America, Bully or Policeman?

Éomer of Rohan

Bully: There have been arms embargoes on Iraq for 13 years nearly but still the US threatens war. Especially when we consider the Israeli strike that reduced Iraq's nuclear plant to rubble, this sounds increasingly like an excuse to take Iraq's oil (or the child's dinner money if you wish to continue with the analogy). Of course we have seen arguments which suggest that the US/UK is attacking Iraq as part of the 'War on Terrorism' or of humanitarian cause. Where was US humanitarianism when half a million (estimated by the UN) Iraqi children died due to sanctions??? And please understand that there is no link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam - Colin Powell himself stated this directly after Sept 11th 2001 - but now they try and convince us otherwise. Is that an excuse for war? Furthermore when we consider the contrast between the action taken against North Korea, which has stated publicly it's intention to develop (further develop?) nuclear weapons in breach of it's 1994 agreement (which by the way the US breached first) with ROK and the US, we can see that the US is unwilling to deal with a rogue state if there is a chance it will hit back - the NKPR have enough artillery to flatten most of South Korea's important cities not to mention the US troops based there. This behavious would suggest that the US engages in world affairs only to see what it can get - why else maintain the largest standing army in the world??

Policeman: The Balkans. Simply put NATO intervened to stop the carnage and 'ethnic cleansing' which the Western policy of destabilization of Yugoslavia (because it was a communist state - according to them there is no better reason even though the government in Yugoslavia was the most popular government in the region).

Contrast these most recent actions and look at the belligerent speeches emanating from Washington DC and puppy dog Blair. IS the US an armed bully or is it using it's military responsibly in the modern world?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
...this sounds increasingly like an excuse to take Iraq's oil (or the child's dinner money if you wish to continue with the analogy).

How will America manage to "take" Iraq's oil?

Where was US humanitarianism when half a million (estimated by the UN) Iraqi children died due to sanctions???

No Iraqi children died due to sanctions. They died due to Saddam Hussein refusing to buy enough food and medicine for them as Iraq was entitled to do under the oil-for-food program.

And please understand that there is no link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam - Colin Powell himself stated this directly after Sept 11th 2001 - but now they try and convince us otherwise. Is that an excuse for war?

I personally don't find the evidence of a link very convincing, so on it's own, no it's not an excuse for war.

Furthermore when we consider the contrast between the action taken against North Korea, which has stated publicly it's intention to develop (further develop?) nuclear weapons in breach of it's 1994 agreement (which by the way the US breached first) with ROK and the US, we can see that the US is unwilling to deal with a rogue state if there is a chance it will hit back - the NKPR have enough artillery to flatten most of South Korea's important cities not to mention the US troops based there. This behavious would suggest that the US engages in world affairs only to see what it can get - why else maintain the largest standing army in the world??

It just suggests they have to have different policies for different situations. If North Korea has a ballistic missile capable of hitting the US then of course they are going to be a bit more circumspect in their policy towards them.

Policeman: The Balkans. Simply put NATO intervened to stop the carnage and 'ethnic cleansing' which the Western policy of destabilization of Yugoslavia (because it was a communist state - according to them there is no better reason even though the government in Yugoslavia was the most popular government in the region).

Yugoslavia hardly fell apart because of any Western policy of destabilisation. Of course, it was the US who had to step in and defend human rights in the region.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

jd

There is an interesting documetary on RTE1 , Tuesday at 10.10pm called Chavez: inside the coup. (Venezuela)
Remember State Dept. officials welcoming the "more democratic" regime to follow?
Isn't Venezuela one of the most oil rich countries in the world.
The Usa won't necessarily put Democracy/Human Rights first in 2nd/3rd world countries when it may conflict with its own economic interests.

As said Franklin D. Roosevelt once
He (Somoza) may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch

therecklessone

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
How will America manage to "take" Iraq's oil?

Quite simple. A post-war US administration will decide how best to make us of Iraq's energy resources. The stated aim will be to earn revenue to rebuild a devastated Iraqi economy and infrastructure. The means? Iraqi oil will be privatised, more than likely involving US oil companies (surprise, surprise). That way the US will maintain an element of control over Iraqi oil.

Powell himself has said that the US will hold Iraqi oil in trust for the Iraqi people, but has declined to say how that will be done.

I sincerely doubt that will be by nationalising the resources and allowing the Iraqi people decide themselves how best to spend the revenue.

Let me guess whats on the post-war infrastructure shopping list secreted somewhere in the Pentagon...rebuilt port facilities with a convenient pipeline leading directly from the oil-fields directly to said port?

Éomer of Rohan

The US had to step in and defend human rights. Hmmm. Yes. And I am sure we are all aware which country has the worst human rights record in the worls with regard to both domestic and international affairs. Yes, China isn't it? Wrong! According to Amnesty International, it is in fact the US. Fit that into your argument.

DiscoStu

Just an example of 'progressive thinking' from the US.

i dont belive that they are the worst though. north korea is up there. closest thing in the world to a true orwellian society.

Éomer of Rohan

In reply to Disco Stu and the link he posted - that is horrific. It is a disgusting example of the US corrupt judicial system and the disrespect for human rights we face from the world's most powerful bull...i mean superpower.

Cactus Col

Saddam is a bad man.

Fact of the matter is that he has to go. The real reasons that the U.S. are waging war on Iraq may be the wrong ones but if it results in a better place to live for the people of Iraq then ultimately the war is a good thing.

I think people have forgotten that saddam is not a nice chap, how can anybody argue that his people would not be better off without him.

