Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

ttwtt78640 said:

Ending bloodshed in the middle east and Africa is mission impossible.

Click to expand...

But you did it with Hunt! Three times too!

KevinKohler said:

Where would the US be right now without intervention?

Click to expand...

Not in the media for sure.

Gathomas88 said:

The simple fact of the matter is that someone is always going to be on top, and that this nation is always going to have the ability, and very likely the inclination, to exercise that power over others to some degree or another.

Thankfully for the rest of the world, the US happens to be a rather subdued hegemon on the whole (at least in comparison to past global leaders like the Roman Empire, Spaniards, or USSR). However, we cannot really say for sure whether a world dominated by the Chinese or Russians would be similar in this regard.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? I think we here switched military presence from Russian/Serbian to NATO and are at best to speak to that by experience. The first robs you of your wealth, culture, identity, language, freedom, and lastly lands (forced dislocation). It is occupation done like in Mel Gibson's "Apocalipse."

The later mingles with our societies unwanted instead! When I say that I do not mean Serbs for then this would have been a mere switch on favoring one kind of people compared to the rest. Far from it the later imposes equality to all (including minority Serbs), law abiding, freedom to all, and democracy. We get to work our nation and be ourselves freely. So the later mingles with corruption, crime, poverty, etc.

You decide which is better at it.

Gathomas88 said:

All things being equal, I'd simply rather not take the risk. :shrug:

We should attempt to remain the "sole" global superpower for as long as we are able.

Click to expand...

All things remaining equal I think you should. I think you should so much that It is discomforting to know that it is costing you too much financially even!

Captain Adverse said:

Your “endless list” is B/S. The people of Kosovo were kicking butt without our help and ...

Click to expand...

Errr... We fought, it is not that we did not, but, our enemies had higher military equipment? Perhaps with more time and more bloodshed the regrouping and strong posts might have been brought down one by one. But it was way more easier to force Serbs into groups with ground troops and have you blow them to bits later:

:july_4th:

Also you were equalizing their military advantages by bringing them to a more managable level by blowing oil supplies, bridges, and other critical areas. Without Serbian tanks, artillery, they were more of a match then.

Smeagol said:

I think the Middle East is a hopeless case. I'm more hopeful Africa will become more civilized.

Click to expand...

Funny. My position is reversed here. Just an opinion though.

earthworm said:

I have said all this before...
Move the UN to Jerusalem - where the action is...or as close as possible...
Give the UN authority to save lives, to intervene as necessary..
Now, the UN does nothing - or so it seems...
why ?

Click to expand...

You mean UN Protection Troops like UNPROFOR or so?

Anyway, back to votes. This was a good read thread.

I voted for Other because I believe in NATO and I think there it is where USA should be the leading superpower. There the USA can play the cop, there the role of the cop is taxed, judged, etc. Nothing new in this, but this is how it worked for us and I think it is the best option.

Being a sole Superpower cop requires a judge and someone has to pay for the involvement? Next thing you would hear from this would be a Russian model and then there is less fun with that.

I did not choose the UN for it is pretty much useless when it comes to interventions. The dictator knows a permanent member in the UN one way or another and relies on their veto towards intervention.

I would have went for NATO option, but it was categorized under "regional matters." I think NATO should go global. I think they should win attitudes with media in UN and get the green card for intervention.

Basically the working model that we have. It is sometimes fast (Dardania), sometimes slow (Bosnia), sometimes works (Dardania, Bosnia, Egypt, Afghanistan), sometimes it does not (Syria, for now). But I see it as a global parliament where media is the first ground, then comes military, and liberation.

Given the phrasing of the poll, I had to vote other.

The US is the sole real global superpower and this is a good thing. But no country should try to police the whole world. And the UN even less so.

DDD said:

Errr... We fought, it is not that we did not, but, our enemies had higher military equipment? Perhaps with more time and more bloodshed the regrouping and strong posts might have been brought down one by one. But it was way more easier to force Serbs into groups with ground troops and have you blow them to bits later:

:july_4th:

Also you were equalizing their military advantages by bringing them to a more managable level by blowing oil supplies, bridges, and other critical areas. Without Serbian tanks, artillery, they were more of a match then.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but my point in that comment was (if you recall the major difference) that the USA went into Kosovo under the NATO treaty. We are member partners in NATO and obligated to honor our treaty requirements. There was also UN support for the action.

