna from an Orge in a jiffy. Human rights are still violated but the US does a brisk business alongside. Taiwan, who stood firm with the US, has practically been abandoned. Again, the necessity of foreign policy.

Yes, the US spent good money in Europe. It was for her self interest. By engaging USSR right at the borders of Europe, she prevented USSR from spreading and occupying Europe and thence doing so to the US. If you recall the Communists had become real powerful in Italy and Greece. The Domino effect would have happened.

So, there is no morals or being a good Samaritan as inputs in foreign policy. It is pure and simple self interest. This is applicable for all countries.

Originally Posted by EricTheRed

my life time

All ten years?

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Take NATO during the Cold War. We devoted a far greater percentage of GDP to national defense than any European members of NATO did even though they were the ones directly threatened by the Warsaw Pact, so we essentially were used by them as a shield.

BACKUP! The US was not in NATO alone! The rest of the Alliance made up more than half the ground forces and it was European homes that was going to be burned first. The US was the tripwire for a massive speartip, the rest of the Alliance not only made up a large portion of that speartip but also the majority of the shaft.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

One reason I think that America is always so willing to fund Israel, is because they have proven that they are willing to fight for their own interests, and have not taken our support as an excuse for sloth. Such allies are worthy of respect and support. Allies that only wish to hate us for looking after their interests by committing our resources and troops to their aid (i.e. South Korea), deserve no support from us, unless we get direct financial benefits in exchange.

South Korea was in Vietnam with the US. The NATO allies has fought side by side with the US in 3 wars. Israel? A big fat ZERO!

Originally Posted by pesuto

Do you really think the United States of America really goes about and helps people in countries for purely altruistic reasons?

Originally Posted by Ray

So, there is no morals or being a good Samaritan as inputs in foreign policy.

The US government is quite large, and each vote can have many reasons to be cast. If even one of those votes is out of concern for others, then morals are indeed an input. I'm certain that tsunami aid, AIDS assistance, and so on, do have moral reasons as well as possible long term benefit. There are multitude reasons for and against everything. When you can't help everyone, when every penny has to be justified, help is going to be limited as if it were an investment. Sux, but that's the world...

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici

All ten years?

He's 15. Seems like a good kid to me.

Wrt Israel, the US didn't start giving large amounts of aid until after the peace agreement with Egypt. Carter, Sadat, and Begin all got Nobel Peace Prizes, and the US started paying big $$$. Prior to that, we were giving Israel about 120 Million per year. France was Israel's biggest supporter. Hell, they are the ones that made Israel a nuclear state.

The US tried to intervene to end the perpetual state of war that was going on. The Saudis were already our allies, but we recognized Israel, of course, and wanted to try to cool off the region. In exchange for Israel returning the Sinai, and Egypt recognizing Israel, the US bumped up Israel's aid to 4 Billion/yr., and agreed to give Egypt aid at 2/3 of whatever we give Israel every year. The US bought that peace, and we have been making payments on it every year since (in more ways than one). Had we not agreed to give the military support to Israel, they would not have returned the Sinai.

Most of the world seems to have forgotten that little detail, and now all we hear is about the US's one-sided policy wrt Israel. But nobody seems to be calling for an end to aid for Egypt, why is that? If we end the support for Israel, we should end it for Egypt also. As soon as that happens, there goes the (shaky) peace between Egypt, KSA, Jordan, and Israel, and we are right back where we started from.

It's a lose/lose for the US. We ought to walk away from the whole mess.

Officer of Engineers, it is good to remember exactly what proportion of GDP was devoted to defense during the Cold War. I didn't say that the Europeans didn't contribute to their own defense, what I said was that we devoted a far larger proportion of our national income to defense than they did. Since they were on the frontlines, wouldn't it have made more sense for them to foot more of the bill? If one looks at Western Europe's population size and economy, from the late 60's onward if they had simply devoted as much of their GDP as the United States to national defense, then the Soviet Union would never have been a threat to them. Had we pulled our divisions out of West Germany, that would have forced them to do what they could have afforded to do all along, and a lot of American money would have been saved. Instead, we gave them an excuse to keep their expenditures on the military down to artificially low levels, because they could rely on us for a significant portion of their defense.

