What would happen if America withdrew troops globally?

Worked out so well in Bosnia.

@Booyeah: Bosnia was a hell pit and if the usual "gung-ho" US policy was deployed, that conflict would still be raging to this day

I agree, the US military is being used more as a jobs program and corporate welfare.

@Booyeah: The UN did step in to intervene and probably shortened teh conflict. If we are looking for one-off examples then Rwanda is the one where the UN failed the most.

Now obviously I can point to many interventions and 'policings' by the US which have done anything but create peace. Iraq, Vietnam, Syria...

The US has preferred regimes and wants too much power. The UN acts as a balancing force so is clearly the better option.

@room101: "Bosnia was a hell pit"

As if that somehow makes it unique in the world?

"if the usual "gung-ho" US policy was deployed, that conflict would still be raging to this day"

It was US policy that ended it, nice try though.

@Burnley123: The UN doesn't have much real power though... And depends on other nations cooperation and military might.

@Booyeah: US and NATO peacekeepers are not know for their "gung-ho" tactics. or did you miss that part of my comment.

did i say that Bosnia was unique? maybe i need to brush up on my 'Murican

@MarsSword: [quote]The UN doesn't have much real power though... And depends on other nations cooperation and military might.[/quote]

No it doesn't have much power but my point is that it should. The fact that it relies on cooperation is a good thing.

@MarsSword: i agree. one of the main problems with the UN is exactly that, it's little more than a paper tiger.

@Niburu: [quote]I agree, the US military is being used more as a jobs program and corporate welfare.[/quote]

Typical f***ing libertarian.

You are not wrong but its funny that you care more about the MIC being Big Government than you do about it bombing people.

@Burnley123: would not reducing the size of the US military to a defensive force result in much less bombing?

The saved money could be better spent (or not)on civil infrastructure and big ole border wall with autocannons and lazers, and stuff.

@Niburu: Of course, you are not wrong. Socialists hate the MIC too.

@lacsar: [quote]i want us to bomb people.......bombing works[/quote]

This just doesn't go far enough.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1mlCPMYtPk]

Now that is more like it.

@lacsar: Bombing only works in very specific circumstances and has a high cost. Bombing only works with valid targets and an enemy that can be conventionally defeated. The problem with counter terrorism operations is that it isn't an enemy that can be conventionally defeated.

As to the nuclear weapons used in World War II that is a terrible example in that it was very specific circumstances and ideologies that combined to make it effective.

@MarsSword: i don't think that "effective" would be the word that i would use.

many WWII analysts and historians suggest that the main reason why nuclear bombs were used against Japan was not to defeat the Japanese because they had already lost. they were used to show Russia that the West (specifically America) had beaten them in the race to make nuclear weapons and, more importantly, would use them.

@room101: Okay, so now we are moving in another direction of discussion. But I am okay with that.

I think that effective was the right word. There is debate about it, and to be honest I am not sure we will ever know the full truth about it. However, from my own historical studies into the events that took place I find it quite rational to believe that the Japanese were not going to surrender before that. For America to defeat the Japanese there had to be a conclusion to the war. The longer the war lagged on the more casualties both sides suffered. The alternative to dropping the Atomic bombs was land invasion. Which as was seen at other Japanese island outposts cost thousands of Allied lives and almost all the Japanese lives. It comes down to the military culture of Japan and their resistance to surrender, and their ideology that lead to fighting to the last man.

The idea that the bomb was purely to show the Russians is (I think) unfounded as the Russians certainly would have been aware of other tests and their results. That they would use them is another matter... But I still think that the primary purpose of the use of the atomic weapons against the Japanese was to show overwhelming force and that resistance was useless and that there would not be a land invasion that could be resisted. Thus ending the war without said land invasion and in the long run saving American and Japanese lives.

@MarsSword: i can't disagree with any thing that you've said. i mentioned the alternative (pun very much intended given current politics lol) theory as a sort of counterpoint.

my issue with the word "effective" is simply in its usage in the context of weapons of mass destruction. it just doesn't sit well with me i'm afraid.

@room101: Effective does not pass a moral judgement and is very much attached to context. Atomic weapons are undeniably very effective devices of destruction.

In terms of their application in Japan, the desired result was the surrender of Japan, which was achieved, making them effective.

But I understand what you mean. They are horrible and the impact is long lasting and devastating.

@MarsSword:

"the impact is long lasting and devastating"

exactly

@room101: And effective at devastating...