It makes more sense if you view america as a police officer. An officer would pull sometimes his weapon to prevent bad things from happening but the officer would never take the suspect as his personal slave like russia.
>It makes more sense if you view america as a police officer.
That's an absolutely insane comparison.
Police are funded from your taxes to protect you. Countries haven't paid taxes tot he US to come invade/drone strike them.
In your country, do police officers from other countries routinely break into your house to tear it up, steal your shit and beat you up for doing nothing? Sounds more like criminals than police.
In all seriousness, America does not pull their weapon to prevent bad things from happening (or at least, not primarily).
The US primarily works through Nato and the UN to intervene in their 'world police' role, but they are happy to start other conflicts without the support of Nato and the UN (see Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, ~~Korea~~).
If the US were really the 'world police', then where were they in Rwanda, in Sudan, in North Korea, in Sri Lanka, in Nigeria, in Myanmar, in DRC, in Ethopia, what are they doing for the Uyghurs, the Rohingyas...
EDIT: see correction from OfSanguineFire, I was wrong about Korea, which was indeed a UN-led intervention.
The US involvement in the Korean War was organized under the nascent UN.[0] "During the course of the war, 22 nations contributed military or medical personnel to UN Command. Although the United States led the UNC and provided the bulk of its troops and funding, all participants formally fought under the auspices of the UN, with the operation classified as a 'UN-led police action'."
So invading and bombing other countries is now fine as long as you don't annex them? Good to know that's how far the goalposts have moved.