Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
You can click here then.Sander said:
Iraq anyone? or North Korea?
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
Lived Through the Heat Death
welsh
Junkmaster
Well, I think when you consider nuclear weapons you have to be able to distinguish them as tactical (look how many tanks I can blow up) with strategic (if I threaten to dust moscow, will the russians do anything if I give guns to muslim extremists in their southern regions).
That the great powers if two smaller countries start playing throw the nuke at each other, I am not sure. In the middle east, yes. If North Korea launched a strike on Japan, I think we could probably say that the only thing capable of growing in North Korea would be mutant lizards/Godzilla.
In Southern Asia, probably. But if so, exactly what. The US did intervene to try to settle down the Indians and Pakistanis when they started sabre rattling.
But I am not sure how far the US can go, or would be willing to go to stop or prevent a Pakistani-Indian war. I am even less confident of what any other nuclear "status quo" power might. I can't see either the French or the British making that much of a difference, never mind either Russia or CHina. And the Rogue states? They would probably welcome new business.
That the great powers if two smaller countries start playing throw the nuke at each other, I am not sure. In the middle east, yes. If North Korea launched a strike on Japan, I think we could probably say that the only thing capable of growing in North Korea would be mutant lizards/Godzilla.
In Southern Asia, probably. But if so, exactly what. The US did intervene to try to settle down the Indians and Pakistanis when they started sabre rattling.
But I am not sure how far the US can go, or would be willing to go to stop or prevent a Pakistani-Indian war. I am even less confident of what any other nuclear "status quo" power might. I can't see either the French or the British making that much of a difference, never mind either Russia or CHina. And the Rogue states? They would probably welcome new business.
Ancient Oldie
Still Mildly Glowing
Kharn said:
I agree with you on the fact that the EU is growing in power, but their are many EU and other European countries that don't hold the same views on Iraq as France does. In fact, France has threatened several eastern and central european countries that they wouldn't be allowed into the EU if they didn't change their views on Iraq. Here's an article I found about it:
Chirac Upsets East Europe by Telling It to 'Shut Up' on Iraq
I personally think that by doing this, France and Germany are putting their own agenda ahead of that of the rest of the EU. This irresponsible use of power can lead to instability within the EU structure.
Kharn said:
I specifically mentioned that the welfare of the Iraqi people wasn't the main reason that the US invaded, but out of fear of Sadam Hussein's regime, his WMD's and our own long term security. Why is it that we didn't invade Iraq pre-911, we could've made just as strong a case and gotten our share of the pie back then?
Secondly, the US didn't bash the UN aside. They wanted to initially go in with the UN. However, it was obvious that France and Germany weren't ever going to let this happen. That's why they don't want the UN to lead Iraq now and have France and Germany pull the same sort of crap again.
Kharn said:
And isn't that a flaw within the UN system, the fact that they would let a major violator of human rights lead the human rights commission.
Plus, if my memory serves me correctly, the US was ejected from the human rigths commission.
Kharn said:
But it shouldn't often be a passive stance, which is what I'm trying to get at. Ratty and I pointed out several occasions where the ousting of the dictator would definitely be better in the long run. I think what you are trying to get at is that it would look like a major abuse of power by the top countries of the world for eliminating these scumbags. And in many of these situations, its both for the best of that countries citizens and the world in the long-run that they are removed.
Kharn said:
Well, if you can explain to me what other motivation, other than greed, drove France and Russia to build nuclear reactors in some of the biggest hot spots around the globe, then I might change my mind...
Sander said:
He let it be known that he would be willing to use nukes on Isreal, which is why Isreal attacked their reactor. Few actually believed that Hitler would actually carry out what he prposed to do in "Mein Kampf", and history has proven otherwise. You just can't assume that these brutal dictators are only eating shit and sabre rattling because it can lead to disastrous results.
Sander said:
The UN was supervising North Korea until they decided that they didn't need supervision anymore... now look at the situation currently on hand...
Ancient Oldie
Still Mildly Glowing
As for the second picture of Rumsfield, that was taken back in 1983 after over 200 marines were killed by Iran and Reagan asked Rumsfield to be a special envoy to Iraq...
You can read up some more on that here
Also, it wasn't the US that helped build Israel's nuclear reactor and therefore kick start their nuclear program, but the french. The US really didn't have a stance on the subject, neither supporting nor condoning their program. Here's another interesting article on the subject.
