Why is America always the UN's policeman?

[snipaw26]

Doesn't it seem that every time the UN needs some muscle applied that America is called on to be the police?

[Juan.Camaney]

Not for long. Those pussies thing strongly worded letters actually do something. The US military is too underfunded/in debt right now.

[Krasch]

Doesn't it seem that every time the UN needs some muscle applied that America is called on to be the police?
The answer is because no one else has the muscle to do the job.

The US has the best equipped, best trained, most numerous military anywhere overall.

Canada, for example, for all it's rep as the peacekeepers of the world, has ancient equipment, barely enough material for training, and not enough people. The real reason we didn't join the Iraq war on Day One wasn't that we didn't necessarily want to. Quite the contrary, most Canadians supported the war at the time as we were already knee deep with the US in Afghanistan, but we simply lack the sufficient numbers to handle two wars at once with only about 6000 people in uniform, one tenth of what it was in WWII. We may make due amazingly well given what we have, but you can only scrape the butter so thin on one piece of toast.

[supersatch]

Don't forget most expirenced (save maybe Israel) We always have our hand in something. No matter how small, once every ten years or so. 2001- OEF, 1991, Desert Storm, 1983-Gernada (amongst other spec ops missions), 1973- Vietnam is ending from it's begining in 1965, 1953- Korea, 1945 World War II, and it pretty much stops there but you see what I'm getting at.

They're gonna have to work without us for awhile though. I heard on the BBC when I was in Kuwait that they wanted to go back into Somalia. Did they do it, or are they still thinking about it?

[snipaw26]

They haven't gone back into Somalia. What I find interesting is how all these countries that haven't voiced an opinion on terrorism all of a sudden want the US and their allies to come save their shipping. Where have they been for the last few years?

[joerockhead]

I will say that Canada, the UK and Aussies do help as much as they can.

They have extremely small military budgets, and numbers of people available, so they are very limited. But you will see many more of them staying after the messy part helping clean up and keep the peace.

The US is the most powerful (may be changing in the next few years) and just about the largest military power (China is about to eclipse us) in the world, and for the most part, we do try to stay impartial. Until our Government gets involved with the control. That is where thing get screwed up. Politicians ( both parties ) always screw things up.

I know we are supposed to expand the army by 50k member's in the next few years, but that will not happen. The US Army is struggling getting it enlistment number's for the current limits, how will they fill another 50k?

However, the US should still provide support to the UN as much as it can. We have everything, we have more then almost any other nations. We have the responsibility to help.

[supersatch]

I know we are supposed to expand the army by 50k member's in the next few years, but that will not happen. The US Army is struggling getting it enlistment number's for the current limits, how will they fill another 50k?

Really? That's odd because the Marine Corps is trying to get smaller. Where did you read that?

The army always has a problem with enlistment. That's why they are always lowering their standards. Because of that they'e now having a gang problem because they're not screening members closely enough.

[zpr]

Really? That's odd because the Marine Corps is trying to get smaller. Where did you read that?

The army always has a problem with enlistment. That's why they are always lowering their standards. Because of that they'e now having a gang problem because they're not screening members closely enough.


When I went in in '97, I had to send pictures of all my tattoos with a detailed explanation of their meaning to CID. Once they approved them as non gang affiliated, I could enlist. When I was in basic training, there were a few people with gang related tattoos that said they never had to send anything. The quality of recruits still has a lot to do with the recruiter doing their job right.

[supersatch]

yeah, you're right. I'm being unfair. it really does come down to the recruiter. It also makes a difference that I was a war time enlistment. That puts a strain on recruting across the board.

They are having a gang problem though. They have also loosen their asvab scores amongst others.

[snipaw26]

How low should we set the ASVAB level?

[supersatch]

I really don't know enough about the tests to make a decision on that. I do know that if you get under 30 you need to join because burger flipper is about your key intelligence level.

[snipaw26]

I have a friend who scored a 15 on the ASVAB. Since the minimum is in the 20s to get in the Army I told him "You do realize that with a score like that you aren't even qualified to open a #10 can of green beans in the Army?".
I was a Navy recruiter for three years. The lowest I ever saw by someone who was trying was 6. The highest was 98.

[supersatch]

I thought you said you were in the army.

[fmb]

They haven't gone back into Somalia. What I find interesting is how all these countries that haven't voiced an opinion on terrorism all of a sudden want the US and their allies to come save their shipping. Where have they been for the last few years?
Bitching about the US having our fingers into everything. Most people (and countries) bitch when they don't need you for something.

ASVAB scores? I think the score should depend on the MOS for the branch you desire. Want to hump a SAW around all day? Score X. Want to work on advanced radar systems on an AEGIS destroyer? Score Y. Operate a bulldozer? Score Z.

Gang involvement within our services was an inevitability. Gang numbers have soared in recent years, despite the half-assed attempt from communities and the police. Having a gang member on the front line isn't a big deal; having an experienced, combat trained gang member back in the neighborhood is a big deal.

[supersatch]

Bitching about the US having our fingers into everything. Most people (and countries) bitch when they don't need you for something.

ASVAB scores? I think the score should depend on the MOS for the branch you desire. Want to hump a SAW around all day? Score X. Want to work on advanced radar systems on an AEGIS destroyer? Score Y. Operate a bulldozer? Score Z.

Gang involvement within our services was an inevitability. Gang numbers have soared in recent years, despite the half-assed attempt from communities and the police. Having a gang member on the front line isn't a big deal; having an experienced, combat trained gang member back in the neighborhood is a big deal.

Jobs are rated with minimum ASVAB scores. However there is still a level if you score below you're not even allowed in. That's what we were talking about.

It's not so much that it wouldn't happen with gangs in the service. You have to think about rival gangs in the service, trained and given weapons and sent out on patrol together. Not only would they be a danger to each other but anyone else in their unit.

