American involvement overseas

[[m'kay]]

So you want to eliminate and fully replace a regime, very quickly, without exposing soldiers to too much violence, while spending less money. You're right, if that was possible then it would be a brilliant idea. What if we did something pretty simple? A very fast, decisive strike - this is very effective if you have skilled enough troops to support it. However, doing so destabilizes a region immensely. You can't just surgically strike the head of a regime and then expect their entire power base to [poo] themselves and run. So even with this idea, if you're actually aiming for stability, you're still spending a [poo] of money and inviting yourself to be ripped apart by guerrilla strike tactics. And if you aren't aiming for stability, then don't [m'kay] get involved. Killing one tyrant doesn't do [poo]. At best, you've created a convenient martyr for use ten to twenty years on the line. That's like paying the minimum payment on your credit card and expecting to pay off your account.

I don't know [poo] about war in comparison to the people running things, but I do know that your proposition is hardly more feasible than a child suggesting we just get rid of all the bad people.

[CommanderOtto]

Yes it does er you ignoramus. Do you really think that politics make a lick of sense? If America pushed it, China would attack the wording just like JAF did. And we wouldn't be able to do a thing about it. Politics doesn't give a single solitary [poo] about the "principles" behind declarations, as you should really [m'kay] know before you go jumping down people's throats.

and Narg... I am not sure if you understood what I said. It's not like Obama should go out saying "Monroe Doctrine... Chinese Get Out!!" ... The Monroe Doctrine is a way of acting in international relations (it could be done in several ways...could be words, could be international trade, could be financial markets or even military force). I don't want to sound like some smartass or anything, but think about it. When Theodore Roosevelt was president, he greatly expanded the the Navy of the U.S so it could try to rival the one England had at the time. When he finished building the fleet, he sent it to sail around the world and make several stops in several countries.... just to show the world that the U.S was present and armed. It didn't er if the ships didn't attack or do anything. The idea of that was to show power and cause respect. This respect is almost always leveraged when doing treaties, alliances, trade negotiations, financial negotiations and political moves of all kinds.... That was a time of great american expansion and there is no doubt about it. Sometimes the words would fail, and Roosevelt would have to end up doing some intervention, but there was no problem because there were no foreign powers in the American continent to stop him from accomplishing his goals. "speak softly (politics) but carry a big stick (force)" .



I hope i'm making sense? the politics of international relations is like a long and slow battle... but it can have big results. Instead of having the Chinese on the other side of the world, we now have them here, in our backyards. All of this could have been avoided with some simple politics and pressure. All of this happened because the U.S was sitting down while the Chinese were obviously influencing the decision of the International Court of Justice to give colombian waters to the Nicaraguans, so they could give control to the chinese and make the canal.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/china-nicaraguas-recent-diplomatic-victory-hague/story?id=19085917#.UcPSljvFWSo
(I know it's ABC, but i'm too tired to look for something better).

[Mandalore]

America is no longer the sole super power. Get over it.

[THEWULFMAN]

We've been labeled the police force of the world and we're in too deep to stop doing it. There's no other nation (or even group of nations) that can do what we do, and until we collapse and someone else rises to our status, we have to keep doing it.

America is no longer the sole super power. Get over it.

Name the others with the military to do what we do.

[(SWGO)Kren]

In respect of the Monroe doctrine this was applied at a time where there had been great changes across the North and South American continents. As the US is expanding its influence across the world then other countries are applying the same stance. I suppose the thought is if you can expand so can they. If other countries are on your doorstep then that’s just a product of the times we now live in and not the 1820’s.

From my perspective some of the countries that America is getting involved with is very dangerous move to make especially where the general stance is western involvement is not welcome post removal of a dictator. It’s like “thanks for all your help America, now [m'kay] or we will blow your soldiers up”.

You have to think why America wants to become involved, i.e. what is the agenda? Is there a political reason to attempt intervention, boost the president’s ratings or to gain a foothold in that country to introduce US businesses for the purpose of capitalism relating to oil, gas, trade relations etc? Rather than invasion the use of trade and hosting naval bases elsewhere could be perceived as an unwanted expansion into places where it is not welcome, again think about the Monroe doctrine.

I cannot say that another countries involvement elsewhere is simply because they want to help the people due to goodwill alone. Look at it from another perspective the logistics of arming rebels, moving troop transports, supporting troops (food, clothing, arms, medicine) to a different arena is financially cost intensive which subsequently impacts upon of a multitude of budgets within the US government. All the money spent doing this is a financial drain when perhaps it could be spent better elsewhere?

A culture in a non western country is so alien to the US it is difficult to ascertain what good the presence in that country is doing. Removing one dictator to create a power vacuum is a very dangerous gamble as what you can let in is likely to be worse that the dictator you want to remove. You have then armed a group of radicals who once in power are likely to use the same weapons against US soldiers and allies across the world.

There are dictators elsewhere in the world such as Iran and North Korea however there has been no push to invade to remove the clowns and these are the countries that are likely to arm themselves in a nuclear capacity whereas Syria, Iraq etc did not have anything like a nuclear arsenal in the wings.

The US is picking its battles carefully i.e. not breaking down the door where massive loss of life could occur and/or where that country has allies such as Russia and China backing them up. The Russians are now through Putin making a stance against US involvement. China is next to North Korea, do you really think they want a unified Korea where US Naval bases and western influences are directly on their border?