Éomer of Rohan

I agree with the previous post in theory. Saddam is indeed a bad man, simplistically put. However how are his people going to benefit if they are bombed repeatedly by US/UK warplanes? How will they benefit if their only major natural resource is set alight by retreating Iraqi soldiers? How will the benefit when Baghdad is laid waste just as Stalingrad was - that is the scale of devastation they face - street fighting and so forth. Thousands of innocent Iraqi people will die. And still we hear the clichés that Saddam must go. Any use of force in that region could have dangerous consequences for millions of other innocent people, for example if Saddam, in the death throes of his regime decide to take anyone they can with them - using scuds and so on to devastate major cities. Realistically speaking there is no way to remove Saddam until an alternative is found - there is no alternative popular government at the moment - even plans published by the Pentagon reveal that the only solution as yet formulated is that a MacArthurian style regime be employed short term until (and here follows my own interpretation) a US poodle government can be formed from bribable Generals willing to prostitute Iraqi oil to the Toxic Texan and Co.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cactus Col


I think people have forgotten that saddam is not a nice chap, how can anybody argue that his people would not be better off without him.

No we haven't. Nor have we forgotten that Kim Il Mad Ba***rd is a lunatic as well. But what you are not reminding us is Saddam was "our" bad man for long enough. Anyone aware that one of the few UN Security Council members to support the US push for war is Angola, itself hardly a paragon of virtue. When the US says it will proceed with an Alliance Of The Willing, what it means is "we'll take help from whatever tin-pot dictator is prepared to give us landing/over-flight rights, or allow us to station troops in their country."

Anti-war protesters keep being told we need to learn the lessons of history, i.e. WW II and appeasement. I got an A1 in that lesson, but I think we may need to revise a bit harder on who the US has put in power, and supported, over the years...Saddam himself, Suharto in Indonesia, Pol Pot (you heard me!), numerous corrupt South Vietnamese murderers (sorry, slip of the tounge there, legitimate leaders), Noriega (he trained in the US School Of The Americas, THE largest school of terrorism the world has ever known), various unelected military leaders in Pakistan, OSAMA BIN LADEN (thats in upper case for emphasis). The list is exhausting...

You want to learn a lesson of history? Don't replace one compliant (for a time anyway) dictator with another, or we will be bask in there 30 years from now, only then oil will be far more scarce, and the UN will be told to f**k off by the US so that they can obliterate any opposition that exists to their dictates.

BanjoDanjo

Just thought i'ld check to see who here knows what they are talking about?
Has anyone ever even been to Iraq.
My girlfriend has. From what she tells me, some Iraqis support Saddam, most do not, but in public they ALL do.
I wonder what is the cause of that.
Seems to me something needs to be done to help people who cannot in any way shape or form help themselves.
Americans point of view is that they need to take the stick out of the bullies hand before the stick grows big enough to reach them.
Definitely the wrong reason for a war (depending on your point of view of course) but the Iraqis on the street will support them in this i'm told, only in private tho.
Anyway sorry about the rant, i'm just tired of hearing people
sh?te on about things as if they know what they're talking about when quite clearly they have no idea of what its like from either side of the fence which divides the 2 countries. Sitting on the fence shouting at the grass doesn't help one bit. It just shows the shouters for the eejits they are.
If you want to make an informed comment, go there or talk to someone who has been there.
Anyway, sorry for ranting again.
Time to go to bed.

DiscoStu

I feel like a snake eating its own tail :rolleyes:

Do the ends justify the means?

Is it right to kill civilians for purely economic reasons?

If the war is not for purely economic reasons and America are going to play the worlds moral policeman should they not do it even handedly and invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Cuba, North Korea, Pakistan, Turkey, Mexico, China, Russia, Israel, Sudan and on and on.......?

Oh wait! some of those countries
1. Have human rights records that saddam would be envious of.
2. Have "proven" weapons Weapons of Mass Destruction.
3. Have shown even more disregard to the UN than Iraq.

and most importantly

4. are US allies.

makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside dosent it, knowing that as long as you play ball like a nice kiddy the US will disregard what you do in your spare time to your own people and your neigbours.

Éomer of Rohan

Banjo, no offence but from what I gather you base your opinions on hearsay from your girlfriend. Well let me enlighten you to the basis of my argument against war. I helped to organise the recent demonstration (sat 15 Feb) against the war. One of the groups involved is the Belfast Islamic Foundation - this deals with all Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants to this state. Thus when a foundation which deal with Iraqis every day of their lives say no to war, surely you will concede that they should know what they are talking about in terms of the support they can gather from firsthand sources?

Éomer of Rohan

Disco, again I am glad that some people have sense. And lets not forget if they are going to deal with all countries on moral grounds, maybe, as their Christian Fundamentalists are so fond of quoting an irrelevent text..."Cast the mote out of thine own eye"..et cetera. In fact ALL nation states today (with the exception of Switzerland??? lol) are guilty of some infringement on the rights of their people - including Eire for the record.

therecklessone

Originally posted by BanjoDanjo

My girlfriend has. From what she tells me, some Iraqis support Saddam, most do not, but in public they ALL do.
I wonder what is the cause of that...

Anyway sorry about the rant, i'm just tired of hearing people
sh?te on about things as if they know what they're talking about when quite clearly they have no idea of what its like from either side of the fence which divides the 2 countries. Sitting on the fence shouting at the grass doesn't help one bit. It just shows the shouters for the eejits they are.

As one of those "shouters" as you so eloquently put it (please excuse my spelling, but right now I can hardly see the keyboard I'm so tired), I love to hear people rant against what I and others have had to say. For the record, I have just returned from a weekend in Stockholm where I had an interesting chat with a Swede about the time he spent in Syria. He told me, quite honestly, that while he was there he was advised to never speak to the natives. Why you ask? Because they (the Syrians) were terrified that anything they said would be overheard by the numerous undercover Secret Police agents who operated in the cities. Fairly similar to the situation you have just described regarding Iraqi civilians. In fact, that is a fact of life for millions of people across the globe today, in both pro- and anti-US regimes. Shall we add Syria to the list of countries we are to blow the living s**t out of, after Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

Why stop there? Given that many of the regimes the US sponsor in Central and South America contain thousands of police/troops/officials who were trained in the US School Of The Americas, where they learnt, among other useful democratic skills, surveilance of opposition figures, assassination and torture, should we turn our attention there?