Not that I'm saying that your reason is a bad one. It's one of the primary reasons for screening. However, while there in the service they are also a threat. About a year or two back, there was an incident in Japan where a Marine was trying to join a gang and his initiation was to kill one of his friends. He stabbed the guy like 11 times and threw him into a sewage ditch. Gang violence doesn't stop while they're getting "training."

[fmb]

Very thoughtful and true comments, supersatch. I was thinking more along the lines of the bastard returning to the community. The unarmed (mostly) neighborhood and less well trained and armed police would have to deal with him. Personally, I think the gangbangers pass on some of the lessons from battle and battlefield training to gangmembers that have not enlisted.

You are right. It is much better for everyone if gang members are not allowed into our services.

[supersatch]

I do see your point, and like I said, I think it's one of the main driving points behind the screening. I can only imagine how police would react when a gang breaks into squad rushes laying down suppressing fire!

"Okay, I want the glocks over here, the prison shanks over here, and the guys with the broken bottles of colt 45 over here. Also, this time make sure you wear your ballistic wife beaters and do-rags, okay?"

[MaxZorin]

Doesn't it seem that every time the UN needs some muscle applied that America is called on to be the police?

I don´t want to be rude with anyone on this forum, i respect every opinion so if you read my post i hope you respect it and don´t get mad with me or ban me. After that, here´s my answer:
Because America lives of war. Please admit it, every single war in the 20 century was in some way carried with America, because Bankers wins a lot of profit with sending troops, destabilizing zones, increasing the price of the oil, the gas, approving Constitution modifications, etc, etc. In every war you america have joines, there was always a fake reason to get involved, Gulf of Tomkin in Vietnam, Pear Harbour in WW2, sinking of the Virginia in WW1, in fact, the independence of America wasn´t about the tea it was all about because England was getting mad of you because you was loaning money without interest and in a totally different currency from the one that used the Queen.
If you don´t believe what i say, please check a very underground movie called Zeitgeist, and also check "Why We Fight". Those films represents a very different view of why America always get involved in armed conflicts.
As a corollary, if any of you are in the position of choosing between going or not to war, please think on every single trooper that are going to die in those far places, away from their families, friends, and also away from the country they swear to defend until their death. After you have thought of those guys, then you can chose if going on war is worthwhile.
Again, my apologies to anyone who could get annoyed or disturbed with my post, it´s only humble opinion.

[Juan.Camaney]

Don't appologize, guy. It was a good reply and I've seen those movies you talk about. But there are many more wars than those in which the United States gets involved in. The US only gets inolved if we have political and financial interests in it.

[gemo]

America aways looks out for number 1(ourselves). There is absolutley nothing wrong with that.
So what if we start wars or get involved around the world, as long as there's a chichen in every pot and I can afford to drive to work every day.

[ryster]

I don´t want to be rude with anyone on this forum, i respect every opinion so if you read my post i hope you respect it and don´t get mad with me or ban me. After that, here´s my answer:
Because America lives of war. Please admit it, every single war in the 20 century was in some way carried with America, because Bankers wins a lot of profit with sending troops, destabilizing zones, increasing the price of the oil, the gas, approving Constitution modifications, etc, etc. In every war you america have joines, there was always a fake reason to get involved, Gulf of Tomkin in Vietnam, Pear Harbour in WW2, sinking of the Virginia in WW1, in fact, the independence of America wasn´t about the tea it was all about because England was getting mad of you because you was loaning money without interest and in a totally different currency from the one that used the Queen.
If you don´t believe what i say, please check a very underground movie called Zeitgeist, and also check "Why We Fight". Those films represents a very different view of why America always get involved in armed conflicts.
As a corollary, if any of you are in the position of choosing between going or not to war, please think on every single trooper that are going to die in those far places, away from their families, friends, and also away from the country they swear to defend until their death. After you have thought of those guys, then you can chose if going on war is worthwhile.
Again, my apologies to anyone who could get annoyed or disturbed with my post, it´s only humble opinion.

Heh, your over-modesty makes it hard to be critical of your opinion. Also, I think some of your historical facts are a little backwards if not outright wrong. I mean, the American Revolution was certainly not fought so that we could print our own currency.

But I think we all need to accept that every major power in the world has a history of war. It's only in the past decades that most major powers have tried to take the 'high ground' and stop pushing their territories outwards. Even at that, many countries still attempt such imperialistic expansion. And on the flipside, every powerful country has something that another country wants, whether it be land, water, resources or population. War is a fundamental aspect of human nature, and you are kidding yourself if you believe that America is the only one involved.

We are certainly involved in a lot more wars than most countries, but I don't think that means much. We have been the leading power in the would for many years, partly because of our basic expansive nature, but mostly because our flexible economy can bend and adapt to just about any thing fate can send its way. This means that many countries (even the major European powers) often request if not demand our aid. Furthermore, America spends many times more resources on humanitarian and other non-combat operations abroad. If you factor all that in, we really aren't that much more war-prone than any other country.

I suppose the exception is our take on National Security. Being arguably the leading power on Earth, we always have something being plotted against us. And we take a proactive approach towards it, meaning we often act before any serious actions have been taken against us. Being an American myself, I don't really have a problem with this, but I can certainly see why others might.

[ryster]

Man who the fuck neg repped me. What the fuck did I do. At least have the courtesy to respond thoughtfully. I mean, I don't always agree with people, and sometimes I think the things they post are outright in-fucking-sane. But I respect when people put thought and time into there posts, and I try to do the same. That's why a lot of people get rep from me regardless of their opinion.

I mean, this is the internet, but a negative rep, and you don't even bother to reply? Damn that pisses me off.
:gtfo: