Why is it ok for USA

[dianaiad]

Of course i can say no to all your question, But the reason i asked the OP is because i am sick and tired of America playing world police, Europe can take care of them self, we dont need America to be police here.

....and before America started playing 'world police,' Europe was taking such good care of itself, was it? Is there a single nation in Europe which does NOT have, in living memory, examples of war horror to tell? Bombed out cities? Stories of occupation and war crimes? Bullet casings in vineyards, old mine fields? If Middle Eastern nations would just invade each other and leave US alone...but you don't. You never have.

We aren't playing 'world police.' We are playing 'let's see if we can't keep you people from getting weird with US again."

Oh, and we rather like most of the nations in Europe, anyway, and don't want to see them get clobbered again, either. So we act because at the moment, we have the power to do something about things like terrorism and possible war between nations. We may not do the right thing all the time, but I'm of the opinion that the folks with the power to prevent such things SHOULD do their best to prevent such things. "With great power comes great responsibility,' and all that. (Uncle Ben in Spider man) or "The price of greatness is responsibility" (Winston Churchill)

So if you think that Europe can take care of itself...then for crying out loud, TAKE CARE OF IT YOURSELF. Actually, I think Europe DOES 'take care of it" rather well. The same thing can't be said of the middle east, though. At least, it doesn't look like it is doing so very well.

 

[dianaiad]

Honestly, i have a feeling American governments will not stop before a new war has started.
If they stop meddling inmidle east i think those countries will calm down again

I don't.

Or at least, they won't until they are under one rule...a rule by a government that not only has nukes, but has used them, and probably on us.

After all, they have shown no hesitance whatever in sending terrorists over here.

 

[Road Warrior]

Why is it ok for USA to have nuclear weapons but they tell everyone else it is not ok?
Example with Iran, Why can USA keep their weapons but Iran can become nuked by USA if they do not get rid of their nuclear weapon? where is the logic?

I’m fine with Iran having nukes. The first time they threaten to use them then we can take them all down.

 

[dianaiad]

There were NO state actors in 9-11.

Baloney. The states which supported the establishment of the terrorists are responsible as well as the terrorists themselves are.....at least to the point at which allowing them nuclear weapons would be a Very Bad Idea.

 

[Spirit of Light]

....and before America started playing 'world police,' Europe was taking such good care of itself, was it? Is there a single nation in Europe which does NOT have, in living memory, examples of war horror to tell? Bombed out cities? Stories of occupation and war crimes? Bullet casings in vineyards, old mine fields? If Middle Eastern nations would just invade each other and leave US alone...but you don't. You never have.

We aren't playing 'world police.' We are playing 'let's see if we can't keep you people from getting weird with US again."

Oh, and we rather like most of the nations in Europe, anyway, and don't want to see them get clobbered again, either. So we act because at the moment, we have the power to do something about things like terrorism and possible war between nations. We may not do the right thing all the time, but I'm of the opinion that the folks with the power to prevent such things SHOULD do their best to prevent such things. "With great power comes great responsibility,' and all that. (Uncle Ben in Spider man) or "The price of greatness is responsibility" (Winston Churchill)

So if you think that Europe can take care of itself...then for crying out loud, TAKE CARE OF IT YOURSELF. Actually, I think Europe DOES 'take care of it" rather well. The same thing can't be said of the middle east, though. At least, it doesn't look like it is doing so very well.

I respect your view and opinion, but i do not totally agree with you.
We did experience WW2 75 years ago that is correct, it was a European country who started it. And America did help to win over Germany at that time, that is true. But it is the later years, especially from the first Iraq war that I feel America has gone too far too many times.
I do agree that 2001 was a very very bad year for America and it is terrible what happened. But at the same time. When I watched the news that time after the attack, i was wondering how they could know it was Bin laden that fast? I can not say who it was, but did they attack Afghanistan to fast? And the second Iraq war when they killed Saddam, did the country get better after that?

I am not gonna say America only does bad things with the military. But do they really need to attack that fast after something happens?

I want you to know,i do not hate America, but i do not see the politic or military that actually make America better, or the world. But i do hope in the end that we will be able to see all the world as a better place.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I’m fine with Iran having nukes. The first time they threaten to use them then we can take them all down.

So if America uses their Nukes, would it be ok if for example Pakistan or India or maybe Russia took out America then?
I do not believe America has the right to destroy another country

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don't.