For the record, and just so I don't get splinters in my arse sitting on the fence for too long, I do not wish to see Saddam Hussein in power for one day longer than is humanly possible. I do not however see current US policy as the best way to topple the tyrant, and as such am anti-war.

TomF

I think the reality is that the United States of America is the only country anyone in the world can turn to if something needs to be done. In general, the governments of countries like France are very tightly focused on their self-interest and would not lift a finger to help if it didn't have a payback.

Correct me if I am wrong, but no country in history has put as much treasure and effort into rebuilding and protecting former enemies after a war as has the United States. The same has to be said for worldwide medical and food aid in postwar and peacetime eras (if we have ever seen real peace).

If you put all countries under the same microscope of examining motives, how would Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK and any others compare?

For the first time since the very bloody Civil War or War between the States, (not counting the Japanese balloon bomb that exploded in Omaha during WWII) the "zone of the interior" United States has been attacked, and the casualties were perfectly innocent people at their daily work. The attackers were radical Moslems, who I think presently represent the greatest threat to the security of the United States.

The response of the United States has been very measured and reasoned. The threats to those countries perceived as centres of threat to the United States have been delivered far in advance of any military blow, and certainly don't bear the marks of simple revenge.

I think the United States has every right to defend itself against real threats, and I also am sure that the countries which represent these threats will be much better places for their citizens to live after the present governments are removed.

BanjoDanjo

Don't get me wrong, guys. I'm not for a war at all.
I just want people to realize that they (myself included) do not have the full story on reasons why there is going to be a war.
Ask an american and an Iraqi, you will get different points of view.
Same applies to Isrealis and palistinians.
I know people from both sides.
You'll get very few isrealis against isreal and very few palastinians on the other side.
There are 2 sides to every situation, so please realise that you can be anti-war or pro-war but you really don't know what the real ins and outs are.
Another thing that gets up my nose is how many people call it an economic war.
How so.
Last i heard Opec control the price of oil.
Doesn't matter who the americans put in Iraq. I just hope that they put someone sensible in and not another tyrant.
Anyway, i have a sneaking suspicion there may not even be a war. Could just be political bulying tactics.
Anyway, as always when there's a war, the truth will only come out in 20 or 30 years as to whether it was worth it or not.

therecklessone

Originally posted by BanjoDanjo

Another thing that gets up my nose is how many people call it an economic war.
How so.
Last i heard Opec control the price of oil.

OPEC only control the oil price for member states. A post-war Iraq will not necessarily be a member...remember Powell's words "We will hold Iraqi oil in trust for the Iraqi people"...

I look forward to seeing how that'll work.

therecklessone

Originally posted by TomF


The response of the United States has been very measured and reasoned. The threats to those countries perceived as centres of threat to the United States have been delivered far in advance of any military blow, and certainly don't bear the marks of simple revenge.

In the event of an American assault on Iraq the followingwill happen...

1. Massive bombardment of air-defence capabilites...surface-to-air missile batteries, radar control sites, headquarters, airfields and the like.

2. Iraqi infrastructure will be pulverised. That's water, electricity, telephones, roads, railways, food distribution,all to be targeted. The aim being to weaken the resolve of the Iraqi army, and its people, to help shorten the war. Transport will be targeted to immobalise the Iraqi armed forces.

Now, if number 1 happens I won't lose too much sleep. True, many frightened conscripts will die at their posts, but war is a nasty business, and they will have died in combat, as opposed to being mowed dwon while trying to surrender.

If number 2 happens, thousands of innocent civilians will die as a result. Many while die as a direct result of US/UK bombing raids, killed by "smart" bombs (if they're such smart bombs, you'd think they'd realise this war was a farce and refuse to detonate????). Thousands more will die from hunger, not hunger imposed by an Iraqi regime, but by the fact that all the infrastructure around them has been blown to s**t and nobody can get food to them.

If that is your definition of measured and reasoned, then I worry for you, really I do.

therecklessone

Originally posted by TomF
I think the reality is that the United States of America is the only country anyone in the world can turn to if something needs to be done. In general, the governments of countries like France are very tightly focused on their self-interest and would not lift a finger to help if it didn't have a payback.

Laugh my arse off? I nearly had a prolapse reading that one...

America is now acting out of something other than self-interest? Read your history of the US please. Better still, read what Shrub had to say about foreign policy before his "election" in 2000.

And lets wait to see thousands of bodybags returned to the US, to see how long she wants to remain involved in the affairs of other states...

p.s. I genuinely do not wish harm on any American serviceman with that comment, but I think it needs to be said...

PHB

What annoys me is that the americans are doing this all wrong.

If they simply stated that they wanted to get rid of the regime to foster democracy in other countries I'd be all for it, and I'd say they wouldn't get the objections in the security council they're getting now, just a different moral outlook from the other members. The whole Nucleor weapons thing has just made them look bad, it still doesnt change the fact that they need to get a different leader, and obviously preperably not a puppet for the US.

On another note, why does everyone think that once the UK back down, the US will?

therecklessone

Because then the US will be all on their lonesome among the all-important permanent members club in the Security Council.

Then again, considering recent social deveopments in the US, the last thing we want is an armed loner roaming the world...

