NationStates Jolt Archive

With all the other empires of the 20th century collapsed, the United States has decided to assume all their historic burdens. We have taken on the role of the German empire in keeping Russia out of Europe, of the Austrian empire in policing the Balkans, of the Ottoman empire in keeping peace in the Middle East, of the British empire in securing the oceans and the Gulf, and of the Japanese in containing China.

I think it is time for the US to give up its role as world policeman. There is no reason why we should continue to host soldiers in wealthy, industrially advanced countries such as Germany and Japan, or to keep military bases in the Balkans at the behest of powerful lobbyists, or to entangle ourselves in a million other little situations all across the world. All we will attain is wasted money, violence, and hatred towards us. Our foreign policy from now on should be "Leave us alone." Let other people deal with their problems; we should not be getting involved and getting ourselves pulled too. If we have private citizens who want to help, let them do so, and more power to them. But the government should not be trying to fix problems that are outside of its own borders, and should not be in any position that might drag itself into such dilemmas. If we do this, we will never have to worry about being pulled into another debacle like Vietnam, or Somalia, or Iraq ever again.

I agree, but who'll take over?

I agree, but who'll take over?

I say we let Swaziland have a shot at it.

I know where Swaziland is, but why them?

I'd rather keep our foreign military bases. If anything, they serve as a sign of "hey, we've got your back if you need it."

However, I agree that we should stop getting involved in these quagmires like Iraq and Somalia.

I know where Swaziland is, but why them?

The Swiss have one of the best armies on the earth, however they aren't renowned for this because they aren't militaristic and only fight when need be.

I hate agreeing with Pat Buchanan.

Swaziland is a small nation in Africa...

I know where Swaziland is, but why them?

Nice flag.

http://i19.tinypic.com/5z416hg.gif

Swaziland is a small nation in Africa...

I thought he misspelled Switzerland. :confused:

The Swiss have one of the best armies on the earth, however they aren't renowned for this because they aren't militaristic and only fight when need be.

SWAZILAND.... not Switzerland...

I thought he misspelled Switzerland. :confused:

Swaziland is a little country inside South Africa (unless I'm confusing it with Lesotho... *goes to look at map*)

I agree with Pat Buchanan, for the most part.

Swaziland is a little country inside South Africa (unless I'm confusing it with Lesotho... *goes to look at map*)No, they both are, though Swaziland also borders Mozambique.

forget Swaziland...LUXEMBOURG!

The Vatican would make great World Police. That said:

http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Team_America-teaser_L.jpg

The Swiss have one of the best armies on the earth, however they aren't renowned for this because they aren't militaristic and only fight when need be.


Do you think they still have the pikes or will they have to buy new ones?

The Vatican would make great World Police. That said:

sorry, ifreann, the middle ages are over.

How about the US actually start behaving as world policeman, instead of world vigilante?

Or, if the US shouldn't be world policeman, how about backing the creation on a world police force? There are allies willing to participate in this, and it will be in the best interest of the country...

sorry, ifreann, the middle ages are over.

They are? Curses, so much for taking over the Holy Roman Empire.
How about the US actually start behaving as world policeman, instead of world vigilante?

Or, if the US shouldn't be world policeman, how about backing the creation on a world police force? There are allies willing to participate in this, and it will be in the best interest of the country...
Whatever happened to interpol? Are those guys still around?
*wikis*

Ah, they were never actually a police force.

They are? Curses, so much for taking over the Holy Roman Empire.

Whatever happened to interpol? Are those guys still around?
*wikis*

Ah, they were never actually a police force.

Not as such, no.
Interpol (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7mdy8f9Yvg&mode=related&search=)

The U.N is a failed experiment obviously :(

:confused:

Hear, hear.

I agree, but who'll take over?

Why the Hell should anyone in their right minds want to waste their time, wealth, resources, energy and manpower trying to do that?

:confused:

oh nvm...

I'd rather keep our foreign military bases. If anything, they serve as a sign of "hey, we've got your back if you need it."

However, I agree that we should stop getting involved in these quagmires like Iraq and Somalia.

Involved? We STARTED the Iraq quagmire.

But Somalia... We didn't do much execpt show up after it was mostly over and give a little air support. We flew in 1 Spooky and a couple of Helicopters. (And rumor of some Special forces)
Maybe $20,000 (Not counting fuel) at the most.
We have some people helping now but not a large scale military force.