Or at least, they won't until they are under one rule...a rule by a government that not only has nukes, but has used them, and probably on us.

After all, they have shown no hesitance whatever in sending terrorists over here.

When did Iran send terrorists?

 

[dybmh]

Why is it ok for USA to have nuclear weapons but they tell everyone else it is not ok?

#1 reason: USA allows **more** transparency. Iran is virtually non-transparent.

USA is transparent now? From media it look like Trump is trying to be as hidden as possible and not want anyone to speak. Of course i do not live there so i can be mistaken

America is not completely transparent. But it is more transparent than Iran. Especially when it comes to nuclear weapons.

 

[Road Warrior]

So if America uses their Nukes, would it be ok if for example Pakistan or India or maybe Russia took out America then?
I do not believe America has the right to destroy another country

Sure, why not? It’d be an awesome fireworks display. Surely you agree since you are advocating Iran have them.

 

[Spirit of Light]

America is not completely transparent. But it is more transparent than Iran. Especially when it comes to nuclear weapons.

That i can agree with you on

 

[Spirit of Light]

Sure, why not? It’d be an awesome fireworks display. Surely you agree since you are advocating Iran have them.

View attachment 30209

Actually i am totally against any weapon, as a pacifist. But i do not support the way America is doing the war seeking missions in the middle east. And No i do not support the evil things Iran do when they do evil things. But the OP was meant as a question toward why America seem to play world police when they are not.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

This is an interesting question with the word "invade".

1) Would you prefer that ISIS continue invading other countries and eventually your own?
2) Did you ever ask the Koreans (South) whether they feel like they were invaded?
3) Are you fine with Syrians continue the use of chemical warfare?

Are we the police?

 

[Stevicus]

So if America uses their Nukes, would it be ok if for example Pakistan or India or maybe Russia took out America then?
I do not believe America has the right to destroy another country

It's not a question of it being "ok." If any of those countries launched nukes against America, we would retaliate in kind. None of it is moral or "okay," but it's the philosophy behind Mutually Assured Destruction.

I suppose the question can be asked, if other nations had developed atomic weapons before America, would they have used them indiscriminately to conquer the world? Did the fact that they, too, could be totally wiped out and devastated keep them from using nuclear weapons?

The standard Cold War nuclear scenario was predicated on the notion that the Soviet Union was an expansionist state, and the prevailing speculation was that they were secretly plotting a massive invasion of Western Europe. In terms of the strength of their ground forces, the Allies would have been outnumbered greatly, so the defense strategy would have been to use tactical nuclear weapons to repel a massive Soviet invasion force.

That is, if it actually happened. Although many still believe that it was because of the nuclear deterrent that all-out war with the USSR never happened. Fortunately for the world, cooler heads prevailed on both sides, and it was clear that the leaders of both the US and USSR were at least sane enough and rational enough to not let it get out of hand to the point of all-out war. Both sides exercised considerable restraint - even in situations where it could very easily have gone the other way.

But as the tools and technology to build nuclear weapons trickles down to other countries with other forms of government, it leads to more random possibilities - particularly in countries which aren't politically stable and the possibility that a devastating arsenal could end up in the hands of some crazoid. That's why some people were afraid of leaders like Nixon, Reagan, or Trump. One might think "Do we really want this guy to be in control of such a huge nuclear arsenal?"

This is a chilling and memorable scene from The Dead Zone:

 

[Spirit of Light]

It's not a question of it being "ok." If any of those countries launched nukes against America, we would retaliate in kind. None of it is moral or "okay," but it's the philosophy behind Mutually Assured Destruction.

I suppose the question can be asked, if other nations had developed atomic weapons before America, would they have used them indiscriminately to conquer the world? Did the fact that they, too, could be totally wiped out and devastated keep them from using nuclear weapons?

The standard Cold War nuclear scenario was predicated on the notion that the Soviet Union was an expansionist state, and the prevailing speculation was that they were secretly plotting a massive invasion of Western Europe. In terms of the strength of their ground forces, the Allies would have been outnumbered greatly, so the defense strategy would have been to use tactical nuclear weapons to repel a massive Soviet invasion force.

