Why should the US be the worlds police force

IIRC at least in places like Europe, Japan, and South Korea the U.S. is paid by the host countries for much of the costs of those bases.

 

What was false about it?

Here is what Congress said

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 199, Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-33 expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

 

The bases themselves yes. But not the general upkeep and supplies.

 

It will never be over as long as one country can level a city in another inside of an hour.

They won't, because they'll only fight to win; and the more brutally they win, the less they'll have to fight.

Presumably you'd have done likewise for the Germans and the Japanese circa 1935.

 

Why isn't the left lined up in support with Trump over Syria? They are the ones saying we should not interfere in other countries and regions problems, it has nothing to do with us, we should bring our troops home and cut the military in half and on and on. I would think this is a move they would be supporting.

 

This has been true since WW1. Are you not aware of this?

Anyway, that has nothing to do with anything. Just some nonsense you threw out there. The fact is that we can't afford to be the world's policeman. That's the UN's job. Our job is to make America great again.

Get with the program or don't, but that's the job. Foreigners will just have to muddle along without us, unless they have something to offer us. It's messed up, but history is rife with a bunch of messed up stuff. If you want to help foreigners, then get a passport and have fun. I won't be joining you, and neither will the united states.

 

My God, it is worse than I thought, far worse! I speak from that standpoint of a retired Marine officer, and Chesty Puller must be rolling over in his grave.

Joseph Francis Dunford Jr. is a United States Marine Corps general and served as the 19th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2015 until September 30, 2019. He maintained constant contact with the leadership of the Turkish military.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, Jr. spoke with Chief of the Turkish General Staff Gen. Yasar Guler today. The two leaders discussed updates to the security situation in Syria and the importance of U.S.-Turkish cooperation in the region. The U.S. and Turkey enjoy a strong and continuous military-to-military relationship as key members of the NATO alliance. https://www.jcs.mil/Media/News/News...iefs-of-staff-gen-dunfords-phone-call-with-c/

Trump waited until Dunford retired. The mealy mouth, lapdog Mark A. Milley replaced Dunford on Oct. !. Milley is far more concerned that his troops might get hurt rather than the mission assigned to them. He is quick to pull them out of harm's way, and to hell with the mission.

On October 5th Trump ordered the retreat of American troops from northern Syria, betraying our invaluable ally, the Kurds, and causing the release of hundreds of ISIS terrorists.

Butt kisser Milley approved of the dishonorable decision. So did Trump's other butt kisser, SecDef Mark Esper. It is why they were hired.

It gets worse. Until now I simply thought Trump made a stupid, dishonorable decision that involved the betrayal of an ally. I was joined by many, Republicans and Democrats alike.

It is more than that. On Oct. 5, "President Trump had given his endorsement for a Turkish military operation that would sweep away American-backed Kurdish forces near the border in Syria."

"Administration officials said that Mr. Trump spoke directly with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey on the issue on Sunday. And the officials indicated that the 100 to 150 United States military personnel deployed to that area would be pulled back in advance of any Turkish operation but that they would not be completely withdrawn from Syria."

"Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria,” the White House said in a statement released just before 11 p.m. in Washington. “The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial ‘Caliphate,’ will no longer be in the immediate area."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/us/politics/trump-turkey-syria.html

I don't have words, I really don't. The report says it all, I guess.

 

Actually that was never the intended function of the United Nations. The UN was intended to prevent another great power conflict (a world war).

 

Trump’s decision — made in the span of a week — to withdraw about 1,000 American troops from northern Syria caught the Pentagon, and the forces on the ground, off guard. Now, American troops are making a hasty withdrawal from all of Syria, not just northeast Syria.

Trump ordered the complete surrender of Syria to enemy forces, which include the Turkish army, Assad's Syrian national army, and Russian troops.

The Times reports, "Russia announced Tuesday that its units were patrolling between Turkish and Syrian military forces near the strategically important Syrian town of Manbij, in a sign that Moscow, a key ally of the Syrian government, was moving to fill a security vacuum after U.S. troops withdrew from the area.