You can read up some more on that here
Also, it wasn't the US that helped build Israel's nuclear reactor and therefore kick start their nuclear program, but the french. The US really didn't have a stance on the subject, neither supporting nor condoning their program. Here's another interesting article on the subject.
Yes, he let it be known, while still had the support of the US government for what he had been doing. As soon as that support dropped and he got attacked, he knew that he shouldn't be doing it again.
Hitler's position was completely different, the politics of GB and France were "Prevent war." They let Hitler do whatever he wanted, and that is why he could do what he did. Perhaps the appeasement politics were only bad in hindsight, however, they never sent a clear message to Hitler "Stop. We'll completely destroy you if you do this." which is what DID happen with Hussein.
As for North-Korea, what IS the situation on hand. Basically, North-Korea has become a nuclear power. That is all that has happened, again, Kim Jong Il(Or whatever) isn't that stupid that he thinks he can get away with firing those missiles....
As for France and Russia being greedy, you have NO right to speak. The USA is AT LEAST as greedy. The fact that they built nuclear reactors has NOTHING to do with the war in Iraw, it just illustrates the fact that they want money and power. EVERY country wants money and power.
Why did the USA not invade Iraq before 9/11? One word
reparations.
The US DID throw aside the UN. All they did was "Right, let's see if the UN agrees with us. If so, good, if not, we don't need those powerless mongrels."
Tell me how that is not thrwing aside....
Hitler's position was completely different, the politics of GB and France were "Prevent war." They let Hitler do whatever he wanted, and that is why he could do what he did. Perhaps the appeasement politics were only bad in hindsight, however, they never sent a clear message to Hitler "Stop. We'll completely destroy you if you do this." which is what DID happen with Hussein.
As for North-Korea, what IS the situation on hand. Basically, North-Korea has become a nuclear power. That is all that has happened, again, Kim Jong Il(Or whatever) isn't that stupid that he thinks he can get away with firing those missiles....
As for France and Russia being greedy, you have NO right to speak. The USA is AT LEAST as greedy. The fact that they built nuclear reactors has NOTHING to do with the war in Iraw, it just illustrates the fact that they want money and power. EVERY country wants money and power.
Why did the USA not invade Iraq before 9/11? One word
reparations.The US DID throw aside the UN. All they did was "Right, let's see if the UN agrees with us. If so, good, if not, we don't need those powerless mongrels."
Tell me how that is not thrwing aside....
Ancient Oldie said:
Agreed, but we're not discussing if France or Germany are doing right by acting the way they do, the point was that they're relevant powers because of the situation.
They were backed by most of the EU, by the way, and opposed by a lot of still-to-become-members, who're torn between the US and the EU.
Kharn said:
No incentive. 9-11 was actually the trigger which started the ball rolling. If the US could just attack Afghanistan, why not Iraq? I doubt Iraq would've happened (like this) without 9-11.
Nonsense, the US stated up ahead that "they would only move with a UN resolution backing them up if such a resolution was made, but they'd move anyway", as Sander stated.
The situation wasn't hopeless. Some better politics might well have gotten the UN moving. This was just nonsense and show-politics. "Let's ask them-oh they disagree let's move'
Yes, and I suppose it'll be put under scrutiny
Really?
Yeah, I know. I suppose when it comes to that I do support a kind of fortification of the UN. Destroying it is wrong, though, and changing it drastically is wrong too.
You see, the only way to make the UN more agressive is to create a lesser spread of power. This is what's happening in the EU, the EU can be assertive because most countries just follow France and Germany, this'd be true for the UN if all countries just followed the permanent members, but I hope you can see the problem with this.
I don't see any other realistic way the UN could really become more assertive.
What Sander said. If you insist on referring to them as the greedy four, please also refer to the US as the greedy one, thanks.