(Strange, apparently some US soldiers have been kidnapped in Somalia, yet no one talks about it)

Hear, hear.

Why the Hell should anyone in their right minds want to waste their time, wealth, resources, energy and manpower trying to do that?

Because what happens in other countries now tend to affect the whole world (yay globalism!), so I guess every country should want to do something sometimes...

I think it's pretty OBVIOUS that Mongolia is up to the task.

I think it's pretty OBVIOUS that Mongolia is up to the task.

They pwned most of Asia once. Why can't they do it to the rest of the world? We just need to give them horses and some reflex bows and they're set...

They pwned most of Asia once. Why can't they do it to the rest of the world? We just need to give them horses and some reflex bows and they're set...

And a glorious leader ala Genghis Khan or Atilla The Hun. Atilla Khan perhaps......

you're all wrong, the next world policeman is Andorra o'course

you're all wrong, the next world policeman is Andorra o'course

Don't count out Sealand

First of all, the US maintains troops in Japan because the Japanese do not have an army (OK, they have the Self-Defense forces), so the US is responsible for Japan's defense. If the Japanese change their constitution and get an army, the US will likely leave with little to no fanfare.

Second, my view is that EVERY nation must be an international policeman. By virtue of its powerful military which can be deployed pretty much anywhere in the world, the US has the greatest responsibility.
Ideally, a UN force could replace the US, but that would require the UN to grow a spine, I mean reform big time.

Don't count out Sealand

what if they team up! :eek:

First of all, the US maintains troops in Japan because the Japanese do not have an army (OK, they have the Self-Defense forces), so the US is responsible for Japan's defense. If the Japanese change their constitution and get an army, the US will likely leave with little to no fanfare.

Second, my view is that EVERY nation must be an international policeman. By virtue of its powerful military which can be deployed pretty much anywhere in the world, the US has the greatest responsibility.
Ideally, a UN force could replace the US, but that would require the UN to grow a spine, I mean reform big time.

Well even if the UN did get majorly reformed a lot of people wouldn't like the though of an all powerful world police force. I mean even in this game it's not even legal or a well liked idea.

I think it is time for the US to give up its role as world policeman. There is no reason why we should continue to host soldiers in wealthy, industrially advanced countries such as Germany and Japan, or to keep military bases in the Balkans at the behest of powerful lobbyists, or to entangle ourselves in a million other little situations all across the world. All we will attain is wasted money, violence, and hatred towards us. Our foreign policy from now on should be "Leave us alone." Let other people deal with their problems; we should not be getting involved and getting ourselves pulled too. If we have private citizens who want to help, let them do so, and more power to them. But the government should not be trying to fix problems that are outside of its own borders, and should not be in any position that might drag itself into such dilemmas. If we do this, we will never have to worry about being pulled into another debacle like Vietnam, or Somalia, or Iraq ever again.

Sounds like you are advocating isolationism and I'm not sure that's possible in todays Global Economy.

It's possible to have friendly trade relations and still butt out of other people's business. Most people today, however, are pussies and can't live without A/C, cars, movies, fast food and all the other modern luxuries we take for granted. I'm willing to buy Grapes/Bananas at a higher price for a few years as all of Centeral America fights with itself (hypothetical senario)

This whole fiasco with China poisoning its food and then selling it is a prime example why a global economy should be kept in check with standards and not overly relied on. I'd much rather pay an extra couple dollars for dog food to know that my dog or cat won't die because some Chinese company is cutting corners and doesn't hold the same health standards as we, or other countries, do. Just my opinion ...

EDIT: I agree with the OP and also have a general stance of isolationism.

I think it is time for the US to give up its role as world policeman. There is no reason why we should continue to host soldiers in wealthy, industrially advanced countries such as Germany and Japan, or to keep military bases in the Balkans at the behest of powerful lobbyists, or to entangle ourselves in a million other little situations all across the world. All we will attain is wasted money, violence, and hatred towards us. Our foreign policy from now on should be "Leave us alone." Let other people deal with their problems; we should not be getting involved and getting ourselves pulled too. If we have private citizens who want to help, let them do so, and more power to them. But the government should not be trying to fix problems that are outside of its own borders, and should not be in any position that might drag itself into such dilemmas. If we do this, we will never have to worry about being pulled into another debacle like Vietnam, or Somalia, or Iraq ever again.

They did try that one time. The result? The Second World War.