BanjoDanjo

Opec DO control the price of oil. It will not be sold if Iraq is not a member of Opec.
Anyway enough said from me about this.
There are too sides to each story and this will end up in hostilities between Europe and America eventually.
Hopefully people will calm down a bit and stop pointing accusing fingers at one side or the other.
Events of the last 15 years of so have lead the world to this point. Saddam wanted not to win a war against america but to isolate them from the rest of the world.
They seem to be achieving this goal.
Too bad the Americans are falling for it too.
How will people here feel when maybe 10 years from Now an Iraqi made nuclear weapon goes of in the middle of London.
**** it doesn't even have to be a nuclear weapon.
Hope it doesn't come to that but personally i'ld prefer Saddam dead and then make sure the next guy is not going to go nuts with power as well.

Éomer of Rohan

In reply to Tom F. I am sorry for you because it seems as though you have a terminal neglect for the reasons behind certain events in history. Ask why did America help to rebuild western europe? Because they did not socialists getting control of any country since socialists do not fit into the american economic plans - and western europe suffered for that dependency from then until now. I think we are also well aware that the US is very self interested itself - considering that a) it allowed so much to happen in countries considered US allies and b) it only intervenes with Non US allies if US economic interests are threatened. DId you see America lift a finger over Tibet when the Chinese invaded? Of course not - this was because it is an economic backwater. However you did see the US pour money into post revolution Russia in order to topple the Bolsheviks (as did Britain, France and yes Germany) - simply because a communistic revolution threatened US economic interests. Make no mistake, the US is just as ruthless and self serving as the old imperial states.

Éomer of Rohan

Banjo please accept the point - OPEC do not control the price of oil. At present everyone abides by OPEC rules because effectively they have what might be called a controlling share. However if Iraq was taken over by the US, the balance statistically shifts in non-OPEC favour - with the combined production of Russia, the Central Asian states, America (Cal, Texas and Alaska) and Iraq out producing OPEC - possibly resulting in a new cartel including members of the present group.

therecklessone

Thanks Eomer (how do I do the fada?).

Banjo, I'm not being smart, but can you point me in the direction of anything which supports your view of OPEC and its control of oil production? I know I can't do the opposite for you btw.

Clintons Cat

Originally posted by PHB
What annoys me is that the americans are doing this all wrong.

If they simply stated that they wanted to get rid of the regime to foster democracy in other countries I'd be all for it, and I'd say they wouldn't get the objections in the security council they're getting now, just a different moral outlook from the other members. The whole Nucleor weapons thing has just made them look bad, it still doesnt change the fact that they need to get a different leader, and obviously preperably not a puppet for the US.

On another note, why does everyone think that once the UK back down, the US will?

I dont think the UK will back down, I think Blair is Motivated by a genuine desire to "Do the right Thing" and to try to repair some of the mistakes of previous administrations,after all unlike the US Republicans his party has none of the blowback of a potential "Iraqgate"-Matrix Churchill scandal.

Thats not to say there are not some huge gaps in New labours "ethical foriegn policy" especially regarding Zimbabwe and unconditional arms sales to Pakistan and India.

Bounty Hunter

Simply-
A policeman with too much power and power corrupts

TomF

I think the Iraqi infrastructure will be safe from attack by United States forces if (that's a very big "if") there is actually an invasion of Iraq. Why would the United States want to ruin a country that will be occupied under military rule and then handed over to a democratically-elected government? You want to start with a clean slate, not with a country in ruins. This doesn't mean that Saddam might not try to wreck the infrastructure.

Of course if I were the god of war, I would have the United States armed forces make a dash for the big cities, surround them and embargo all but necessities of life and health. Eventually the baddies would have to surrender, unless they were content to stay in town and watch old movies (new releases would be subject to the embargo). Saddam would have to do without new Italian handmade suits and shoes, and further, no fine wines and spirits would be allowed to enter. It could get ugly for him.

Meanwhile, the oil fields of Iraq would be put into full production to pay the costs of the invasion force mobilization and the running maintenance of the occupation force and interim government. There should be plenty of money left over to compensate the repressed Moslems of southern Iraq and the Kurds for their years of suffering. Maybe a series of tribunals could be set up to decide amounts of monetary compensation owed to other victims.

It doesn't seem likely to me tonight that Saddam Hussein and his gang would accept prosecution-free and wealthy exile outside Iraq because there are far too many who might seek revenge when the boss and his gang are without an army.

If these men survive what is coming, then I'd guess the United Nations might be interested in establishing a war-crimes court to hear the evidence and decide guilt or innocence of the parties and pass appropriate sentences on those found guilty.

Originally posted by therecklessone
Thanks Eomer (how do I do the fada?).

cóntról ált ánd thé vówél óf yóúr chóícé wórks á tréát !

Originally posted by clintons Cat:
I dont think the UK will back down, I think Blair is Motivated by a genuine desire to "Do the right Thing" and to try to repair some of the mistakes of previous administrations,after all unlike the US Republicans his party has none of the blowback of a potential "Iraqgate"-Matrix Churchill scandal.

That would be my thinking on this also.
mm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Corben Dallas

Policeman

cause lets face it ppl,when the sh1t hits whos the one they all run to? who provides the largest Military manpower to UN peacekeeping duties....u guessed it..the US.

The US administration (when Dubya) came to power,he complained that Europe wasnt putting the proper manpower and resourses in place to even out the total requirement of UN Peacekeeping duties.(the US was providing more than Half)

The US is the last gr8 superpower, and yeap this is a good thing cause if we were waiting for France, Germany and Russia to get off their collective asses we would be still debating what we should do about Saddam Son's Jr. in Iraq.

