On This Date 5 Years Ago....

[GrandSlam+]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
I found an article about a year ago that listed each of the world's countries and their defense expenditures (not limited to their militaries, by the way ... lots of things fall under this umbrella) and, at that time, the US did indeed spend more than the rest of the world combined, including China. I will try to find it again later tonight. I can't say for sure how the numbers of military personnel compare .. (remember, tho, I said large 'and' powerful ... it would hard to counter that the US is the most dominant force in the world.)

As for the rest of the world being inept, that's one way to look at it, I guess. I'd prefer to state that those countries simply have better things to spend their money on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Peace through strength has long been the United States philosophy. You can cry about it all you want, but it has worked pretty well since the end of World War Two.

The world has just seen a perfect example of this philosophy at work. "Why didn't you fight?" one Governing Council member asked Hussein as their meeting ended. Hussein gestured toward the U.S. soldiers guarding him and asked his own question: "Would you fight them?"

 

[UncleMoneybags]

The article you referenced is probably accurate. It may have sounded facetious, but that last remark in my previous post was the intended meaning. For example, Israel is outnumbered by the Arabs and has been since forever, but they have beaten them time and again since forever. Please don't mention all the help they've received from the U.S. because one could argue that that help was offset by the other countries helping the Arabs.

To further expound on that, I paid to have 2 of my nieces learn to play the piano. After a brutal family recital, I wondered how one of my nieces could be so good and the other not so good we'll say. That is until I realized that some people are just not as smart as others. They had the same teacher, same amount of time. Only difference was the day: Tuesday or Wednesday.

I think we have different definitions of power. Whereas you equate action to power, I look at the #'s and possibilities. Strategically, that's one of the worst mistakes to make when you underestimate your opponent's capabilities. Just because China hasn't exercised their muscle on a consistent basis doesn't mean they aren't capable. It doesn't mean they are, either.

No secret as to what I'd do if in charge of the budget.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

Speak softly but carry a big stick!

 

[GrandSlam+]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eek:
The Iraqi sanctions and Saddam killed a lot of people, say for arguments sake, with the help of Saddams 2 tier system, 500,000
(ie feed your mates, starve and shoot your rivals and anyone you don't like.)

The sanctions were a collective decision by the international community, working together, and were a collective responsibility, whatever happened.


George on the other hand made himself emperor of the world, and decided unilaterally to invade Iraq, turning it into a breeding ground for islamic extremists/terrorists and supporters.

The world will be a safer place, once the buckeroo has left the White House.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eek, the sanctions were imposed by the UN Security council. Each time a country (usually France...they liked that Iraqi oil money) wanted the sanctions eased, the US threatened a Veto. That wasn't a collective decision by the international community. The US wasn't working together...they were leading. Had the US wanted sanctions eased, they would have been. They didn't, so they weren't.

63 countries supported the US liberation of Iraq. Obviously your definition of 'unilateral' and 'international community' changes depending on who was the US president at the time. No problem there, your agenda is clear. But don't expect to be taken seriously when you are spouting of uninformed and clearly misleading opinions disguised as facts.

 

[xpanda]

Grand Slam: a philosophy of 'peace through strength' having been in effect for the past 60 years is hardly a length of time great enough to say that it will actually work. As for me 'crying over it' ... trying to make me out to sound like a whiny schoolgirl is a tactic that I'm sure you can improve upon.

Moneybags: interesting viewpoint on power ... while I thoroughly agree that China could easily contain enough manpower and armaments to give the US a run for their money, the existence of a strong military PLUS a thorough willingness (perhaps enjoyment?) to employ it, is far more tenuous. I'm not going to make a statement so bold as to accuse the US of trying to attain global dominance, but the fact that it has the military and economic power, and is slowly putting into motion policies which help realise such a situation, are the reasons I stated that the world should be watching Washington with close scrutiny.

The US has considered Saddam an enemy for the past thirteen or so years, and has spent a great deal of time preoccupied with overthrowing him. I won't get into a diatribe about the validity of this, but if the US considered Saddam a threat on the basis of his military might, and willingness to use it, then the same will ultimately hold true for the US. If it is indeed human nature to be leery of stronger forces, then surely you can understand where I am coming from.

 

[Oceans11]

..63 countries supported the US liberation of Iraq..

So where the hell are they all?

Theres a token few thousand troops from a few countries, and most of those are on a pretty obvious begging for dollar handouts exercise.

Its a clusterf**k, the international community knows that, and its staying the hell away until the UN gets involved.

Hang on....In a way its a good thing...
The Buckeroo and his henchmen are now in deep, and will be devoting a huge amount of time and effort to Iraq, which means they're less likely to have the time or resources to mess up anywhere else in the world...

On second thoughts, stay away from the UN.
You don't want anything to do with those surrender monkeys.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

xpanda,

Peace through strength has been around longer than 60 years. I can specify certain instances in the 19th century where the President has been far from obsequious. My specific quote was from Theodore Roosevelt President, if I remember right, around 100 years ago. I know he ran again in 1912 but lost. In response to your other point, I believe conducting ballistic missile tests off their coast is willingness enough to go after them and they have said as such.