You ignore the 100+ years America WAS an isolationist country and no world wars broke out then. WWII was more the fault of Europe trying to stick it to Germany for WWI which, in my opinion, Wilson's "14 Point Plan" helped fuel.

I think it is time for the US to give up its role as world policeman. There is no reason why we should continue to host soldiers in wealthy, industrially advanced countries such as Germany and Japan, or to keep military bases in the Balkans at the behest of powerful lobbyists, or to entangle ourselves in a million other little situations all across the world. All we will attain is wasted money, violence, and hatred towards us. Our foreign policy from now on should be "Leave us alone." Let other people deal with their problems; we should not be getting involved and getting ourselves pulled too. If we have private citizens who want to help, let them do so, and more power to them. But the government should not be trying to fix problems that are outside of its own borders, and should not be in any position that might drag itself into such dilemmas. If we do this, we will never have to worry about being pulled into another debacle like Vietnam, or Somalia, or Iraq ever again.

Yes, you may not fear about being pulled into another Vietnam or Somalia or Iraq, but what will result is another World War. The last time the United States was isolationist, a World War resulted. I do grant that there were other factors behind the Second World War, however, had the Americans been part of the League of Nations and gotten involved with European disputes, then the League would have had some sort of power - Japan and Italy would certainly not have questioned the League of Nations through their actions, and I doubt that Hitler would have gone invading had he known the Americans would have gotten involved. In fact, I am even willing to say that had America not been isolationist, there would have been no reason for them to be the world's sole policeman - the French and British Empires would have also retained the power to be co-policemen; thus we would not have had the scenarios you outlined before.

you're all wrong, the next world policeman is Andorra o'course
no, it's not. It's Sealand!

They did try that one time. The result? The Second World War.

But wasn't that a great war! Look at all the movies and video games we made from it...

I would totally agree with this, but, if the USA stop the alternatives could only be worse. I mean think what the world would be like under the policing of China for instance.

The simple fact is that the majority of the world is not developed enough, either politically or economically, for there to be no global policeman. Most countries in the world cannot even police their own countries effectively, which completely rules out participating to global policing and security.

But wasn't that a great war! Look at all the movies and video games we made from it...

True, i'll give you that. It's easily my favourite war, most of the others are quite boring by comparison.

But wasn't that a great war! Look at all the movies and video games we made from it...

Sealand sucks, even I alone could invade it!

Sealand sucks, even I alone could invade it!

Than why don't you?...You could have your own little nation...of course that would mean you would no longer need NationStates...then that means you'd leave us...and we'll die a little inside

True, i'll give you that. It's easily my favourite war, most of the others are quite boring by comparison.

Yea death, carnage, and genocide quite exciting...:(

I think it's pretty OBVIOUS that Mongolia is up to the task.

100% agreed. My life's dream is to take over Mongolia and then restore it to it's former glory. With NO infantry only calvalry.

It would be great.

Sealand sucks, even I alone could invade it!

you just gave me a great idea! *invades sealand*

Yes, you may not fear about being pulled into another Vietnam or Somalia or Iraq, but what will result is another World War. The last time the United States was isolationist, a World War resulted. I do grant that there were other factors behind the Second World War, however, had the Americans been part of the League of Nations and gotten involved with European disputes, then the League would have had some sort of power - Japan and Italy would certainly not have questioned the League of Nations through their actions, and I doubt that Hitler would have gone invading had he known the Americans would have gotten involved. In fact, I am even willing to say that had America not been isolationist, there would have been no reason for them to be the world's sole policeman - the French and British Empires would have also retained the power to be co-policemen; thus we would not have had the scenarios you outlined before.

Nah, I don't think Hitler would be impressed, considering he declared war on the US on a sidethought, and that at the time he declared war on the US, it had no army worth mentioning.

I am on the camp that there should be a more independent 'world police force'. We allready have the international court, so an international police force wouldn't be too far fetched - well, if that police doesn't decide it's above the This army should consist of, I don't know, 10% of the military of every nation. There should be strict and binding ways to ensure this army can and will not have or enforce any political agenda, other than to make sure every nation plays by the rules in it's interaction with other nations. It should also be impossible for any nation to influence this army - only highly idealistic, anti-nationalistic, globalistic high officers. Maybe give this army it's own piece of land and let it's command permanently live there and recieve only independent media.