Not doing anything is actually keeping Saddam in power. He is responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of his own ppl, he is reported to have personally murdered members of his own family, their payment for 'treason'. Do not underestimate Saddam, he convinced them to come back to IRaq only to murder them. I have to laugh when i hear ppl saying that they should abolish the US backed No-fly zones.....why so Saddam would be free to bomb his own ppl again?

He needs to be taken care off, every week that goes by and every 'we need to give the inspectors more time' just gives Saddam the result hes hoped for....all he has to do is ride it out for a couple more months and ....Result!!!! another 30years of Saddam in power to bucther his own ppl while the west does nothing.

Sand

The Balkans was supposed to be the EUs first big chance to show how it could take care of bussiness in its own backyard without adult supervision. In went their monitors and observers and the diplomacy began. And we all know what a mess that turned into. And we all know who stopped the serbs and their campaign for a pure, Greater Serbia dont we? - twice too. And we all know how they did it dont we? Quite simply without the worlds policeman youd be looking at Greater Serbia ruled over by Milosevic still and a hell of a lot *more* dead/dispossessed non-serbs. It was all for the oil though. And the massive market opportunity. Or something.

therecklessone

Originally posted by TomF
I think the Iraqi infrastructure will be safe from attack by United States forces if (that's a very big "if") there is actually an invasion of Iraq. Why would the United States want to ruin a country that will be occupied under military rule and then handed over to a democratically-elected government?

They will target infrastructure for the same reasons they bombed the bridges, water facilities, energy supplies, roads, tv stations, radio stations, administration centres, and everything else that made Serbian society run day-to-day during the Kosovo crisis. They also did the same during the first Gulf War. It is sound military doctrine. Hit your enemy hard and fast, destroy his transport system, destabalise his regime, demoralise his people. Most importantly, all of the above reduce the ability of the Iraqi armed forces to fight...food supplies are scarce, power is intermittent, communications are patchy.

Does it surprise you to know that in the event of conventional warfare in Europe during the Cold War, US special forces doctrine envisaged troops operating behind enemy lines, mainly in Poland, in a quasi-terrorist role, targeting utilities (water, gas, electrity, phones), conducting assassination of civilian administrators, and spreading fear throughout the general population. I am not condemning this (if there had been a war, I'd have been first in line to volunterr), just showing that military doctrine very often involves less than comfortable means to the required end.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sand
The Balkans was supposed to be the EUs first big chance to show how it could take care of bussiness in its own backyard without adult supervision. In went their monitors and observers and the diplomacy began. And we all know what a mess that turned into. And we all know who stopped the serbs and their campaign for a pure, Greater Serbia dont we? - twice too. And we all know how they did it dont we? Quite simply without the worlds policeman youd be looking at Greater Serbia ruled over by Milosevic still and a hell of a lot *more* dead/dispossessed non-serbs. It was all for the oil though. And the massive market opportunity. Or something.

Couldn't agree with you more Sand. The thought of Dutch peacekeepers handing their weapons over to Serbian thugs in Srebrenica (spell that right?) before the horrific events there chilled me to the bone. Europe does need to face its responsibilities, learn to provide the transport capability and infrastructure to enable it to respond to a major crisis around the world, and without the political bickering. The situation in the Balkans was exacerbated by the French, who were traditionally Serbia's allies, and are believed to have enabled a number of war criminals to escape capture by the mandated forces in that region.

American military might did do for Sloba. But also remember that the conflict in the Balkan's was a multi-faceted mess. Remember that ex-US military officers, on contract from the US government, helped train the KLA, who then used that training to try a little ethnic cleansing of their own, and have also tried to destabalise Macedonia. Just because the US helped force the right outcome, does not mean that they necessarily followed the right path in doing so. That is a lesson they must learn, both for today and the future...

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The Balkans was supposed to be the EUs first big chance to show how it could take care of bussiness in its own backyard without adult supervision.

Bit like Korea and Vietnam would have been the US' first two big chances to show the world how it could take care of business where it felt like it without adult supervision.

By your "inability to learn and improve" theory, Sand, the US is just about the last nation in the world who should have been allowed on its interventionist ways, based on a success/failure criteria.

But, as usual, that will be different. The US was capable of learning, and can now get it right (and how is that not-yet-finished-war in Afghanistan that you said would be over in three months by the way). Europe, on the other hand, shouldnt be allowed near blunt paper scissors.

jc

Clintons Cat

American military might did do for Sloba. But also remember that the conflict in the Balkan's was a multi-faceted mess. Remember that ex-US military officers, on contract from the US government, helped train the KLA, who then used that training to try a little ethnic cleansing of their own, and have also tried to destabalise Macedonia. Just because the US helped force the right outcome, does not mean that they necessarily followed the right path in doing so. That is a lesson they must learn, both for today and the future...

An excellent point,and that would not be the first time the stategy has failed to deliver a disciplined or democratic western friendly force...Thinking of Mujahadean in afganistan,Khemir Rogue in Cambodia,or Ho Chi Minhs Viet Cong in French Indochina,what a great idea that turned out to be.