First of all, I completely agree with everything Ancient Oldie wrote. The information about France and Germany having valuable contracts with Saddam's regime is new to me, and it confirms what I always thought of Europe - that all European leaders are a bunch of arrogant hipocrites who care about nothing but their own interests. They have shown this many times over, but it was most obvious during the horrors of the war in Croatia and Bosnia. Instead of supporting (completely just) attempts of enslaved nations in Yugoslavia to secede from the opressive dictatorship, they chose to ignore everything that happened, hoping that Yugoslavia would survive. When things got out of hand and Serbs started killing everybody, UK and France openly supported Miloshevich's plan to conquer Croatia and create the "Great Serbia". In the beginning of 1992, eight months after the war started, Vatican broke the silence and acknowledged sovereign and independent Croatia. Then Germany did the same, and in May Croatia became a member of UN. International powers force boths sides to sign a truce, and UN troops are sent to preserve this truce and disarm both sides. They failed to fulfill either of these tasks. And I remind you, this was more than one year after the war began (and it began in April 1991). During this year, 15 000 Croats, mostly civilians, were killed, entire cities and villages were completely detroyed, old and valuable monuments, buildings and national parks were in ruins, and on top of that, thousands of refugees started flooding into Croatia from Bosnia (where war started in April 1992). This all could have been prevented if foreign powers used their authority and influence to stop the conflict from escalating. Instead, they decided it was easier to ignore what went on in their own backyard, hoping Serbia would win the war and preserve Yugoslavia. If that had to happen at cost of 10 or 100 thousand innocent lives, who cares?
Secondly, I'd like to point out that in case a desperate dictator like Saddam or Kim Jong II uses weapons of mass destruction against USA or one of its allies, Americans won't hesitate to respond with same means. US army devised the following plan: if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons against US troops, they would destroy Baghdad with nuclear weapons. It may have been nothing but misinformation intended to scare the shit out of Hussein, but it could also mean that countless nukes world's last superpower posseses are here for more than just show. Whatever the case, I doubt North Korea and Iran would risk complete annihilation for a brief display of power.
Secondly, I'd like to point out that in case a desperate dictator like Saddam or Kim Jong II uses weapons of mass destruction against USA or one of its allies, Americans won't hesitate to respond with same means. US army devised the following plan: if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons against US troops, they would destroy Baghdad with nuclear weapons. It may have been nothing but misinformation intended to scare the shit out of Hussein, but it could also mean that countless nukes world's last superpower posseses are here for more than just show. Whatever the case, I doubt North Korea and Iran would risk complete annihilation for a brief display of power.
Vikingsoldat
First time out of the vault
I hope the US does not touch North Korea because I dont wanna get wasted.
...
Seriously, Ratty, how freaking conspiracy-theory like can you actually be?
Please.
1) Could you please stop referring to Germany, France and the UK as "Europe". It's just not right, they aren't Europe, and they don't dictate what Europe does. Countries still decide what they do on their own, countries decide their own stance on conflicts, perhaps INFLUENCED by UK, FRance or Germany but certainly not DICTATED by them.
2) So, countries are just interested in their own selves? Wow, what news.. Seriously, a country is always interested in itself, that's just logical.
I won't comment too much on the war with Croatia, since I am uninformed about it, however, I will state that it wasn't their war, in any way, no treaties, no effects on their own country, so there was no reason, other than peace-preserving,. to get involved in that conflict. Beyond that, it was also more or less a civil-war, so it was internal, and not external. I don't see France helping the UK to battle the IRA either...
You know what else? That stuff happened ten years ago(The parts you're talking about now), so seriously, get over it. Yes, it's terrible, but past actions do NOT dictate future actions.
Seriously, Ratty, how freaking conspiracy-theory like can you actually be?
Please.
1) Could you please stop referring to Germany, France and the UK as "Europe". It's just not right, they aren't Europe, and they don't dictate what Europe does. Countries still decide what they do on their own, countries decide their own stance on conflicts, perhaps INFLUENCED by UK, FRance or Germany but certainly not DICTATED by them.
2) So, countries are just interested in their own selves? Wow, what news.. Seriously, a country is always interested in itself, that's just logical.
I won't comment too much on the war with Croatia, since I am uninformed about it, however, I will state that it wasn't their war, in any way, no treaties, no effects on their own country, so there was no reason, other than peace-preserving,. to get involved in that conflict. Beyond that, it was also more or less a civil-war, so it was internal, and not external. I don't see France helping the UK to battle the IRA either...