You ignore the 100+ years America WAS an isolationist country and no world wars broke out then. WWII was more the fault of Europe trying to stick it to Germany for WWI which, in my opinion, Wilson's "14 Point Plan" helped fuel.
Except for that little business with Napoleon.

how about we get rid of not just the world police but this silly nonsense of "nations"

it needed to be said.

how about we get rid of not just the world police but this silly nonsense of "nations"

it needed to be said.

Wait are you talking about World Federalism or Anarchism?! Are you the Unicorn I've been seeking?

According to every American cop movie I've ever seen policemen never retire. They always get blown away by some punk-assed kid a week before they're all set to collect their pension.

Wait are you talking about World Federalism or Anarchism?! Are you the Unicorn I've been seeking?

pfft haven't you ever watched T.V, when Jesus returns we can all live under the grace of God in everlasting serfdom :p

pfft haven't you ever watched T.V, when Jesus returns we can all live under the grace of God in everlasting serfdom :p

Wouldn't that be a God-Nation?

According to every American cop movie I've ever seen policemen never retire. They always get blown away by some punk-assed kid a week before they're all set to collect their pension.It's a fantastic way to save the taxpayer some money...can we do that to politicians too? Waaaaaaiiiitt....are you saying some punk-assed country needs to blow the US away before retirement? Canada's pretty young, and punk-assed...

Wouldn't that be a God-Nation?

no silly because God doesn't pay taxes :p

no silly because God doesn't pay taxes :p

What does that have to do with anything?

What does that have to do with anything?

stop asking circular questions! :mad:

stop asking circular questions! :mad:

Now you're just confusing me.

stop asking circular questions! :mad:

What point is there to this request?

Except for that little business with Napoleon.

He means after Napoleon.

First of all, the US maintains troops in Japan because the Japanese do not have an army (OK, they have the Self-Defense forces), so the US is responsible for Japan's defense. If the Japanese change their constitution and get an army, the US will likely leave with little to no fanfare.


You realize Japan has the fifth largest military budget in the world, don't you?

Sealand sucks, even I alone could invade it!

http://www.sealandgov.org/history.html

Sealand Fights Off Invaders (and Wins a War)

In August of 1978, a number of Dutch men came to Sealand in the employ of a German businessman. They were there to discuss business dealings with Sealand. While Roy was away in Britain, these men kidnapped Prince Roy's son Michael, and took Sealand by force. Soon after, Roy recaptured the island with a group of his own men and held the attackers as prisoners of war.

During the time that he held the prisoners, the Governments of the Netherlands and Germany petitioned for their release. First they asked England to intervene in the matter, but the British government cited their earlier court decision as evidence that they made no claim to the territory of Sealand. Then, in an act of de facto recognition of Sealand's sovereignty, Germany sent a diplomat directly to Sealand to negotiate for the release of their citizen.

Roy first released the Dutch citizens, as the war was over, and the Geneva Convention requires the release of all prisoners. The German was held longer, as he had accepted a Sealand Passport, and therefore was guilty of treason. Prince Roy, who was grateful that the incident had not resulted in a loss of life, and did not want to bloody the reputation of Sealand, eventually released him as well.

Waaaaaaiiiitt....are you saying some punk-assed country needs to blow the US away before retirement? Canada's pretty young, and punk-assed...

Ideally Canada should be carrying out a liquor store robbery as it does so.

You all forgot Poland.


yeah, yeah. We all saw it coming.

I think that it's very important to note, concerning World War II, that had the United States not ented into conflict, there could have been a more equitable peace agreement. Instead, we intervened, allowing for the abomination known as the Treaty of Versailles and paving the way for Hitler's rise to power.

I feel as though the Mooninites have what it takes to be World Police.. They could have a more objective stance toward terrestrial matters

Hear, hear.



Why the Hell should anyone in their right minds want to waste their time, wealth, resources, energy and manpower trying to do that?

Because the human race is a bunch of idiots?

I feel as though the Mooninites have what it takes to be World Police.. They could have a more objective stance toward terrestrial matters

Wouldn't be much different. They would just burn stuff a bit more. Arguably.

I think it is time for the US to give up its role as world policeman...
... Our foreign policy from now on should be "Leave us alone." Let other people deal with their problems; we should not be getting involved and getting ourselves pulled too.

This "Leave us alone" foreign policy was kinda what we were doing until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Not to mention that Japan was like that for hundreds of years till when a couple US Battleships rolled into their ports while they weren't even using muskets. And China was similar till recent times.

