Guide for international policy ;)

[As a person who don't have chance to live in a great power, I decided to describe my experience with people who have honour to live in such countries, especially for Americans (but can be useful for other powers let's say Chinese or Russians). Description is loose interpretation of what I was told, also on other forums.

Rules about small countries:
1) If you don't know about small country history it means that it simply don't have any. It just somehow appeared on a map.

2) People living in small countries don't have any feelings or internal politics. They don't rebel about power abuse, corruption or because of big internal quarrel [I was explained so concerning Ukraine]. If they overthrow a gov it means that a foreign power intervened.
(the only documented case in world history where rebellion happened on its own is the US war of independence, in such case French support don't count).

3) There are no low intensity conflict or frozen hostility. If there is a sudden appearance of country in media it means that out of nothing a conflict exploded. Yes, foreign mending.

4) Small countries don't choose their allegiance. They are happy just being someone else football field. It's impossible that local population may have choose one great power above another because of favouring governance model (like democracy) or sharing culture, religion, etc. Anyway, even if tey had any views, its irrelevant because all is determined by zones of influence of big powers, so they should not make mess.

5) If you can't point out any difference between a few nearby countries, then presumably there is no difference. If such countries were to be merged then no one would seriously object, except maybe cartographers.

6) Educated people in small countries, are supposed to judge history in the same way as you do. It applies especially if they took part in the same war, even on different side. It's impossible that they may had different objectives. For example WW2 was a war of good vs. evil, and not as people in East Europe may perceived, 2 totalitarian regimes first jointly together going on a rampage and later against each other with a few other countries caught in crossfire.

7) Acceptable feeling concerning the USA is:
a) admiration of the right to arm bears and far reaching freedom of speech
OR
b) outrage concerning some intervention (at best all)
It's impossible that an outsider ex. consider US political system and freedoms as nothing special (at worst gives his gov slightly better marks in that cathegory), while clearly consider US better as any superpower than any other realistic alternative. Such thing can be said only from ignorance.

a reply to: Shadow1024

May I ask from what country are you?

We Americans are egotistical and arrogant, but we have become the historical peacekeeper nation in our nation's short lifespan. Or is it we force other nations to align themselves with whomever WE feel is acceptable??

I love my country, just not those who administer it.

I would say you need to find new people to talk to about topics that interest you.

Looks to me like you're complaining about stereotyping of small countries by....

....

Using stereotypes.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Shadow1024

May I ask from what country are you?

We Americans are egotistical and arrogant, but we have become the historical peacekeeper nation in our nation's short lifespan. Or is it we force other nations to align themselves with whomever WE feel is acceptable??

I love my country, just not those who administer it.

The US - " the historical peacekeeper nation"?

I assume you have the stats to back that up? Just wondering.

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Shadow1024

May I ask from what country are you?

We Americans are egotistical and arrogant, but we have become the historical peacekeeper nation in our nation's short lifespan. Or is it we force other nations to align themselves with whomever WE feel is acceptable??

I love my country, just not those who administer it.

The US - " the historical peacekeeper nation"?

I assume you have the stats to back that up? Just wondering.

Um...do you like...want the number of times the U.S. has been referred to as "the world's police" and similar phrases? Ball park estimate: a lot.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Shadow1024

May I ask from what country are you?

We Americans are egotistical and arrogant, but we have become the historical peacekeeper nation in our nation's short lifespan. Or is it we force other nations to align themselves with whomever WE feel is acceptable??

I love my country, just not those who administer it.

The US - " the historical peacekeeper nation"?

I assume you have the stats to back that up? Just wondering.

Um...do you like...want the number of times the U.S. has been referred to as "the world's police" and similar phrases? Ball park estimate: a lot.

Okay, out interest, when was the US such a police role? Invasion and regime change does not equate to peacekeeping.

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Shadow1024

May I ask from what country are you?

We Americans are egotistical and arrogant, but we have become the historical peacekeeper nation in our nation's short lifespan. Or is it we force other nations to align themselves with whomever WE feel is acceptable??

I love my country, just not those who administer it.

The US - " the historical peacekeeper nation"?

I assume you have the stats to back that up? Just wondering.

Um...do you like...want the number of times the U.S. has been referred to as "the world's police" and similar phrases? Ball park estimate: a lot.

Okay, out interest, when was the US such a police role? Invasion and regime change does not equate to peacekeeping.

Do some research on the term and why it's been tossed around. I didn't make the term up, and neither did Ultra. I'm not buying into your baiting comments. To try and pretend that the U.S. isn't called the world's police force and any number of other similar terms is ignorant, and im not interested in your game

a reply to: Shamrock6

So in the absence of any statistics to prove the claims, anyone who questions the claims is "ignorant"?

Seems like you do not understand the meaning of the word. Basing claims on zero evidence is the epitome of ignorance.

a reply to: Babushka

I understand the meaning of the word perfectly. In this context, it's applied to the person pretending that the US being referred to as a global peacekeeper of global police force is something that hasn't actually happened who knows how many times.

It's then applied, again, to the person who, upon getting an answer they didn't like, moves the goalposts.

You want to know about how, why, and when the U.S. has performed peacekeeping missions and/or contributed to them, look it up. You found your way to ATS, you can find your way to a search engine. I'm not going to google things for you every time you change the question

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Shadow1024

May I ask from what country are you?