"The Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement that military police in northwestern Manbij were patrolling “along the line of contact between” Syria and Turkey, with a senior Russian official saying Moscow was working to prevent a confrontation between them.

"Col. Myles B. Caggins III, a spokesman for the American-led coalition based in Baghdad, confirmed on Twitter on Tuesday, “We are out of Manbij.'"

Now Trump thinks he can end all this with rhetoric and economic sanctions.

 

Well I go back the 50 years of the Assad Regime (father and son) To me something more than 50 years old is not really relevant. And yeah, they killed thousands of their own people.
If we would have kept our of syria The Assad regime would have put down the civil war supported by ISIS and Al-Queda. Yes he would have killed them and jailed them without a trial, as in a democracy but he would have put an end to it. Same with Saddam in Iraq, these religious nuts were killed and thier wives raped and thier organizations never got off the ground.

 

I'm aware it's bloody nonsense. The B-29 would have taken >10 hours to cross the Atlantic, if it even made it at all.

Spoken with the voice of authority.

You think that because your risk/benefit analysis is retarded.

Intended function my ass, it will serve whatever function the Russians or the Chicoms assign to it if we turtle up as these isolationist geniuses would have us do.

 

I am not praising him. Just pointing out the fact that he has kept Christians safe. And what religion has he brutalized? He himself is a Muslim.

 

$150B annually.
And if we close overseas bases, we won't need as many troops.

 

It won't. They aren't going to give a damn about hurt feelings

 

One should bear in mind that the second largest faith among Kurds is Christianity.

 

sigh... WW1 was the result of a bunch of European powers with all kinds of different agreements regarding protection, which Germany decided would not be able to get into a position of power within their time frame.

Whatever you think the UN was intended to be is completely irrelevant. It's a POS and has done nothing. It did nothing when Pol Pot was killing Cambodians by the bushelfull, it did nothing during the vietnam war, it did nothing nothing nothing.

Has it stopped a full scale european war? There hasn't been one lately so I guess you could kinda say that it's been successful, but I'm wrestling with the idea that I should care.

 

He has brutalized people. What difference does it make what religion or sect or tribe or ethnic group or... whatever you want... the people he aligned with or brutalized identified with?

 

Tell me more about these decades that the US has been fighting Muslims before anyone thought of creating modern Israel and decades before the first oil well was drilled anywhere in the world.

 

Well ya! You would think

 

yeah but less than the percentage of Christians of the remainder of Syria, which is about 10% of the population. As a group, they do not guarantee freedom of religion as the Syrian constitution does.

 

I don't think him being brutal against his political enemies is one thing. but being brutal against someone just due to his religion is much worse. A brutal person who beats up people is bad, a brutal person who just beats up blacks/whites/jews is a worse person. Maybe not to the person getting beat up, but as a precursor to getting a response by me. And our nation agrees with me, you violate a person civil rights by violence, it is punished more severely than a plain violent act.

The majority of Syrians would rather have had Assad remain in power than suffer through that civil war which we aided.

In another post, I pointed out that Saddam killed 1000 of his political enemies every year.
so our solution was to kill 500,000 iraqis in ten years, which was as a result was 50x worse.

 

30,000 Iraqis, virtually all civilians were dying due to UN sanctions on Iraq after 1991.

And the U.S. didn't kill but a fraction of those killed in Iraq.

 

Who cares who killed them, they are dead the same. What is this 30,000 number?
Do you think I care if saddam ruled kuwait rather than some prince? Likewise SA. You think he would be spending billions promoting violent Wahhabi theology
Hell he was one hell of a bulkwork against Iran during the 80s, probably a better ally that SA during that time.

 

Google it. Those are UN figures by the way. And its 30,000 dead PER YEAR from 1991-2003. That is 360,000 Iraqi civilians.

 

Dude Saddam started a war against Iran. More than a million dead by the time that blood bath was over. Dude saw himself as the next Saladin. You may have no problem with that sort of nut gaining control 40% of the world's oil supply at that time but rational people certainly should.