Change seems to come by the Generation. And as long as the "World Police wannabes" generation(s) still lives and votes, we would still be going to remote hazardous corners of the world.

It could be argued that America's forgein policy towards Japan, based on Japan's imperialst aggressions towards China and Russia, was the cause of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor.

I think that it's very important to note, concerning World War II, that had the United States not ented into conflict, there could have been a more equitable peace agreement. Instead, we intervened, allowing for the abomination known as the Treaty of Versailles and paving the way for Hitler's rise to power.

I highly doubt that the Treaty of Versailles would have been any less harsh than it was. There were two reasons why it was so harsh - 1-the French had been very badly damaged economically and needed someone to pay for the reconstruction and 2-the British and French Empires had borrowed billions of dollars from the Americans that had to be paid off somehow; the best solution would be to get the Germans to pay the loans off through reparations. Anyway, it would have been much better had Versailles been as harsh as Clemencau wanted it, as Germany would have been broken up.

If the rest of the world could take care of themselves and if our leaders stopped sucking at life I'm sure something could be arranged.

If the rest of the world could take care of themselves and if our leaders stopped sucking at life I'm sure something could be arranged.

Possibly, but we've still got plenty of blowback from the US propping up dodgy tinpot regimes over the past couple of decades still to come, as far as I see it.

Possibly, but we've still got plenty of blowback from the US propping up dodgy tinpot regimes over the past couple of decades still to come, as far as I see it.

Aren't the Russkies also guilty of this?

Aren't the Russkies also guilty of this?

For the most part, yes, as are the perfidious British, but they seem slightly less inclined to attempt to solve the problem by putting in place and then propping up shiny new dodgy tinpot regimes in the stead of the old.

For the most part, yes, as are the perfidious British, but they seem slightly less inclined to attempt to solve the problem by putting in place and then propping up shiny new dodgy tinpot regimes in the stead of the old.

The British collapsed a good 90 years ago... they really don't need to fix anything.

The last I checked, Ireland, India, Australia, South Africa and the rest of their colonies are doing fine.

And Russia? Pish, what have they ever done correctly, much less actually cared about what they do in regards to human life.

The last I checked, Ireland, India, Australia, South Africa and the rest of their colonies are doing fine.

Iraq? Not a colony, as such, but the point remains...

Iraq? Not a colony, as such, but the point remains...

Gee, you're right. The British must have been God awful rulers because one nation out of the many others they've ruled hasn't turned out so good. It's definatly not because Iraq hasn't:

Been through 3 costly wars within it's own boarders while being run by a ruthless dictator who did things like killing his own people.

You loose this one. It's like saying the Allies did a poor job at destroying the 3rd Reich because Operation Market Garden was a failure.

The British collapsed a good 90 years ago... they really don't need to fix anything.

The last I checked, Ireland, India, Australia, South Africa and the rest of their colonies are doing fine.

And Russia? Pish, what have they ever done correctly, much less actually cared about what they do in regards to human life.

Pakistan?

Gee, you're right. The British must have been God awful rulers because one nation out of the many others they've ruled hasn't turned out so good.

Where exactly did I say anything of the sort?

It's definatly not because Iraq hasn't:

Been through 3 costly wars within it's own boarders while being run by a ruthless dictator who did things like killing his own people.

You loose this one. It's like saying the Allies did a poor job at destroying the 3rd Reich because Operation Market Garden was a failure.

Lets cut the rhetoric and hyperbole here - you're arguing that British foreign policy isn't based on short term expediency and that they have no post-WWII history of supporting repressive regimes?

IMO, each region should have it's own designated police.

Americas: US.
Europe: Doesn't really need it, but if need arises, France, Germany and the UK.
Africa: God knows... NATO?
Asia: Closest thing to a viable policeman for Asia is India.
Oceania: Australia.

...

That was a TERRIBLE post. Sorry about that. I was bored, I'm at school.

So can I take that as an endorsement of the US' foreign policy in south america over the past 30 years?

.. a lot of people wouldn't like the though of an all powerful world police force. QFT.