You then have to think about trying to sort out another country without getting things right in your own back yard is not the smartest thing to do. The same can apply to other countries but as this is about the US then I’ll keep my focus on the title of the topic. Removing dictators are one thing, destabilisation of the people in a country and unification of a common group of countries against the US is another which is something you really don’t want. What is the impact of intervention or being the world police, what do everyday people think about such intervention:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... chive.html
http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... nt-kill-us
http://www.juancole.com/2013/03/continu ... emary.html

It appears from the comments made by others is that on one hand the US wants to retain its North/South American bubble whilst extending its influence elsewhere. As you have come to see others have the same idea. Remember the British Empire and its involvement elsewhere and what happened with that. The British had colonies across the world and as you know not everyone appreciates this type of occupation and to remove them from North America another super power was engaged i.e. France to do this. Fast forward to the present day and you have America and its allies becoming involved in the Middle East but opposing this as mentioned is Russia and China. How things turn full circle but stay very much the same.

Consider this 'better the devil you know' i.e. would it be a better place under or a dictator or with a regime change and foreign occupation?

If the US and others want to become involved elsewhere it is a er of picking the right battles against the dictators that threaten world peace . Trying to sort out everyone's problems across the globe cannot be achieved easily there are simply a multitude of opposing variables/factors that prevent this from happening.

Right then over to you guys.

[11_Panama_]

All I can say in this er is... the World asks for our help when we don't, curses us when we do.

[(SWGO)Kren]

All I can say in this er is... the World asks for our help when we don't, curses us when we do.

So perhaps it's time to say 'no' when asked for help and at least that way the only thing to worry about is being cursed rather the rest of the fallout if help is given? We over here have similar concerns and not only relating to assistance with wars but financial assistance being given to our countries rather than fixing the issues at home and looking after our own country and people.

A famous quote by a English poet John Lydgate and used by President Lincoln which is relevant and worth considering in relation to the response you made:

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.

Kren

[Mandalore]

Seeing as our military couldn't deal with the occupation of two pissant nations, it's ability to take over anything bigger than Haiti is in question.

The only thing the USM does better than any other nation is power projection. Our navy will remain the sole power on the waves for a few more decades, however our air force will not be able to establish air superiority over a handful of nations by the end of the decade and arguably our army while still first tier isn't the all conquering force it's portrayed as. Hard to say though since America hasn't really fought a first tier opponent since 1776. And trying to say that WW1 or WW2 counts is absolutely ridiculous seeing as we joined both years into the fray and millions of German casualties later. WW2 especially we fought second line units while the cream of the crop was off getting butchered in the Soviet Union.

America is a post-industrial economy, while it could theoretically mobilize large amounts of industry, in a full scale war with say, China, all of China's neighbors would more than likely be overrun by the PRC before the US could fully mobilize. While this isn't to say China is currently a super power, it does denote that the US has lost the ability to call itself a hyper power. By 2040 the world will go back to the way it traditionally has been outside of a few centuries with India and China being regional super-powers alongside with the EU, Russia, USA (over North America), and more than likely Brazil joining the group presuming they can get a handle on the corruption that seeps through every pore of that [poo] hole country.

Strategically the US holds a strong position defensively given its separated by any potentially dangerous land army by thousands of miles of Ocean, however when trying to push offensively against a major nation it would find itself with the issue of a logistics line stretching thousands of miles. While logistics is one of the strongest points of the American Officer Corps, it doesn't eliminate the inherit difficulties of such supply lines in a war where the front lines would more than likely be highly elastic.

[THEWULFMAN]

*sighs*

We couldn't handle the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? Really? How so? We took a few casualties as the years mounted. We didn't lose, the American public's standard of "victory" has just gotten so low that they complained over a handful of casualties. And yes, compared to WW2 what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan was a "handful" of casualties.

We're still going to maintain the largest and most powerful navy for years to come, partially just because no other allied power is rising to replace us. Don't come and tell me that China's navy is going to be anywhere close as good for decades to come. They're building carriers now? Good luck with that. Trying to start a naval air power is not as easy as building the ships.

Yes, our Air Force is going through some rough times. Once they get their heads out of their asses, stop pouring resources into stealth superiority, we'll be back to normal. The Navy is starting to go back to the F/A-18. Thank god, really. The F-35 project is such a waste of money, especially considering it's going to need to be redesigned or it can't fly off of standard carriers. It's restricted to FTOL right now, damn idiots put the arresting hook in the wrong place. The Air Force however does need to get its act together, and I have faith in it. Once they go back to standard aircraft, lose the obsession with stealth, we'll be on the right track.

Our army and marines are still the most effective fighting force on the ground proportion to its scale in the world. We haven't needed to build a new tank in 3 decades because no nation has built one to surpass it, except maybe the Germans.

At the end of it, I don't see China being the threat that everyone makes them out to be. I'm still keeping tabs on everyone's military to see what the future might bring, and I'm not concerned. I am not some patriotic fool who will defend his nation's pride even if he is wrong. I do my best to only speak in facts and my honest objective opinions.

[(SWGO)Kren]

*sighs*

We couldn't handle the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? Really? How so? We took a few casualties as the years mounted. We didn't lose, the American public's standard of "victory" has just gotten so low that they complained over a handful of casualties. And yes, compared to WW2 what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan was a "handful" of casualties.

Be worth taking a look the following.

Casualties

http://icasualties.org/oef/

Winning

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2 ... s-Congress
http://groundreport.com/did-the-us-win-the-iraq-war/

America and War (present day)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019993 ... pinions-20

Internvention vs Non Intervention

http://non-intervention.com/779/is-ther ... ervention/
http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/dilemma ... ion/p16524