You know what else? That stuff happened ten years ago(The parts you're talking about now), so seriously, get over it. Yes, it's terrible, but past actions do NOT dictate future actions.
welsh
Junkmaster
Sander said:
I think the problem with conspiracy theory is that often its over deterministic. It wants to make sense of the world under unified systems, seeking out to trace causal relationships where perhaps none exists. By anticipating conspiracy, the conspiracy theorist tends to look for it. Essentially the way you think of the world shapes the way in which you choose to see it. Sometimes the evidence is sketchy, sometimes the relationships don't exist. Perhaps the world is more complex and sometimes random things just happen and people make mistakes.
That said, I would hestiate a bit before being too hard on the conspiracy theorists.
There are basically two ways of looking at this. One highlights the freedom of individual units (in this case states) in the other we think about their constraints. Ideally we combine the two. Yes there are a lot of European independent states, but we must also consider the constraints they face. It is possible that these countries, regardless of their legal independence may have less choice than they wish. The greater your constraints the less your freedom.
Countries, take as a concept, is a black box with lots of things going on inside.
Countries are, in a way, constructs. They don't breath, they don't walk. They are comprised of people and people have different levels of power within that country. The higher you climb the pyramid of power the fewer people you usually find. SO yes, a country is always interested in itself, but there are within that country people of different degrees of power that determine what that is that country's best interest that shape its policy.
Ideally in democratic governance you have more control to the mass population (but then you have to watch out for special interest). In a dictatorship, the power is more centralized.
But always one should speculate as to what those in power really want and why?
You do realize that you are talking about what has historically been the "tinderbox" of Europe, a place where culture notions tend to collide.
Those who fail to learn the past are apt to repeat the same mistakes in the future. Regardless of the course of European events, those that took place in the Balkans hail back to those at the beginning of the century. They will probably not go away anytime too soon in our life time.
Yugoslavia was also a test of European leadership to take care of matters in its own backyard. Worthwhile lessons should be learned.
Finally, its a good case for understanding what major powers can and cannot do. For example, (and here one for you Ratty) a private company MPRI, based in Arlington VA, but composed of mostly DOD vets were hired to train the Croatian army and has often been hailed as critical to the success of the Croatians in getting rid of Serbian forces, essentially turning the tide of the war. MPRI gets almost all its contract work from the US government but is a private company.
Why a private company? Because private companies are often beyond the review of political authorities. Also a private company insulates the government if bad things happen.
But I would be careful with the North Koreans. They have been known to pull some crazy shit. It might be possible for the Koreans to throw someone a nuke just because they are afraid of being ignored or not being taken seriously (which has been US policy).
Yes, lessons should be learned, which is exactly why you shouldn't say "They did this and that in the past, so they'll do it again!"
Conspicary theories: Conspiracies probably do exist, but to the extent where Ratty is searching them....there would be no reason, logicality and whatnot for them.
The EU is for now nothing like the USA, it has complete freedom, and NO constraints on decisions where it concerns military support and support for military actions for as far as I know.
Conspicary theories: Conspiracies probably do exist, but to the extent where Ratty is searching them....there would be no reason, logicality and whatnot for them.
The EU is for now nothing like the USA, it has complete freedom, and NO constraints on decisions where it concerns military support and support for military actions for as far as I know.
welsh said:
Aye, someone that stood up in 1930's and said "I think Hitler is plotting to take over the world!" would've been shoved asside as a conspiracy theorist.
Ehm, you do realise the EU is not a military coalition, right? In fact, Brussels only recently negotiated NATO accepting the EU as a military member, however, according to America, this means the EU may not build an independant military force of its own. All military forces are nation-bound.
The EU, by the way, is total bullshit:
1) Across Europe, 30-40% of the people vote in the European elections (comparison: Dutch national elections 90%, Belgian national elections 99%, Dutch provincial elections 70%), this means that the "Congress" of the EU is essentially elected by a non-representative minority of the people (it's safe to assume most of that 30-40% are intellectuals that are aware of how much the EU means)
2) On the plus-side, the "Congress" is basically powerless when compared to the Ministry Council, which simply is a council of relevant ministers from each state.
3) France, Germany and the UK do dominate the EU, and a lot of countries just let them do this. The constitution that's being drawn up will prolly be total hraka.
4) The EU is a ruling body above governments. Any government of any EU member state must adhere to the rules set by the EU, which means a large percentage of decisions made by governing bodies in EU member states are actually made by higher people, who're often elected by the flawed democracy named above or not elected at all.
COrrections:
Last Dutch Elections were about 80%, 90% has(FOr as far as I know) never happened.