I think it is time for the US to give up its role as world policeman. There is no reason why we should continue to host soldiers in wealthy, industrially advanced countries such as Germany and Japan, or to keep military bases in the Balkans at the behest of powerful lobbyists, or to entangle ourselves in a million other little situations all across the world. All we will attain is wasted money, violence, and hatred towards us. Our foreign policy from now on should be "Leave us alone." Let other people deal with their problems; we should not be getting involved and getting ourselves pulled too. If we have private citizens who want to help, let them do so, and more power to them. But the government should not be trying to fix problems that are outside of its own borders, and should not be in any position that might drag itself into such dilemmas. If we do this, we will never have to worry about being pulled into another debacle like Vietnam, or Somalia, or Iraq ever again.

I agree with the sentiment to a point, but not to the point of becoming isolationist. But most of what you bring up regarding the global need for a "world policeman" should be a job for the U.N. to do, not the U.S. The U.S. HAS a role, but it should be only that of protecting only our own national interests, which should exclude any action we might or might not take either involving being influenced by world opinion or in pandering to same. In matters regarding foreign policy, if we deal fairly with others, most will do the same to us. The only problem is that the U.N. has proven itself to be rather impotent in dealing with international crises, time and time again. Even so, it's not really our problem.

I'd start by insisting that ALL other nations of the world become just as involved in the U.N. processes and mandates, both financially, and militarily, relative to their respective economies. Failing that, then requesting that the U.N. take up residence somewhere else, and withdrawing all support, save that all which other member nations also provide, on average, and as a whole. The U.S. has always borne a disproportionally large financial and military burden of responsibility in the U.N. in the past, and in doing so has eventually led us to a current attitude of international overweening arrogance, feeling that in most cases, if we don't personally do it, it won't ever get done. That's as may be. But it's not up really up to us, in the final analysis. All that has accomplished has to make us a marked target, and in more ways than one. Let the U.N. do it's job and we'll tend our own garden.

In this world where the internet brings us all in touch with one another so intimately, we can truly do more good as individuals, as our own hearts and moral sense may lead us. We should do more of that instead.

The US should retire as world policeman, but it shouldn't go isolationist. We should still work through international organizations for major events and still retain the force projection necessary to intervene anywhere in the world, but our foreign policy should be much less proactive.

proactive

Uhhh...

Invading sovereign nations and occupying them is somehow upbeat?

We can retire when the UN does it's DAMN job right.

Uhhh...

Invading sovereign nations and occupying them is somehow upbeat?

For the people who decide to invade, sure. After all, you usually don't launch an aggressive war unless you want to.

For the people who decide to invade, sure. After all, you usually don't launch an aggressive war unless you want to.



Can I make beating the shit out of my political enemies upbeat?:)

Can I make beating the shit out of my political enemies upbeat?:)

Yeah, it's called propaganda and mass terror. Anyone who's anyone uses it.

Yeah, it's called propaganda and mass terror. Anyone who's anyone uses it.


Cool. I'll make my hitlist now.




1. Anybody that annoys me....That should cover about 99% of the planet.:D

1. Anybody that annoys me....That should cover about 99% of the planet.:D

Remember, it's killing your first million that's the tough part. Once you're past that, you're in the clear. As of now the best dictators in history have only managed to make the eight-digit club, but you should be shooting for the big 100,000,000. It takes a person with vision to set a whole new standard for repression and murder.

Remember, it's killing your first million that's the tough part. Once you're past that, you're in the clear. As of now the best dictators in history have only managed to make the eight-digit club, but you should be shooting for the big 100,000,000. It takes a person with vision to set a whole new standard for repression and murder.



I am up to the challenge. I am shooting to redifine genocide by getting to the unheard of 1,000,000,000 mark! :gundge:

:gundge:

Are you on drugs?



Can I have some?

I am up to the challenge. I am shooting to redifine genocide by getting to the unheard of 1,000,000,000 mark! :gundge:

Hey man, it doesn't hurt to dream. You've got to reach for the stars, even if you get there on a pile of bodies.

Well the U.S have to continue to be seen as the major force in the world otherwise a lot of their economy would go into a heavy slump.

I highly doubt that the Treaty of Versailles would have been any less harsh than it was. There were two reasons why it was so harsh - 1-the French had been very badly damaged economically and needed someone to pay for the reconstruction and 2-the British and French Empires had borrowed billions of dollars from the Americans that had to be paid off somehow; the best solution would be to get the Germans to pay the loans off through reparations. Anyway, it would have been much better had Versailles been as harsh as Clemencau wanted it, as Germany would have been broken up.