We Americans are egotistical and arrogant, but we have become the historical peacekeeper nation in our nation's short lifespan. Or is it we force other nations to align themselves with whomever WE feel is acceptable??

I love my country, just not those who administer it.

The US - " the historical peacekeeper nation"?

I assume you have the stats to back that up? Just wondering.

Um...do you like...want the number of times the U.S. has been referred to as "the world's police" and similar phrases? Ball park estimate: a lot.

Dude the term "world police" is not meant as a compliment

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Babushka

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Shadow1024

May I ask from what country are you?

We Americans are egotistical and arrogant, but we have become the historical peacekeeper nation in our nation's short lifespan. Or is it we force other nations to align themselves with whomever WE feel is acceptable??

I love my country, just not those who administer it.

The US - " the historical peacekeeper nation"?

I assume you have the stats to back that up? Just wondering.

Um...do you like...want the number of times the U.S. has been referred to as "the world's police" and similar phrases? Ball park estimate: a lot.

Dude the term "world police" is not meant as a compliment

I know. That's why there was a movie called "Team America World Police."

Doesn't mean it, and "peacekeeper," aren't tossed around regularly

a reply to: Babushka

Seriously...? i recommend you take up the sport of kite flying...

a reply to: Ultralight

?

You seem to think the the US is some grand sort of peacemaker in world affairs. Another person says the US is the world's policeman.

All I am asking is evidence to support this. It seems to me that rather than being a "peacekeeper" the US is more of a provocateur. Some (many) would say "terrorist".

Another person remarked that the term "world's policeman" is not a good name. In fact it is used in joking manner, to sort of point a finger at and laugh at US claims of moral superiority.

The term, "world's policeman" can be derived from US actions in intervening in overseas countries, such as VietNam, Grenada, Korea, and elsewhere, primarily to shore-up US influence in countries under direct Communist threat. The apportionment of the title was supposed to indicate that the US could send it's forces anywhere to police the political and military aspect of target countries.

This aggressive posture of policing other countries meant that rather than acting in a peaceful or even a peacekeeping manner the US acts in a provocative and offensive manner that invariably results in calamitous loss of civilian lives and massive infrastructure destruction.

Rather than policing or peacekeeping, US forces have been the opposite.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah and the police state is about brutality.
second line

Don't for get the French revolution which was in part caused by France's financial and military backing of the US revolution. I've never really understood why the French Aristocracy would do such a thing - just to get back at England perhaps, but the austerity (hmmm) imposed on the commons to do it surely helped in lighting the fuse of revolution in France.

WOW!!
are these the Russian trolls ive been hearing about?

a reply to: Shadow1024

I would propose to you...oh good person that I presume thee to be. I say.... that the little countries have great power !! And the world would have been given over to unbridled chaos long ago if not for you. Your people in there simplicity of life and steadfast stability on a base level has helped stabilize the entire globe as we are all interconnected on a base energy level. We need to each do our own part to help bring peace and stability to the earth. But as a collective the people of small countries contribute greatly.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Shadow1024

May I ask from what country are you?

We Americans are egotistical and arrogant, but we have become the historical peacekeeper nation in our nation's short lifespan. Or is it we force other nations to align themselves with whomever WE feel is acceptable??

I love my country, just not those who administer it.

Honestly? Depends on region - not only in my country, but also in the most CE Europe the USA has got very good image. (which means actually fulfilling the role that you mentioned). Usually actually better image than West European countries because of uncompromising stances during cold war. A more problematic thing is in South America / Middle East.

I don't accuse of imperialism. Think about Yalta Conference. Can you say that those small countries mattered?

originally posted by: Babushka
a reply to: Ultralight

?

You seem to think the the US is some grand sort of peacemaker in world affairs. Another person says the US is the world's policeman.

All I am asking is evidence to support this. It seems to me that rather than being a "peacekeeper" the US is more of a provocateur. Some (many) would say "terrorist".

Another person remarked that the term "world's policeman" is not a good name. In fact it is used in joking manner, to sort of point a finger at and laugh at US claims of moral superiority.

The term, "world's policeman" can be derived from US actions in intervening in overseas countries, such as VietNam, Grenada, Korea, and elsewhere, primarily to shore-up US influence in countries under direct Communist threat. The apportionment of the title was supposed to indicate that the US could send it's forces anywhere to police the political and military aspect of target countries.

This aggressive posture of policing other countries meant that rather than acting in a peaceful or even a peacekeeping manner the US acts in a provocative and offensive manner that invariably results in calamitous loss of civilian lives and massive infrastructure destruction.

Rather than policing or peacekeeping, US forces have been the opposite.

Point "7 b)" Good that you keep within the model.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Shadow1024

May I ask from what country are you?

We Americans are egotistical and arrogant, but we have become the historical peacekeeper nation in our nation's short lifespan. Or is it we force other nations to align themselves with whomever WE feel is acceptable??

I love my country, just not those who administer it.

The peacekeeper role is an interesting one. We don't do it for free. When the US moves into a nation to fight a battle, they extract certain diplomatic concessions. Mostly, they guarantee government/corporate contracts. Peace keeping may be a noble goal, but all too often we instead act as the predatory lender that props up a a corrupt system the people reject, while taking the role of the protection man.

It may be a necessary part of being a major power or a super power, but It is anything but altruistic.