Éomer of Rohan

A recurrent theme amongst pro americans is that 'we all run to them when we need help.' Since when have we gone running to the US? It was always the US that interfered. This type of ridiculous attitude stems right to the first world war. If the US hadn't intervened, Germany still would have been defeated, the Hindenburg Offensive being the last push for a country brought to the brink of starvation by the Royal Navy. In WWII, if the US hadn't intervened, the Soviets would still have annihilated the Wehrmacht because the Brits would have kept up the pressure (lets not forget the war in the atlantic that starved Grmany was fought by British crews on newly purchased US ships) thus dividing German forces and allowing the Eastern Front to progress as it always did. In Dien Bien Phu, it was the US who proposed that the French use nukes, the French DID NOT ASK for them. In Egypt 1953, the US pushed it's nose into British affairs without being asked - in fact the Brits were furious. Vietnam, again who asked for half a million troops to be sent to Vietnam? It wasn't us!! Same with Korea - the US sent in an invasion force (and technically without the support of the UN since Russia was prevented from exercising her veto in the security council by her own withdrawal in indignation at US tactics against the new People's Republic of China (the US was freezing all PRC assets and preventing imports and exports from and to China). In Afghanistan, they were not asked, they decided to invade to find Bin Laden (though leaked pentagon papers suggest that they were planning an invasion to remove the taliban, ostensibly on human rights grounds, but in reality so US companies could get the finger in the Caspian oil pipeline pie. In the Balkans, they invaded NOT because the EU needed help - the EU was never properly involved - Britain refused to help without the US and Germany couldn't move forces in for Historical reasons which left Italy and France, neither of whom were mobilised for the eventuality of war. Look at the small conflicts - Iran, Panama, Nicaragua, most of the Australasian archipelago, most of third world africa - the US intervened not because we went running to it - it intervened because it's own interests were best served by intervening. Make no mistake, an invasion of Iraq will result in thousands of casualties despite one of the imbecilic comments made earlier. It is in the interests of securing oil - the US have publicly announced their disregard for the Kurdish right to self determination (ie setting up Kurdistan) and thus we will see, in any 'democratic' regime, a large part of the population coerced into a state, possibly like Northern Ireland in the 1920's. Face it people the US doesn't care - they are in it for themselves. Bully all the way.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Make no mistake, an invasion of Iraq will result in thousands of casualties despite one of the imbecilic comments made earlier.

And not invading Iraq will also result in thousands of casualties. Unless you think Saddam is suddenly going to reform his brutal ways.

Vietnam, again who asked for half a million troops to be sent to Vietnam? It wasn't us!!

I believe it was the South Vietnamese government.

Also, funny that your little tirade didn't mention the US defeat of Japan in WWII.

Éomer of Rohan

In reply to the last - neither of those was related to Europe. South Vietnam was looking for any ally at all - it was just their luck to find the US to send military aid. Who then killed over 2 million people in a pointless war. As to Japan, since when did Japan concern Europe? - it was the US who caused Japan to bomb Pearl Harbour due to oil and other vital sanctions. The colonies of Europe were to be given independence as free states. The only thing that Japan can be blamed for starting was the war in China (which every nation, US, Britain, Germany France and Russia at one stage had a claim in) to which the US took offence and began looking to her own colonies based around Manila and Davao.
As for the case made that Iraqi casualties in a war would be no less than what Saddam Hussein has caused; I hate to be the one to say this but the Ba'ath Regime is in fact quite progressive with regard to it's neighbours and other nations in the Middle East. Saddam stands accused of using chemical/biological weapons against the Kurds in Northern Iraq and of oppressing his people (denying them things like the right to form trade unions et cetera). The US have little grounds to attack Iraq if we look very closely - in fact the US should be withdrawing support from the tyrannical and unquestionably undemocratic regimes of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey. Furthermore, if they really were going to be even handed, they should withdraw support from Israel which uses concentration camp methods on Palestinians. Pakistan, India, the 'new' Afghanistan, the list goes on and lets not forget August Pinochet whom the US installed in Chile. If we look at historical precedent, we see overwhelmingly that the US may not even install a democratic regime - they may install the Iraqi equivalent of the Northern Alliance.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As to Japan, since when did Japan concern Europe? - it was the US who caused Japan to bomb Pearl Harbour due to oil and other vital sanctions.

True. The Japanese military dictatorship wanted oil to fuel their war of aggression in China, and the US didn't want to give it to them. Sounds like a reasonable enough policy from the Americans to me.

The colonies of Europe were to be given independence as free states. The only thing that Japan can be blamed for starting was the war in China

If you knew anything about WWII in the Pacific, you'd know that the Japanese military occupation was far more brutal than anything the Americans ever dreamed of. Heard of a city called Nanking? The "comfort women" in Korea?

As for the case made that Iraqi casualties in a war would be no less than what Saddam Hussein has caused; I hate to be the one to say this but the Ba'ath Regime is in fact quite progressive with regard to it's neighbours and other nations in the Middle East.

Ridiculous. Even by the standards of the Middle East, Saddam is a particularly brutal thug. How many other Middle Eastern countries have gassed their own people and started two wars of aggression within the past two decades?

Saddam stands accused of using chemical/biological weapons against the Kurds in Northern Iraq and of oppressing his people (denying them things like the right to form trade unions et cetera).

Also of torturing them, raping them, gassing them and executing them without trial.

in fact the US should be withdrawing support from the tyrannical and unquestionably undemocratic regimes of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait

I agree completely. But US opposition to even one brutal dictator is better than them doing nothing at all.

If we look at historical precedent, we see overwhelmingly that the US may not even install a democratic regime - they may install the Iraqi equivalent of the Northern Alliance.

Historical precedent? What about Italy, Germany and Japan? All of which have had democratic governments "imposed" on them by the USA. Also, Afghanistan isn't governed by the Northern Alliance. The US set up a compromise government, consisting of all the factions in Afghanistan as well as the Northern Alliance, even ex-Taliban commanders.

DiscoStu

Éomer already got ahead of me with the pearl harbour conspiracy

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000pacificwar.htm

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
I agree completely. But US opposition to even one brutal dictator is better than them doing nothing at all.

Absolutely. However, it would be incorrect to argue that the US actions are being carried out just because Saddam is a brutal dictator.

Hussein's regime lends legitimacy to the US action, but their "pick and choose" approach to which brutal dictators they wish to oppose indicates that there are most definitely other factors at play here.

