If the US wasn't the "policeman of the world" wouldn't someone else be?

I'm in the US and don't really like the empire we have, but wouldn't some other country just start expanding their empire if the US wasn't doing it? Isn't that the way the world has always been?

reply to post by mayabong

The term "World Police" is a gentle euphemism used to confuse us from the real intent of "dominating" the world. To Police the world should mean every country everywhere should it not? It sounds nice because police just serve and protect right? Not bomb and invade other countries the way we have been?

The police don't roll tanks down main street and blow up every town they enter right? And the Army doesn't ride around in patrol cars with flashing lights arresting people in foreign lands for breaking the law does it?

Propaganda term. Like "Friends of Syria" (instead of insurgents or guerrillas). Or Humanitarian Corridors (invasion excuse) and No Fly Zones (only "we" fly zones).

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by mayabong

 

The term "World Police" is a gentle euphemism used to confuse us from the real intent of "dominating" the world. To Police the world should mean every country everywhere should it not? It sounds nice because police just serve and protect right? Not bomb and invade other countries the way we have been?

The police don't roll tanks down main street and blow up every town they enter right? And the Army doesn't ride around in patrol cars with flashing lights arresting people in foreign lands for breaking the law does it?

Propaganda term. Like "Friends of Syria" (instead of insurgents or guerrillas). Or Humanitarian Corridors (invasion excuse) and No Fly Zones (only "we" fly zones).

I believe you are correct about this. But Still the basis of my question was, wouldn't some other country be doing the dominating if it wasn't for the US or would everyone just chill out?

reply to post by mayabong

I believe you are correct about this. But Still the basis of my question was, wouldn't some other country be doing the dominating if it wasn't for the US or would everyone just chill out?

Can't address it because the term is a misnomer. Like The "War on Terror". Can't buy it.
Sorry...

Edit: Oh, I see. You changed the question to would others try to "dominate" the world? Yah unfortunately. History of the world I'm afraid. Just look at all the ruins of ancient "Civilizations". They got too big for their britches too (greedy). They ended up the same way we will if we don't stop it. Empires...

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by mayabong

 

I believe you are correct about this. But Still the basis of my question was, wouldn't some other country be doing the dominating if it wasn't for the US or would everyone just chill out?

Can't address it because the term is a misnomer. Like The "War on Terror". Can't buy it.
Sorry...

Edit: Oh, I see. You changed the question to would others try to "dominate" the world? Yah unfortunately. History of the world I'm afraid. Just look at all the ruins of ancient "Civilizations". They got too big for their britches too (greedy). They ended up the same way we will if we don't stop it. Empires...

edit on 22-4-2012 by intrptr because: additional...

Lol forget the term I said you were right, I should have used "dominating the world" "empire building" whatever.

If the US wasn't dominating the world and expanding their empire, wouldn't another country be spreading their influence?

reply to post by mayabong

If the US wasn't dominating the world and expanding their empire, wouldn't another country be spreading their influence?

Yah. King of the Hill thing, right? So now that we established that, where does that leave us?