We have no such obligation in Syria.

Captain Adverse said:

Perhaps, but my point in that comment was (if you recall the major difference) that the USA went into Kosovo under the NATO treaty. We are member partners in NATO and obligated to honor our treaty requirements. There was also UN support for the action.

We have no such obligation in Syria.

Click to expand...

You lead NATO though. Also how much "support" there was from UN is questionable when the permanent members of UN such as Russia and China did not vote for NATO intervention. They abstained instead.

Now they abstained not because they became aware of atrocities here through media. Russia and China know of atrocities and fully support dictators that conduct them nevertheless. That is how they operate!

They abstained because the evidence of atrocities became undeniable due to OSCE findings of genocide. More like what the UN inspectors were in Syria for. Then the media front was wan from USA and allies, and Russia and China still supported criminals by not giving in to allies demands with a vote, but chose the neutral path instead of abstaining.

At present I would not mind USA to be the cop and I have told you this before. But looking at how Americans themselves are not certain for the role (and it takes all the certainty available for the role), as well as the risk of turning a bad cop for one reason or another in the future, I too think that it may be best left as it is. See my post above.

DDD said:

You lead NATO though. Also how much "support" there was from UN is questionable when the permanent members of UN such as Russia and China did not vote for NATO intervention. They abstained instead.

Now they abstained not because they became aware of atrocities here through media. Russia and China know of atrocities and fully support dictators that conduct them nevertheless. That is how they operate!

They abstained because the evidence of atrocities became undeniable due to OSCE findings of genocide. More like what the UN inspectors were in Syria for. Then the media front was wan from USA and allies, and Russia and China still supported criminals by not giving in to allies demands with a vote, but chose the neutral path instead of abstaining.

At present I would not mind USA to be the cop and I have told you this before. But looking at how Americans themselves are not certain for the role (and it takes all the certainty available for the role), as well as the risk of turning a bad cop for one reason or another in the future, I too think that it may be best left as it is. See my post above.

Click to expand...

I'm sure YOU wouldn't mind, because it is NOT YOU DOING THE FIGHTING OR TAKING THE HEAT AFTERWARDS!

I get fairly sick and tired of people who think war is some some sort of entertainment or fantasy game. Soldiers risk their lives, innocent civilians of all ages are killed. Yet arm chair generals rattle on and on about "national interests" and "moral right."

I call B/S!!! If you want to fight, get armed up and go do it yourself for a change. The armed forces of a nation should only be involved when it is TRULY an issue of the safety and security of their nation. That means a clear and identifiable threat directly aimed at that nation. No soldier, sailor, marine or airman needs to die or become disabled simply in order to to serve as some demonstration of a politician's resolve.

Captain Adverse said:

I'm sure YOU wouldn't mind, because it is NOT YOU DOING THE FIGHTING OR TAKING THE HEAT AFTERWARDS!

Click to expand...

Hey pall, it is YOUR fellow Americans that are proposing this concept about YOUR countries role?! I am not telling you to be a cop, fight for other countries, take the heat, and to hell with you afterwards, am I? You are proposing and I am only giving an opinion about what YOU want to do!!

What the heck do you want me to do about it anyway? Take to the streets and protest pro or against USA being a world cop?!

I said if you want the role I would not mind at present. If not then the present NATO treaty model seems to be working well also!

Make up your minds and mind the CAPS!!

Smeagol said:

There's a lot of sentiment lately over scaling back America's role outside of our own borders. The position of "global beacon of democracy," "the world's only remaining superpower," etc., etc., comes with what some consider to be a duty to therest of the world that includes being the world's police in the most extreme cases of state sponsored terror. Some accept tgat we have that as part of who we are. Others think only if and when we get a consensus and cooperation from most other governments albeit with our leadership. Others still take the position that its not our concern when atrocities occur outside of the United States. Nature hates a vacuum however and if we turn our backs on the role of global peacekeepers I wonder is the isolationists has considered that and if so do they have a preference on how the world community should respond to atrocities.

Click to expand...

All true. But I think, it might be interesting to look at the question in a different light.