And as for Korea, how many troops has the United States lost in their defense (50,000)? How many troops have been tied down for the past 50 years as a tripwire against North Korean aggression (40,000)? How many troops has America ever employed in Israel's defense (0)? The number of troops that Korea committed to Vietnam was minimal, compared to the defense committment and economic sacrifices that America has made for them, and still their younger generation hates us. Their current president ran on an anti-American platform, and is a firm believer in appeasment of North Korea. This forces America's hand, as any policy for having to deal with North Korea must involve at least the tacit agreement of South Korea's government. Best to withdraw our troops altogether, as South Korea is hardly a vital interest of the United States.

Also, assisting Israel militarily is hardly logical from a realpolitik perspective. In doing so we make stable, long term, alliances with Muslim nations in the Middle East extremely difficult, as they must balance their extremist elements dislike of America (due to our support of Israel) off against their need to trade with us. Without our support of Israel, we would most likely be able to form the kind of alliances with Muslim nations in the middle east that the Soviets had with Syria.

After WWII, none of the NATO, Japan, and S. Korea attacked US.

On 3 times, Israel attacked US. That was during the height of Cold War.

Remember that Israel recieved monetary aid from US. Europe did during the Marshall plan. But after the Marshall plan expired, Europe paid all of the debt and more and did far more to the demise of Soviet Union, the biggest threat of US in US history. What did Israel have to show for? Diddly squat.

Britain is far the best ally that US ever had. Not even Israel come even close.

Look at what Britain did during 3 Gulf wars and in Afghanistan and Britain is a major part of NATO. So how can you say that Europe did nothing to contribute to US security. I don't even like Britain but I give respect where it is due and Britain is due the respect that US owes.

Your logic is flawed. You need to reexamine your train of thought.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Officer of Engineers, it is good to remember exactly what proportion of GDP was devoted to defense during the Cold War. I didn't say that the Europeans didn't contribute to their own defense, what I said was that we devoted a far larger proportion of our national income to defense than they did. Since they were on the frontlines, wouldn't it have made more sense for them to foot more of the bill?

1st of all, not all American defence dollars went to Europe. The money committed to V and VII Corps is far surpassed by those of the European allies.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

If one looks at Western Europe's population size and economy, from the late 60's onward if they had simply devoted as much of their GDP as the United States to national defense, then the Soviet Union would never have been a threat to them.

What kind of BS is that? The USSR was a threat the day they took Berlin. The British and the French took charge and develop nukes of their own.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Had we pulled our divisions out of West Germany, that would have forced them to do what they could have afforded to do all along, and a lot of American money would have been saved.

The Americans did withdraw divisions. That was what REFORGER is for.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Instead, we gave them an excuse to keep their expenditures on the military down to artificially low levels, because they could rely on us for a significant portion of their defense.

GIVE ME A BREAK! FYI, I've served with the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, the US VII Corps' strategic reserve. I assure you that the rest of the NATO allies took our jobs extremely seriously. No one was getting a free ride.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

And as for Korea, how many troops has the United States lost in their defense (50,000)?

How many the South Koreans lost?

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

How many troops have been tied down for the past 50 years as a tripwire against North Korean aggression (40,000)?

WRONG! They were there to check the Soviets.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

How many troops has America ever employed in Israel's defense (0)?

The US nearly fought a nuclear war over Israel. This translated that the US was committing NATO to a nuclear war for Israel.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

The number of troops that Korea committed to Vietnam was minimal, compared to the defense committment and economic sacrifices that America has made for them, and still their younger generation hates us.

Your real allies have sacraficed lives under American command. That is far more than anything the Israelis have done.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Their current president ran on an anti-American platform, and is a firm believer in appeasment of North Korea. This forces America's hand, as any policy for having to deal with North Korea must involve at least the tacit agreement of South Korea's government. Best to withdraw our troops altogether, as South Korea is hardly a vital interest of the United States.

Check your TV set, roads, and computer components. South Korea matters all right.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Also, assisting Israel militarily is hardly logical from a realpolitik perspective. In doing so we make stable, long term, alliances with Muslim nations in the Middle East extremely difficult, as they must balance their extremist elements dislike of America (due to our support of Israel) off against their need to trade with us. Without our support of Israel, we would most likely be able to form the kind of alliances with Muslim nations in the middle east that the Soviets had with Syria.