The Belgian elections are just 99% becauseit's against the law NOT to vote.
Dutch provincial were more about 60%.
As for France and Germany dominating, YES they dominate, however, they can't DICTATE. Countries still have a lot of freedom to do whatever they want. That new constitution in it's current form was going to enforce those positions, but you do realise that every country except for France and Germany were basically against that part of the rough draft.
No, the EU isn't a military organisation, which is exactly why I said that...
Sander said:
I was just typing of the top of my head.
Corrections:
Last Dutch national elections: 79% (90% has happened, remember voting was once obligatory in Holland as well)
Last Belgian national elections: 99% (yes, it's obligatory, but that's besides the point)
Last Dutch provincial elections: 59% (roughly)
Last Dutch European elections (1999): 29.9%
Whichever way you turn it, it's still a problem. Like the American elections; you can't call something a democracy if less than half the people turn up.
OnTheBounce
Still Mildly Glowing
welsh said:
That's a hot topic right now, welsh, as it's an increasing trend in the US. For instance, DynCorp, another private company that employs mostly veterans, is being employed to guard Karzai in Afghanistan, to fly what amount to combat missions against coca production in Columbia and so forth.
Congressional oversight on these types of projects is often very limited since the Pentagon doesn't even have to disclose them if their budget is less than $50 million. (I suppose to the US gov't that's the equivalent of the 70 cents/day that Sally Struthers begs for.)
I wonder how many people watched Robocop back in the late '80s and thought the privatization of the law enforcement and military sectors shown in that film were ludicrous. Well, we're a goodly ways down that road it seems. It really is a case of "this gun for hire".
OTB
Look, if Germany and France said "We're going to stop the war on Balkan", you can bet every other country in European Union would follow them, unless it had a really good reason not to. Most of the time, powerful members of EU can achieve a consensus on any matter.Sander said:
World's leading powers have a responsibility to weaker and troubled countries. Moreso UN has to intervene and provide timely help when a crisis arises. The world has moved beyond the point where world's leading countries just sit back and watch people get slaughtered in wars between small and developing countries. It is no longer just the matter of whether or not they are interestedin helping - it is their duty to help, not because they want to, but simply because they are able to.
See my previous paragraph about that "not being their war". As for calling the Serbian invasion of Croatia and Bosnia a "civil war"- I am one nice and soft Croat and I like you, but I'll warn you that most of my fellow countrymen would tear your limbs if they heard you referring to our Homeland War as a simple "civil war". It wasn't an internal war. It was a coordinated attack of two sovereign, federative states (Serbia and Montenegro, who are part of the federation at that time known as Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) on another independent, sovereign country (Croatia, and later Bosnia and Herzegovina). It was an aggressive war, goals of which were territorial expansion and genocide over Croatian (and Bosniak) people. As such, this war cannot be justified. Foreign powers failed to stop it (instead they even endorsed it), and the shame of this failure will be upon them for as long us Croats live to remind them.
How can I just "get over it"? Whenever I walk the streets of my hometown, I'm surrounded by ruins. Whenever I pass by the destroyed building I used to live in, I'm reminded of how abruptly my childhood ended when I was only seven years old. Whenever I meet the town's citizens, they all have war-time stories to tell. Some of these stories are tales of courage, honor and victory, while others are so horrifying that they will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
No, we will never forget. In 1991., at the threshold of the new millenium, in the middle of Europe, an unspeakable horror happened just because people in Paris, London and Moscow decided it was best not to get involved. To forget and ignore this part of Europe's history would be stupid, to say the least. Historia est magistra vitae. Let all nations learn from the mistake that was made in the ruins of Yugoslavia in 1991. Let this mistake, for which nations of Balkan paid so dearly, as well as all other mistakes and failures made throughout human history, dictate ALL future actions, because only thus shall we ensure same failures aren't repeated.
welsh
Junkmaster
Kharn said:
Nice one Kharn
Yes, its an interesting problem OTB. But one also needs to be somewhat careful here. The US military contracts out a lot of service- from moving soldiers abroad, to making them meals, etc. In a sense this was due to a trend in the military down-size and reduced costs through use of subcontractors. Still, its when the these services become actual combatants that things get a bit fuzzy.