Relative power is shifting and the US no longer has enough treasure to ensure international security alone. This situation will grow more difficult over the next 20 years, while the US will increasingly be forced to protect its own narrowing national interests. At the end of this process there will be six or seven superpowers and a dozen or two large powers. 20 or 25 nuclear armed countries of more or less stability will complete the horror.

This has been quite clear since the end of the Cold War (there was a lot written about this in the 90s in places like Foreign Affairs Magazine) and there were strategies developed to save us from the almost certain world war we can expect, if we let the international theater develop along those lines. The survival answers all point in the direction societies always have taken; at least those societies that survived. The installed governments and police.

And so, how do we do this now? There are a lot of people to convince.

DDD said:

Hey pall, it is YOUR fellow Americans that are proposing this concept about YOUR countries role?! I am not telling you to be a cop, fight for other countries, take the heat, and to hell with you afterwards, am I? You are proposing and I am only giving an opinion about what YOU want to do!!

What the heck do you want me to do about it anyway? Take to the streets and protest pro or against USA being a world cop?!

I said if you want the role I would not mind at present. If not then the present NATO treaty model seems to be working well also!

Make up your minds and mind the CAPS!!

Click to expand...

Hey "pal," you're not American, therefore your opinion about what "we" want to do has very little merit. In fact, it is biased because you WANT us to come in and interfere in your little dispute with the Serbs. Well, we are there and that's a done deal.

I don't think we should be doing that sort of thing because it is not our fight and not our business. MY opinion has merit because it is MY country fighting for other people's causes and MY peers perishing or coming home disabled to satisfy armchair generals and posturing politicians. If we have a treaty obligation, or for some reason our Congress votes for war...well and good. Otherwise, people in other countries should act to settle their own differences. That's what the idea of "sovereignty" is all about.

I don't want you to do anything about it as you can see.

Captain Adverse said:

Hey "pal," you're not American, therefore your opinion about what "we" want to do has very little merit.

Click to expand...

It may have little merit to you. But unless I see a poll that has 100% of DP users there voting that it also has little merit to everyone else, I am not buying this.

Besides, I do not care if it happens to not have merit neither. This is a public forum. I come here for opinions.

Captain Adverse said:

In fact, it is biased because you WANT us to come in and interfere in your little dispute with the Serbs. Well, we are there and that's a done deal.

Click to expand...

Hence, I no longer want you to do that? This is not 1999, you are here, there is no dispute, not necessary to interfere with anything? If at all what I want from now on end is for us as allies to watch over one another in NATO. The usual way. That is it.

Captain Adverse said:

I don't think we should be doing that sort of thing because it is not our fight and not our business. MY opinion has merit because it is MY country fighting for other people's causes and MY peers perishing or coming home disabled to satisfy armchair generals and posturing politicians.

Click to expand...

It is your country, you are fighting, your peers perishing or coming home disabled, all that to satisfy armchair generals and posturing politicians. But hey, I still give a **** like allies should. How is that?

If you do not ever want to hear about my opinion the ignore button is right below my name. Otherwise these things interest me and I shall come for giving my opinion about it.

Captain Adverse said:

If we have a treaty obligation, or for some reason our Congress votes for war...well and good. Otherwise, people in other countries should act to settle their own differences. That's what the idea of "sovereignty" is all about.

Click to expand...

Now this is your opinion. Here is my opinion what you should do about your country, your fighters, generals, and all that. See cause this is an open debate!

If you want the job of a cop I would not mind at present. If not, the NATO treaty issue seems to be working. Take it or leave it!

Captain Adverse said:

I don't want you to do anything about it as you can see.

Click to expand...

So what the heck is all this about then?

DDD said:

Funny. My position is reversed here. Just an opinion though.

Click to expand...

A big part of my thinking on the Middle East has to do with ancient Biblical prophecies that we seeing coming true today, most of which would have been unimaginable speaking from a natural understanding prior to 1948.

- Major animosity between Israel and Persia (Iran) that never existed in ancient history

- Israel surrounded on all sides by hostile countries

- The oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, the city of Damascus to be utterly destroyed. “See, Damascus will no longer be a city
but will become a heap of ruins." In the same passage a small town in Israel seems to indicate will also be affected in a way that will force its complete evacuation; maybe that triggering the Damascus' destruction. Not saying I perfectly understand how its going to pan out other than to say turmoil will be characteristic of it all.