 

[GrandSlam+]

Eek, the US welcomed the United Nations into Iraq following the war. The problem was that the UN ran off as soon as its headquarters was bombed in August. Kofi Annan said last week:

"I cannot compromise the security of our international and national staff." The U.N. report on the possibility of a return to Iraq concluded: "Under the circumstances, it is difficult to envisage the United Nations operating with a large number of international staff inside Iraq in the near future, unless there is an unexpected and significant improvement in the overall security situation."

I'm sure the Iraqis would have plenty of confidence in the UN.

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by Uncle Moneybags:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You keep mentioning "traitor to the principles upon which this country was founded". What specifically could Bush do to make a bad situation better? Not flaming, just curious.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure I follow the question. Unlike most people who bash Bush for the sake of bashing a Republican, or an idiot, or the incumbent, I hold Bush in an high degree of contempt (specifically, as a traitor to American values) for a very specific reason -- for his pre-emptive strike doctrine as outlined to Congress in August of 2002. This doctrine specifically demands authority and expresses intent to use military force in situations disconnected from any rational justification for that force, inasmuch as it not only identifies obvious threats to America or American interests as legitimate targets, but "potential" threats (it actually says that, "potential threat" -- without any stipulation as to just what constitutes a *potential*) What that means is, Bush feels that the most powerful military in the world can and should be used whenever, wherever he/his staff/subsequent adminsitrations see fit, with or without just cause, and with minimal Congressional oversight. Ergo, President Bush clearly is completely out of touch with some of the core principles upon which our country was founded.

Unfortunately, President Bush is by no means alone in this sentiment; there is no shortage of Americans who erroneously believe that the United States is the world's "enforcer" or even more apalling its "liberator." However, unlike Bush, these historically ignorant savages are not in the position of actually being in nominal charge of the most powerful military in the world. And at any rate, majority opinion is hardly a suitable basis on which to base morality -- as William Penn said, Right is right, no matter how many people are against it; and wrong is wrong, no matter how many people are for it.

That said, I am not sure what you mean by "make a bad situation better." Which situation?


Phaedrus

 

[UncleMoneybags]

I was trying to get you to admit there was no hope, but after reading your last post I guess not. So do you think we should withdraw all our troops to within our borders and whatever happens, happens?

 

[xpanda]

Uncle Moneybags: see, now you're using an extremist argument to counter some exceedingly valid points that Phaedrus makes. I highly doubt that Phaedrus' opposition to the National Security Strategy includes a unilateral shutdown of international military interests.

Here's an exerpt from an essay by Noam Chomsky which elaborates on Phaedrus' thoughts ... if you have the time, and the inclination, the entire essay (link at bottom) is a great read.


September 2002 was marked by three events of considerable importance, closely related.  The most powerful state in history announced a new National Security Strategy asserting that it will maintain global hegemony permanently.  Any challenge will be blocked by force, the dimension in which the US reigns supreme.  At the same time, the war drums began to beat to mobilize the population for an invasion of Iraq.  And the campaign opened for the mid-term congressional elections, which would determine whether the administration would be able to carry forward its radical international and domestic agenda.
 
The new “imperial grand strategy,” as it was termed at once in the leading establishment journal, presents the US as “a revisionist state seeking to parlay its momentary advantages into a world order in which it runs the show,” a “unipolar world” in which “no state or coalition could ever challenge” it as “global leader, protector, and enforcer.[1]

...
 
Washington informed the UN that it can be “relevant” by endorsing Washington’s plans, or it can be a debating society.  The US has the “sovereign right to take military action,” the administration moderate Colin Powell informed the World Economic Forum, which also strenuously opposed Washington’s war plans: “When we feel strongly about something we will lead,” he informed them, even if no one is following us.[2]
 
...
 
The grand strategy authorizes Washington to carry out “preventive war”: Preventive, not pre-emptive.  Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term “preventive” is too charitable.  Preventive war is, very simply, the “supreme crime” condemned at Nuremberg.
 
That was understood by those with some concern for their country.  As the US invaded Iraq, historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote that Bush’s grand strategy is “alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American president said it would, lives in infamy.” FDR was right, he added, “but today it is we Americans who live in infamy.” It is no surprise that “the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the United States after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism,” and the belief that Bush is “a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein.”[4]
 
Link to entire (albeit lengthy) essay: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=4030

 

[PatPatriot]

You know why there are people falling out of the woodwork in Iraq to give US tips on insurgents???....Because they know who the big dog is now...Its human nature to love winners and to be on the side of winners and those people by nature respect strength.
You liberals once again are on the wrong side of history.