Another film that touched on this was The Killer Elite- an oldie but goodie, where the CIA highers out hitmen to protect a Chinese mafia boss traveling through the US. James Caan, Robert Duval.
Ratty- While I agree with you that it was a tragedy, and while I sympathize for you, I should point out a couple of things. For most of the rest of the world, the war was a case of state disintergration into seperate sovereign units. Generally speaking most of the world has been against this type of break up.
Examples- (1) the world tolerated human rights in East Timor for a long long time. (2) Biafra- a humanitarian disaster when one province tried to break away an Nigeria basically starved them to death. (3) Much of Eastern and Southern Congo tried to break away- thus UN intervention to prevent that break up. (4) Today Somaliland is a break away that is better off than Somalia but no one wants to recognize it.
The principle is that state break ups will likely end badly (as in Yugoslavia). Another reason people are turning a blind eye to Indonesia these days.
It's not fair and its often cruel, but that's how the game of politics has been played for a long time.
Secondly, I would argue that the US didn't intervene earlier for two reasons- one- fear of another Vietnam. The US noted the difficulties the Axis powers had in Yugoslavia in the Second World War and the idea of Vietnam was more prominent. Intervening in Yugoslavia the was probably more messy than trying to rebuild Iraq now. secondly, I think a lot of folks felt this was a matter for the Euros to deal with.
Ancient Oldie
Still Mildly Glowing
Sanders said:
Actually, He made those statements in 1978, before the Iraq-Iran War and therefore before US support. Still, you don't know what's going on inside Husseins head and therefore you shouldn't assume that he won't do what he states. The reason why I referred to Hitler was because he made statements that can be considered ludicrous by clearer thinking people such as ourselves, but that were carried out nonetheless. On Hitler, you have to keep in mind that he probably would have invaded those territories (which he deemed a part of Germany that was unrightful taken after WWI) even if GB and France would have threatened him otherwise, as they did on Poland, but that is for another thread. Also, the US and the rest of the world clearly threatened Hussein when he first invaded Kuwait, and it didn't stop him. This guy actually believed he could take on US and UN forces. If that isn't a clear indication that he is delusional (even after being unable to defeat Iran), I don't know what is...
When an unstable dictator indicates that he is going to use nukes or makes some other outrageously dangerous claim, you just can't assume that he isn't that stupid and that he won't do it, because the consequences can be disastrous. In situations like these, governments have to assume the worst (as they should have with Hitler).
I think the reason why you make these assumptions is that you don't find anything wrong with nuclear proliferation, and that you believe it's actually a good thing (a deterrant). Even though in certain scenarios (Cold War) it was, overall, believing that every country should have nukes is a foolish and dangerous concept that can only lead to tragedy.
Sanders said:
Again your assuming the best and you also don't see the dangers of nuclear proliferation. This guy has illegally sold weapons before, why not nukes. The reason why I was referring to NK was because you had stated in a previous post that we could (instead of just not allowing them to be built in the first place) regulate the spread of nukes. Kim Jong il didn't allow the UN to regulate him on making them, do you think he is going to allow the UN to be in there and verify where all his nukes are and where they're going?
Sander said:
I admit we're greedy, but Jesus Christ, we don't go around building nuclear reactors for anyone who has the money. That's just taking greed to a level of unparrallel stupidity. And it does have something to do with Iraq because it illustrates that France and Russia are willing to put their economic policies in front of the general safety of the world...
Sander said:Why did the USA not invade Iraq before 9/11? One word
So you mean we weren't prepared during the first Gulf War (which I believe was the perfect time to take out Hussein) and the 12 years after that lead up to 911? Please...
Sander said:
Well, since you put it that way, I agree. But we were willing to protect ourselves no matter what, and these other countries were willing to protect their monetary interests no matter what. Under those conditions, did you expect that we wouldn't invade because the UN council said otherwise. Hells no.
We may have differing opinions on whether those were the real reasons that the US invaded, but you can hopefully see why I believe that under those circumstances, the UN council needed to be ignored.
Kharn - I find it highly doubtful that better politics could have swayed France and Germany, even though I admit that Russia might have been swayed if we would have discussed it with them early on. That's a fuck up on our part, but still, it wouldn't have been enough to pass the resolution.
Sander said:
Yes, but they should be wise in preventing or stopping certain situations in other parts of the world or in the long run it could be a detriment to theirselves.