- What seems to be describing the use of nuclear weapons at some point in the region. "Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet."

...with no indication any of this will end once it got started until the close of history as we know it.

Plus they have a percentage of the population so committed to their objectives they are willing to commit suicide in carrying out those objectives. Even though most would not go that far, the ones that are willing are cheered on and honored by the others. In fact if I recall, even a key US friendly Middle Eastern government at one time was giving cash rewards to the families of suicide bombers; or maybe it was government officials out of their personal money. None of this is not happening in Africa.

DDD said:

So what the heck is all this about then?

Click to expand...

I never said you didn't have a right to your opinion, did I? We have a saying in the USA, maybe you've heard it? "Opinions are like (in polite terms) the anus, everyone has one."

This was about what I considered your flippant, unsolicited response to an issue of major concern to my country and my fellow countrymen.

Everyone demands that we step in and defend "democracy," or "morals," or "human rights;" yet whenever we do it ends up becoming a disaster for us. Our allies smile but treat us like a loose cannon, our enemies smile and try to figure out how to use it against us, and all the neutrals smile and think we are interfering bullies.

Even the people who ask us for help are never satisfied; it's either not enough interference/aid or too much interference/aid. And EVERYONE hopes one day we'll fall on our self-rightious ass and maybe learn a little humility.

Personally, I think we need to talk softly, talk softly some more, and keep being diplomatic until the only option left is to bring out the big stick and knock the other guy so deep into the dirt he will NEVER be a problem again.

Smeagol said:

A big part of my thinking on the Middle East has to do with ancient Biblical prophecies that we seeing coming true today, most of which would have been unimaginable speaking from a natural understanding prior to 1948.

- Major animosity between Israel and Persia (Iran) that never existed in ancient history

- Israel surrounded on all sides by hostile countries

- The oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, the city of Damascus to be utterly destroyed. “See, Damascus will no longer be a city
but will become a heap of ruins." In the same passage a small town in Israel seems to indicate will also be affected in a way that will force is complete evacuation; maybe that triggering the Damascus' destruction. Not saying I perfectly understand how its going to pan out other than to say turmoil will be characteristic of it all.

- What seems to be describing the use of nuclear weapons at some point in the region. "Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet."

...with no indication any of this will end once it got started until the close of history as we know it.

Plus we have a percentage of the population so committed to their objectives they are willing to commit suicide in carrying out those objectives. Even though most would not go that far, the ones that are willing are cheered on and honored by the others. In fact if I recall, even a key US friendly Middle Eastern government at one time was giving cash compensation to the families of suicide bombers; or maybe it was government officials out of their personal money. None of this is not happening in Africa.

Click to expand...

My stance on civilization being more easier in ME than Africa is not based on Biblical stories (sorry non religious here), but more to do with prejudice and somewhat primitive customs that Africans have been used to live in ever since the dawn of human kind. Do not know whether you had some time with them?

I have had the opportunity to be with the company of people from Africa whom were either businessman or academics. There are exceptions but I found them either juvenile or bullies. This on that business and academic level of people from various parts in Africa (i.e., what of the ones not as fortunate?).

They would hang with other black people sometimes American Africans. To which point they would express high prejudice towards me as the white in the table. It took the African American to put some sense back to them in words and that they obeyed. Perhaps there is a hint here that if some operations are to be done in Africa it might as well be conducted from Europeanized or Americanized Africans, for they seem to respect that!

If there was not prejudice there would be **** measuring of inappropriate styles for all of us at such gatherings (e.g., very close eye to eye starring, close higher chin posing, and at hominem critiques). Should you challenge one of them the rest would group in seconds trying to "defend" like in a pact.

All this from a very deep belief I imagine that they think that we look down on them to which they react to completing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rarely do they recognize that it is not about that. In that group of all of us only one approached and commented that it seemed not to be about measuring at an academic gathering.

Thus, unless they grow from all that and think things through better, there may be difficulties for civilization. These were the challenges with their elites. But in Africa you have people living in jungles too you know.

Captain Adverse said:

Go back and look at what you quoted from me.

I am not responsible for how you take things

Click to expand...

.

It is also clear that I am not stating a "fact" but only what I "think they may have been," so I don't get your point.