You're justifying. Doesn't change the fact that real American allies have bled under American command in American missions.

The 'moral obligation' stuff is as mushy as Pollyanna.

If indeed the US had taken 'moral obligation' as an aspect of her foreign policy, then she should have been in Rwanda, Zimbabwe, DR Congo, Cote de Ivory, Sierra Leone, Mauritiana, Darfur, South Sudan etc etc. These are real humanitarian issues and with a huge stench of genocide or stifling of 'Freedom and Democracy' and not in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the Central Asian Republics, Ukraine, Georgia etc sicne no genocide was at play. If Iraq gassed its own, then they should ahve been addressed then if morals was indeed the Foreign Policy.

Sir,
These are my thoughts too.
The US is not the world policeman. It only goes in to safe guard its national intrest, and I'm not gruding that. The good life and resources that the US citizens have is due to this policy.
For instance, the US monopoly over oil trade is the reason that EricTheRed, does not have to pay US$3.80 for a gallon of petrol when he tanks up his car.
Why does he grumble when his govt works hard to give him the good things of life at minimum costs?

US$3.80 for a gallon of petrol when he tanks up his car.

That's all?

Lucky fellows.

At that price, I would be driving around the world instead of the measly distance I cover with the same mount of money" ;(

No wonder Lull threatens to quit the US, but never does!

Given teh gasolene rates in Pakistan, Lull would be using Bus No 11. That is, his own two feet, to move! :

Originally Posted by Confed999

The US government is quite large, and each vote can have many reasons to be cast. If even one of those votes is out of concern for others, then morals are indeed an input. I'm certain that tsunami aid, AIDS assistance, and so on, do have moral reasons as well as possible long term benefit. There are multitude reasons for and against everything. When you can't help everyone, when every penny has to be justified, help is going to be limited as if it were an investment. Sux, but that's the world...

There is much that you say is true.

IMHO, I think in the final analysis votes don't matter once anyone has been elected. In fact, at times, votes really don't matter.

Gore won the popular votes, but Bush became the President.

Thus, in the final analysis, it is the President of the US and his Administration that calls the shot.

I am sure that the US is worried about pollution, even if they are not worried about global warming. Yet she is not signing the Kyoto Agreement. Why? Again, national interests. Obviously, you can shut down industries or force expensive anti pollution norms that make product uncompetitive in the global market because of the exchange rate of the Dollar.

Simplistically put, one doesn't spend all one'sr earnings just to bloster one's country's national budget. They buy what they need. Self interest. If they can still give donations to the poor without affecting themselves seriously, then they would donate too.

True that tsunami, AIDs assistance is there, but then others too did so, but again it is foreign policy. It keeps the country donated money much more well disposed to the donor country. Yes, the long term benefit cuts both sides Yet, at the same time, I would say that the donor countries need not have given the money.

India, inspite of being hit by the tsumani, went to the assistance of all hit including Indonesia. Apart from humanitarian and moral reasons, there is a strong belief and it is right, it was also to serve her national interest.

Clinton's role in the Kargil War which was merely diplomacy, changed the Indian mindset. Today even though the Communists who are suporting the Central govt from 'outside', are against allowing western finances coming into India raising the bogey of 'dollar imperialism', have been shouted down by the common man! Would that happen before Kargil? Globalisation and liberalisation hasd started but all were cautious of the US. till Clinton jumped into the fray, even if only by diplomacy. He changed the complete Indian mindset! That's foreign policy. Bush would not know the Indian PM's name, but he is coming to India. Just watch the reception he gets! Compare it with the days when all walls in India were plastered with 'Dulles Go Back!'

Therefore, diplomacy by gunboat or by mere words or by the appearance of a hemanitarian deed, is all to further a country's foreign policy.

There can be no better a saying to explain it than the famous US saying - There is nothing called a Free Lunch!

Originally Posted by Ray

That's all?

Lucky fellows.

At that price, I would be driving around the world instead of the measly distance I cover with the same mount of money" ;(

Sir,
You misunderstood me.
We (in India) pay an average of $3.80 per gallon of petrol.
The rates in the US would vary between $2 to $2.50 per gallon (US residents please correct me if I'm wrong).

I am paying Rs 44 per litre. How much does it mean in US gallon?