 

[Phaedrus]

Uncle Moneybags

Well, I have some fairly radical views on military management, but they are unrelated to Bush's policy (except perhaps in the capacity that Bush's polic would not be technically possible in my own perfect world.) I have long been of the belief that the American military should be all but dismantled, trimmed down to a streamlined and extremely powerful Navy, Air Force and special forces group, and that the "grunt" concept should be utterly scrapped. In its place, the National Guard would become the official meat and bones of the American military, and as is the case in Israel and Switzerland, a compulsory reserve system be put in place (yes, Mr. Individual Sovereignity advocates compulsory military service ... I know, I know ... the difference is that no one would be off fighting Koreas, Vietnams or Operation Desert Cluster-Fvcks)

The only legitimate justification for a military is national defence. One would think that this truism was as natural and easy to understand as taking a dump, but as you can see from this board and endless other political fora, there is no shortage of people in America who believe against all logic that America is somehow qualified, morally empowered, or even remotely competent to *protect* the world from itself, or more precisely from tyrants, or more bluntly from heads of state who do not toe the line the U.S. draws for them. This phenomenon was seen for years as Americans called for the "liberation" of Iraq ... and even now there is a swelling tide of people advocating the "liberation" of Iran, despite the fact that no atrocity committed by any Ayatollah will ever make it moral or legal for the American government to take over another country (even if we really, really, really promise to give it back to its people at some nebulous unspecified point in the future.)

This however, as I said, is not really related to Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine; I just feel that our national defence budget would be better spent on such things as "national defence" than on "international offence."

Again, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I'm still fuzzy on your meaning ... "no hope" of what exactly?


Phaedrus

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by Patriot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You know why there are people falling out of the woodwork in Iraq to give US tips on insurgents???....Because they know who the big dog is now...Its human nature to love winners and to be on the side of winners and those people by nature respect strength.
You liberals once again are on the wrong side of history.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that's true. That's very, very true.

You know what will make you really proud to be an American, and make you feel incredibly strong and invigorated? Go to the World Trade Center, go up to the observation level, and look out across the greatest city in the world, a city built on American progress, know-how and hard work. It is a truly uplifting experience, and it will make you realise just how much respect other nations have for America's strength.


Oh, wait ... nevermind. My bad.

Phaedrus

 

[GrandSlam+]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Here's an exerpt from an essay by Noam Chomsky which elaborates on Phaedrus' thoughts ... if you have the time, and the inclination, the entire essay (link at bottom) is a great read.
 
Link to entire (albeit lengthy) essay: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=4030<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xpanda, Norm Chomsky is a kook. If he sees a glass half full, he blames the US for 'stealing' half the water. Then he says the US poisoned the other half in an attempt to kill as many peasants as possible.

I enjoy hearing all sides of arguments, but please don't try to push Norm Chomsky as a credible source regarding American actions. His stripes are well known, from his absurd rationalization for the Sept 11 attack to his laughable claim that Clinton's midnight bombing of a Sudan factory killed more people than Bin Laden's terrorism. His defense of the Khmer Rouge/Cambodian genocide (likening it to French vigilatism against collaborators following WW2) is equally sickening.

 

[xpanda]

Grand Slam:

I know exactly where Chomsky stands on political ideologies, but whether you are in agreement with him or not, does not necessarily mean that his writings are not 'great reads' as I stated.

I also read Mein Kampf, Voltaire's Bastards, The Sceptical Feminist, Dead Right and an assortment of other books that are diametrically opposed to one another. I simply enjoy a good, well-thought out editorial on all things politics. Chomsky may be radically left-wing, but I will give him credit for his willingness to criticise and his even greater ability to put these criticisms to word. He is a fantastic writer, making him worthy of my time.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

Phaedrus,

Sorry for the delay in responding, but my vacation and the after vacation wind-down are over. I generally work anywhere from 13-16 hours and it's difficult to stay on top of these posts.

That being said, your explanation as to what you would do was exactly what I sought. I disagree. I would much rather see 1,000 soldiers die now instead of 1,000,000 soldiers and civilians die later. I don't want to get into a "Saddam is no threat to us" debate, but I think we can agree he wouldn't hesitate to use intermediate and intercontinental weapons to devastate us and other nations, especially Israel. The question is: Who has these weapons? North Korea and China are two that have had dealings with Saddam in the past. I won't mention the European angles.

P.S. Anyone that is planning to fly should avoid those scum-sucking pigs from Northwest Airlines.

 

[jimbutorac]

Uncle Money,

Am puzzled by your reference to Northwest Airlines. No agenda, just wonder what you're referring to...

 

[PatPatriot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes, that's true. That's very, very true.

You know what will make you really proud to be an American, and make you feel incredibly strong and invigorated? Go to the World Trade Center, go up to the observation level, and look out across the greatest city in the world, a city built on American progress, know-how and hard work. It is a truly uplifting experience, and it will make you realise just how much respect other nations have for America's strength.


Oh, wait ... nevermind. My bad.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey dipshit that came from the appeasment spinless policys of Klinton and Carter...Kissing Arafats ass and other mass murders like Dink jong ill.
The US has done more for peace than any other country in the world,and it wasn't through weakness..If you think my remarks are baseless look up some of OBL's remarks toward the west when it comes to warfare....From a guy who thinks he is gods gift to intelligent thought you make some awfully stupid ass remarks.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

Mudbone,

They cancelled a connecting flight on me and I had to wait another 2.5 hours for another because I was too cheap to fly another airline with a direct flight.

This is no joke. I saw one flight from KC to Las Vegas with 4 stops.

The funny part is that that was the most expensive of the flights.