As I have said before - while I welcome the concept of improving the lot of an oppressed people, I have misgivings about simply giving any nation (or coalition of nations) a carte blanche to do this without examining their reasons for doing so..

Similarly, while I accept that war is sometimes necessary, I disagree that it is necessary now. However, the US clearly feels that it is.


So - getting back to the question in hand : Are the US policemen or bullies?

Well - if they are policemen, then they are policemen who feel that they are judge, jury and executioner - a Judge Dredd kinda policeman I guess. The US is simply not willing to be constrained by anyone else's legal system - anything which doesnt do things their way is not right.

So - I guess in one sense that makes them bullies. After all - without the legitimacy of acting with international agreement, they are effectively a nation saying "its our way, and tough luck cause you aint tough enough to stop us".

So I guess I see them as both policemen and bullies. Over time, I think we will see the US pushing more and more to follow its chosen destiny - to act as it sees fit rather than having to worry about whatever sub-paragraph some paltry other nation is complaining about. However, as that happens, it is only to be expected that the rest of the world will push back. We are not US minions, and when we disagree with them, we should have both the right and the freedom to express that disagreement.

Instead, as we see in the current situation, our freedom to express disagreement somehow doesnt apply. We are pariahs. We are wrong. We are cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys, an axis of Weasels, and whatever else you like.

Why? Because we dared to use our freedom of expression and to make our own choices.

jc

therecklessone

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
A recurrent theme amongst pro americans is that 'we all run to them when we need help.' Since when have we gone running to the US? It was always the US that interfered. This type of ridiculous attitude stems right to the first world war. If the US hadn't intervened, Germany still would have been defeated, the Hindenburg Offensive being the last push for a country brought to the brink of starvation by the Royal Navy. In WWII, if the US hadn't intervened, the Soviets would still have annihilated the Wehrmacht because the Brits would have kept up the pressure (lets not forget the war in the atlantic that starved Grmany was fought by British crews on newly purchased US ships) thus dividing German forces and allowing the Eastern Front to progress as it always did. In Dien Bien Phu, it was the US who proposed that the French use nukes, the French DID NOT ASK for them. In Egypt 1953, the US pushed it's nose into British affairs without being asked - in fact the Brits were furious. Vietnam, again who asked for half a million troops to be sent to Vietnam? It wasn't us!! Same with Korea - the US sent in an invasion force (and technically without the support of the UN since Russia was prevented from exercising her veto in the security council by her own withdrawal in indignation at US tactics against the new People's Republic of China (the US was freezing all PRC assets and preventing imports and exports from and to China). In Afghanistan, they were not asked, they decided to invade to find Bin Laden (though leaked pentagon papers suggest that they were planning an invasion to remove the taliban, ostensibly on human rights grounds, but in reality so US companies could get the finger in the Caspian oil pipeline pie. In the Balkans, they invaded NOT because the EU needed help - the EU was never properly involved - Britain refused to help without the US and Germany couldn't move forces in for Historical reasons which left Italy and France, neither of whom were mobilised for the eventuality of war. Look at the small conflicts - Iran, Panama, Nicaragua, most of the Australasian archipelago, most of third world africa - the US intervened not because we went running to it - it intervened because it's own interests were best served by intervening. Make no mistake, an invasion of Iraq will result in thousands of casualties despite one of the imbecilic comments made earlier. It is in the interests of securing oil - the US have publicly announced their disregard for the Kurdish right to self determination (ie setting up Kurdistan) and thus we will see, in any 'democratic' regime, a large part of the population coerced into a state, possibly like Northern Ireland in the 1920's. Face it people the US doesn't care - they are in it for themselves. Bully all the way.

Éomer, there's a hell of a lot in here, so forgive me if I rove from point to point on it.

WW1. The US were welcomed with open arms by the Allies. Remember, the Russians had pulled out at that stage (a little thing called a Revolution going on), and had ceded huge tracts of land to the Germans as part of the peace deal. Germany would have not only have been able to bring more troops and equipment to the Western Front, but also been ablt to address food shortages with supplies coming from the East. US involvement meant (a) more men, (b) more equipment, and (c)if the more men bit didn't work, even more men! Lets face it, they helped end the war when it did. More importantly, Germany was defeated, which had a huge impact on Europe national developments. And I know it contributed to WW2, so don't point out the obvious.

WW2. Yes, Russian manpower played a huge part during the war. But tell me please, without the US, where would the UK have found the resources to provide the landing craft, troop transports, aircraft, tanks, trucks, and every other piece of equipment needed for the liberation of Europe? The War In The Atlantic? Which history lesson did you attend? Was that not the conflict between the highly successful German U-Boats and the beleagured UK and US convoys which operated on the Atlantic without air-support to help bring food and other essentials to an embattled Britain. Germany fed itself from the seized lands to the East. It was not until 1943 and onwards that the Allies had any success against the German u-boat fleet and managed to finally lift the blockade of Britain.

Egypt in 1953. The US poked its nose in? I'd have thought you would have appreciated any attempt by another power to stop the neo-colonial invasion of the Suez canal by the UK and France, with Israeli help. FFS, the crisis could have led to world war, since the Soviets were more than a little peeved at what had transpired. Why the invasion? Because the Egyptians had nationalised the Suez Canal, which did not suit the two major European powers. Imagine the US doing it now, and think then would you support it?

Just a few points...

Éomer of Rohan

I would actually like to thank meh for his points and for being the first truly constructive critic of what I have thus far written but I do have counter arguments.

As for Japanese promises a treatment vis á vis Europen colonies, none of China nor of Kores were EVER under actual European control thus I am sorry but your point with regard to Nanking and Korea are irrelevent however I will fill in a gap in your own knowledge and concede that maybe Changi etc are reprehensible. All of this however is not the point - the point is that it was not the European powers that went crying to the US, nor was it China. The US intervened in the pacific in order to secure it's own interests.