France and the UK's backs were against the wall at certain points during the Spring offensive, and after all those years of war it is doubtable that they would have been able to force Germany into a total surrender like they did with the mass of American materiel. No such harsh terms would have been available in the most likely limited victory.

This "Leave us alone" foreign policy was kinda what we were doing until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Not to mention that Japan was like that for hundreds of years till when a couple US Battleships rolled into their ports while they weren't even using muskets. And China was similar till recent times.

What about the Spanish-American War and World War I? Those weren't isolationist. And we were baiting Japan with various restrictions on Japan, especially in things they wanted, such as oil. I'm not saying we should stop trading a la China or Japan- I'm saying we should just stop rushing about tryin to solve the world's problems.

We can retire when the UN does it's DAMN job right.
I think the UN is doing a better job concerning peacekeeping than the US.

France and the UK's backs were against the wall at certain points during the Spring offensive, and after all those years of war it is doubtable that they would have been able to force Germany into a total surrender like they did with the mass of American materiel. No such harsh terms would have been available in the most likely limited victory.
Actually the Germans offensives already was a failure before the Americans arrived en masse.

I think it is time for the US to give up its role as world policeman.

Well ok, but who will replace us? Somebody has to be at the top. We may stick our nose in many areas were we shouldn't, but it could be alot worse. Would you rather Mother Russia police the world?

In Soviet Russia...

nevermind

France and the UK's backs were against the wall at certain points during the Spring offensive, and after all those years of war it is doubtable that they would have been able to force Germany into a total surrender like they did with the mass of American materiel. No such harsh terms would have been available in the most likely limited victory.

And who might I ask would have paid the billions that Britain and France owed to the Americans? The British and French backs may have been against the wall, however, given the passage of sufficient time, they would have won that war without the Americans. The Ottomans were having their asses kicked in the Middle East and they would have been knocked out by 1919; also, the Germans were really feeling the impact of the British Naval Blockade and were only relieved because of Ukrainian grain; grain that would not have lasted a very long time.

Actually the Germans offensives already was a failure before the Americans arrived en masse.

I never said "it was a success." I said that it had endangered Britain and France, and it is doubtable that the British and French would have been able to beat Germany.

Well ok, but who will replace us?

Nobody.

Somebody has to be at the top. We may stick our nose in many areas were we shouldn't, but it could be alot worse. Would you rather Mother Russia police the world?

Good luck trying to get Russia to police the world. They'd have a few nuclear warheads to snack on. Everyone should just keep to themselves and just trade with one another.

And who might I ask would have paid the billions that Britain and France owed to the Americans?

Britain and France. They're the ones that owe the money

The British and French backs may have been against the wall, however, given the passage of sufficient time, they would have won that war without the Americans.

I seriously doubt they would have been able to gain a victory sufficient to push the punitive terms of Versailles, if they would win.

The Ottomans were having their asses kicked in the Middle East and they would have been knocked out by 1919; also, the Germans were really feeling the impact of the British Naval Blockade and were only relieved because of Ukrainian grain; grain that would not have lasted a very long time.

The Russians had been kicked out earlier, so losing the Ottomans would not have been much of a problem to Germany. Even if Germany was faced with starvation, continuing the war would mean more young English and Frenchmen put into the meatgrinder if Germany refused to surrender. They likely would have come to a much more limited peace settlement.

Britain and France. They're the ones that owe the money

So you believe that it was right for the taxpayers of the British and French Empires to pay for a war that they did not even want - Germany attacked France and Belgium (which dragged Britain into the war).

I seriously doubt they would have been able to gain a victory sufficient to push the punitive terms of Versailles, if they would win.

Eventually they would have; and given that the war would have lasted longer, the punitive terms of Versailles would have been even more harsh - it was thanks to the Americans that the German Empire was not broken into smaller countries.

The Russians had been kicked out earlier, so losing the Ottomans would not have been much of a problem to Germany. Even if Germany was faced with starvation, continuing the war would mean more young English and Frenchmen put into the meatgrinder if Germany refused to surrender. They likely would have come to a much more limited peace settlement.

I know the Russians had been kicked out earlier, however, to show you how badly the situation was going for the Germans, they only managed to get near Paris in 1918 before an Allied enslaught (sans the Americans, who had not yet pitched up) pushed them back. Also, with the Ottoman Empire knocked out, the troops that were occupied there would easily have been able to push their way up the Balkans and through Europe. Pushing more young men through the meatgrinder was something that did not bother the governments of the British and French Empires.