Kharn said:
Good point. It makes me wonder whether in these situations military alliances like NATO will play a more important role in the future.
Welsh and OnTheBounce - Would you call those private organizations mercenaries. I honestly don't know much about it but that's what it sounds like to me. I definitely would like to hear more on that if you guys don't mind.
OnTheBounce
Still Mildly Glowing
welsh said:
Actually the military is having huge problems now due to their reliance on private contractors in general. John Doe signing up to ladle soup out to GIs is one thing, but when he's asked to go into a country that is torn by war...well, a lot of these corporations have backed out, and the federal gov't is left w/no alternative but to bring suit for breach of contract since they can't force them to fulfill their contract.
The thing is that in the wake of Desert Storm, the Pentagon sat down and rid itself of its reliance on civilian contractors in as many areas as possible. Yes, they were still forced to rely on them for transportation (I was sent to Korea in a Federal Express jet back in '92...), but in areas like food and laundry service the contracts were allowed to expire, then the soldiers replaced the civilians. However, when Rumsfield came back into the picture he decided that the military needed to turn a lot of these things back over to civilians in the name of efficiency. So when the US rolled into Iraq this year they were in the same boat they were in back in '91, and this time they've stayed longer and the quality of life issues are really eating morale.
Add to this that the current budget crunch has Bush & Co. looking to keep Reservists and National Guardsmen in Iraq for a year long rotation and the fact that they are looking to cut Hazardous Duty and Family Seperation Pay...well, I'm wondering if in the 2004 election we're going to see the usually staunchly Republican military block vote turn out a bit differently than expected...
welsh said:
James Caan and Robert Duval? Sounds good, I'll have to check into that one. Thanks for the heads-up.
Ancient Oldie said:
I think that depends largely on the corporation you're talking about. Most of them don't sell their services to the highest bidder, and they need US approval to work w/foreign gov'ts, so I wouldn't call them mercenaries. However, it's a pretty shadowy affair.
I would like to add that the US gov't isn't the only one doing this. The Kuwaiti and Saudi gov'ts employ civilians to train their militaries, and these civilians are veterans of the US military. For instance, if one were a tank crewman in the US Army who had completed the Master Gunner School, one could then apply to...I forget the name of the company...and train either the Saudi or Kuwaiti military at very decent wages. The US also considers the first $100,000 tax free, so there's no shortage of ex-GIs looking for these jobs.
OTB
Ratty said:
Ratty, I'm really sorry, but...no, they don't. Former colonial powers have a debt to their former colonies, Russia has a debt of sorts to the former sattelites, and that's pretty much how far it goes.
The Western powers have no obligation to help countries that are less well off. The US and Western Europe chose to help weaker countries like this, it was their choice but in no way their responsibility. Why would it be? Because they're bigger. Please...these dominant powers might just've chosen to go on on the old European trend of extorting smaller countries, but they didn't.
Seriously, anything the US, Europe, NATO or the UN does for a country is a matter of kindness, not responsibility (UN might be an exception on this), but like welsh mentioned before, rather than thanking them the world just spits in their face.
Pah, maybe we should just go back to colonialism.
Oh, better policies could've definitely swayed France and Germany. Why? Say the US took their time to sway Russia first. China would follow because both Russia and the US were already for the war, and China didn't really care except for not pissing people off too much.
Say Germany was swayed next. Germany is a hard country to get at because of their incredible passifism and because to be opposed to the war was a brilliant political move at the time for Schroder, but Germany would not be impossible to sway, as long as they didn't have to send any of their own troops and if they were promised some power in post-war Iraq (same as Afghanistan).
So then you have France and Belgium left, stuck between pro-war Germany, UK, Spain, Italy and Holland. I mean, jeesh, France is stubborn, but...
Clinton might've been able to pull it off, even Bush sr. might've been able to do it. Dubyah doesn't seem to have the nack for international policies, and Rumsfeld drags him down.
One name leaps to mind ni this case; Nixon. He was an international genius, if he were president now, he'd have pulled it off easily.
PS: this talk of mercenaries reminds me of something: the Iraqi minister of information kept referring to the American army as "mercenaries", and this is in a way correct. American has a paid army, and even though they have to be all-American (as opposed to the French foreign legion), this does make them sort of mercenaries, as opposed to countries where you have to join the army no matter what...