That is, if it actually happened. Although many still believe that it was because of the nuclear deterrent that all-out war with the USSR never happened. Fortunately for the world, cooler heads prevailed on both sides, and it was clear that the leaders of both the US and USSR were at least sane enough and rational enough to not let it get out of hand to the point of all-out war. Both sides exercised considerable restraint - even in situations where it could very easily have gone the other way.

But as the tools and technology to build nuclear weapons trickles down to other countries with other forms of government, it leads to more random possibilities - particularly in countries which aren't politically stable and the possibility that a devastating arsenal could end up in the hands of some crazoid. That's why some people were afraid of leaders like Nixon, Reagan, or Trump. One might think "Do we really want this guy to be in control of such a huge nuclear arsenal?"

This is a chilling and memorable scene from The Dead Zone:

Do we really want anyone to be in charge of Nuclear weapons? I would say no, we should ban and dismantle all nuclear weapons also in America and the rest of the world too

 

[Revoltingest]

Have to differ here. Unless you know something we don't, Trump never authorized the destruction of Iran. As a matter of fact, it seems he called off an airstrike because 150 Iranis would have been killed. Have I missed something?

I'm taking the initial strike which he authorized, & extrapolating to likely consequences.
Consider that these "surgical" strikes are often not so surgical, & that in defending
themselves, Iran would possibly cause Ameristanian loss of life & materiel.
Trump, who seems somewhat unhinged at the moment (more than usual),
would likely retaliate with greater force. We tried before to destroy them
in the Iraq war. We failed. And Iran learned lessons.
The circle of life death continues.

Iran has been subject to our attacks for decades. We've continually threatened
them with bi-partisan rhetoric. It's reasonable to assume that they've taken steps
to cope with an invasion. Note that it's public knowledge we've planned for one,
both with engineering work, production & logistics.

 

[Revoltingest]

1988

As far as the official American story goes, the crew of the U.S.S. Vincennes mistook the radar signature of the airliner (which was flying directly toward the ship) as the signature of an approaching Iranian f-14 fighter.

Earlier in the day a helecopter from the ship had taken fire from Iranian vessels, and the Vincennes pursued them into Iranian waters to fire upon the vessels.

Flight 655 approached the Vincennes shortly after this gunfight. Fearing a retaliatory strike by what he believed to be an Iranian warplane, the captain of the Vincennes ordered the ship to open fire.

When the US shot down an Iranian airliner - BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-44614512/when-the-us-shot-down-an-iranian-airliner
When the US shot down an Iranian airliner. On 3 July 1988, a sophisticated US Navy warship, the USS Vincennes, shot down an Iranian civilian airliner flying over the Persian Gulf.

All 290 on board the aircraft were killed, among them 66 children. Rudy Pahoyo was a Navy Combat Cameraman who was filming on board the USS Vincennes that day.

I don't know the point you're trying to make.
But one thing is clear....
War is messy, chaotic, & unpredictable.
Small errors like a bad sensor or human error in identification
can malignantly grow into all out war. We narrowly avoided
nuclear war with the Soviets, all caused by errors which were
fortunately caught in the nick of time.
Ref....
https://www.history.com/news/5-cold-war-close-calls

If we continue provoking Iran, & they respond in kind, ask
yourself....;
Do you trust Donald Trump & Iran's theocracy to manage this well?

 

[sooda]

I don't know the point you're trying to make.
But one thing is clear....
War is messy, chaotic, & unpredictable.
Small errors like a bad sensor or human error in identification
can malignantly grow into all out war. We narrowly avoided
nuclear war with the Soviets, all caused by errors which were
fortunately caught in the nick of time.

If we continue provoking Iran, & they respond in kind, ask
yourself....;
Do you trust Donald Trump to manage this well?

I think Trump is a moron.. I sat with Bolton an a plane coming out of Riyadh.. He's truly creepy.

Doesn't change anything with regard to Iran.

 

[Kenny]

General knowledge.

These NATO bases were mostly relics of WW2 and the Cold War, Britain also had a lot of troops based in Germany and started withdrawing them around this time. Many of these were closed to save money as there wasn't much point is having large deployments of troops in Western Germany anymore.

It wasn't a desire to step away from the world stage just reutilisation of resources. It's mentioned in the article you linked anyway, but look at pivot to Asia, US bases in Poland, Africa, etc.

At their request... no "invasion".

 

[Kenny]

Are we the police?

Is Europe the police?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Is Europe the police?

Nobody is the world police. or world military.