Click to expand...

No kidding ... and back atcha ... I said I misinterpreted you as suggesting big oil was turning into big sun.
I thought that was a clear enough mea culpa.
Traditional energy companies are most definitely looking for new sources ... and the Feds are looking too ... but not for the same reason.

bubbabgone said:

No kidding ... and back atcha ... I said I misinterpreted you as suggesting big oil was turning into big sun.
I thought that was a clear enough mea culpa.
Traditional energy companies are most definitely looking for new sources ... and the Feds are looking too ... but not for the same reason.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. It's all good.

Captain Adverse said:

Perhaps, but my point in that comment was (if you recall the major difference) that the USA went into Kosovo under the NATO treaty. We are member partners in NATO and obligated to honor our treaty requirements. There was also UN support for the action.

We have no such obligation in Syria.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, but you are wrong on multiple counts.

There was NO UN support for the NATO attack on Serbia.

The NATO attack on Serbia also didn't fall under NATO treaty obligations. No NATO country was attacked. The fact that NATO lent its structure for this attack doesn't mean it was a NATO treaty obligation, since this was an offensive operation.

Smeagol said:

There's a lot of sentiment lately over scaling back America's role outside of our own borders. The position of "global beacon of democracy," "the world's only remaining superpower," etc., etc., comes with what some consider to be a duty to therest of the world that includes being the world's police in the most extreme cases of state sponsored terror. Some accept tgat we have that as part of who we are. Others think only if and when we get a consensus and cooperation from most other governments albeit with our leadership. Others still take the position that its not our concern when atrocities occur outside of the United States. Nature hates a vacuum however and if we turn our backs on the role of global peacekeepers I wonder is the isolationists has considered that and if so do they have a preference on how the world community should respond to atrocities.

Click to expand...

There isn't a world community, and the capitalists always respond by making everything worse while they make profits, as we all know.

Captain Adverse said:

I never said you didn't have a right to your opinion, did I? We have a saying in the USA, maybe you've heard it? "Opinions are like (in polite terms) the anus, everyone has one."

Click to expand...

Right but mine "has no merit?"

Captain Adverse said:

This was about what I considered your flippant, unsolicited response to an issue of major concern to my country and my fellow countrymen.

Click to expand...

We are speaking of you playing world cop here?

Captain Adverse said:

Everyone demands that we step in and defend "democracy," or "morals," or "human rights;" yet whenever we do it ends up becoming a disaster for us.

Click to expand...

Do not be so hard on yourselves. It is not "every time" like that. See what happened in Dardania for instance?

Captain Adverse said:

Our allies smile but treat us like a loose cannon, our enemies smile and try to figure out how to use it against us, and all the neutrals smile and think we are interfering bullies.

Click to expand...

Can you find sources where all your allies smile and yet treat you like a loose cannon?

As for the enemies, they will always seek ways to use whatever they can against us, would they? It is what they do. But with some ups and downs I do not think it will turn bad in the long run!

So cheer up! You are not alone :2wave: In fact, each time you win, you become greater!

Captain Adverse said:

Even the people who ask us for help are never satisfied; it's either not enough interference/aid or too much interference/aid.

Click to expand...

Not like that here. Nothing more to do here. By most odds we may join Albania a NATO member, and it is of to see how we could be of some help. Not to mention that that is occurring as we speak.

Captain Adverse said:

And EVERYONE hopes one day we'll fall on our self-rightious ass and maybe learn a little humility.

Click to expand...

Humility! Now, I do not want to say much, but back in 1998-1999, you used humility as much as possible! Serbs just did not want to negotiate. We in fact were thinking that you were not going to do it!

Captain Adverse said:

Personally, I think we need to talk softly, talk softly some more, and keep being diplomatic until the only option left is to bring out the big stick and knock the other guy so deep into the dirt he will NEVER be a problem again.

Click to expand...

I think so too. But who would talk to leaders that use WMD's of various kinds?

sawyerloggingon said:

You realize how much money all these wars and police actions and things like bombing Libya have cost? Not to mention the American lives lost and horrible injuries sustained.

Click to expand...

Oh please, I don't support all warring, but that has hardly been the main reason for our budget.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...had it not been for intervention, would the US have won its revolution against the British empire?