With regard to the imposition of democratic regimes you mention Japan, Germany and Italy. Italy is quite simply wrong since on several occassions the US interfered in Italian election right up until 1973 to prevent the Italian Communists establishing a government. As for Germany, the Bundesrepublik was a puppet for many years and no one can refute that. Japan was under the control of General MacArthur as you would know if you knew YOUR history of the war - even now the government has restrictions on the armed forces it maintains and it is big business who run the country, not the government. This has been proved on countless occassions where the government was toppled by cartelso of US/native corporations.

With regard to your point that opposition to one dictator is better than not at all - if it was any other country than the US, or if the US had a better record at foreign affairs then I may agree but the fact is the US is the most selfish nation on earth and has killed in the course of its wars more people than any nation save Nazi Germany.

Finally, with regard to your refutal of my comparison between Hussein and his fellow dictators. You say you agree that the US should withdraw support from the nations I mentioned including Kuwait; How then can you cite the Iraq/Kuwait war as an example of Saddam's, for want of a better word, evil? Niether regime was better than the other. With regard to the Iran/Iraq war which I can only assume was the other war you made reference to, the US practically paid and supplied the Iraqi army against the armies of what the Americans believed to be a theist socialist state - again, hardly a good example of Saddam's bellicose nature. As to the other wars, Syria, Israel, Jordan and Egypt have been involved in more wars than Iraq over the course of the last 20 odd years. Yes, Saddam stands alone in 'gassing' Kurds but look closely, what is the difference between killing them outright and holding them in conditions judged worse than the Nazi camps as Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Iran have each done - the foremost being a member of NATO - an avowed US ally??!!

I have a new point to make now. The alternatives to Saddam, as presented by the Pentagon hawks are; 1) a military goverment under the control of an American appointee. 2) the so called 'government in exile' which even the Americans have admitted is a sham. 3) The dismemberment of Iraq - some being returned to Iran, some forming a Kurdistan (which the US have vetoed decisively) and the rest distributed amongst the remaining nations of Kuwait, Syria, Jordan and KSA. 4) A democratically elected government.

The only real alternative is the democractically elected government, correct? However on several occasions, senior US officials including Colin Powell have made reference to Iraqi oil, the nations main income, being held in trust indefinitely. Also in the minds of US officials, there is no question of Iraqi oil remaining nationalised, removing this main source of income. Hence the new Iraqi government will go to the IMF and World Bank to ask for loans and will be required/blackmailed into passing 'neo liberal' economic reforms to secure aid (and you may ask how I can state this - it is written in the charter of said institutions and wholeheartedly endorsed by the US). These 'neo liberal reforms' involve deregulating a partially planned (and hitherto successful) economy run by the Ba'ath party on what might be known as Social Democratic principles meaning US firms get access to trade and out trade native companies, driving proper employment down and cheap employment up. This is a recurring cycle everywhere from the supposed Communist (it is not communist, trust me I know what I am talking about) regime of China to the now poverty stricken Argentina, once one of the richest countries in the world. Looking at these stark alternatives, can we really allow the US to intervene? Saddam may be bad but until the world changes drastically (ie the IMF, world bank and other Bretton Woods structures are shut down and neo liberalism is abandoned), there is no real alternative since the only alternative (a mass labour movement) is kept in check by the extraordinary western paranoia regarding Left wing, popular movements which represent the people and ultimately are the hope to replace all regimes such as Saddam.

How will people here feel when maybe 10 years from Now an Iraqi made nuclear weapon goes of in the middle of London.

Terrible. But what abt a nuke being planted by American citizens, or a nuke that was sold by America to an ally? I don't see anyone invading america on the premise that America has weapons of mass destruction. Hell we don't even know if Iraq has em, but we sure know the US has em.

Germany would have not only have been able to bring more troops and equipment to the Western Front, but also been ablt to address food shortages with supplies coming from the East

Good point. But also consider that after the years of war, Germany didn't have that many troops left. Two generations dead thru the war has an impact on the number of civilians left to conscript.

WW2 - America only entered the war when Hitler was foolish enough to declare war on them. Theres no guarantee that if he hadn't, the US wouldn't have stayed on the borders of a war, especially since they already had their own war with Japan. America join the war for its own motives.

1941:
Dec 8 . U.S. declares a state of war to exist with the Empire of Japan.
Dec 8 . Imperial Rescript declares a state of war between the Japanese Empire and the United States.
Dec 9 . Japanese planes sink Repulse and Prince of Wales off Malaya.
Dec 11. German/Italian axis declares war on US.
Dec 11. US, others respond with war on Germany and Italy.
(source: http://www.ww2pacific.com/prewar.html)

It was not until 1943 and onwards that the Allies had any success against the German u-boat fleet and managed to finally lift the blockade of Britain.

True, but it was the inventions of ASDIC, and the capture of an Enigma machine, both by the british that turned the war. The US, provided materials, and shipping, but up until the acquisition of the above, the Naval war was being lost.

In both World Wars it took some event external to their own decision to have them enter the wars. In WW1 it was the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, which brought the US into the War, and in WW2, it was Hitlers Declaration.. In both cases, it was only because their own interests clashed with Germany did, they join the Allies. So please don't tell me that the US, did anything during those wars, to save Europe, or the suffering of people.

Face it people the US doesn't care - they are in it for themselves

I agree totally. I do on the other hand believe that the US has helped europe in recent years, but i do think thats more of a side-effect than any conscious reason by them to do so. I don't trust Bush's motives for this war, just as i didn't totally trust the US's motives in Afghanistan.

I'd prefer that it was the UN that performed the actions, the US has decided to do all alone. At least then, anything that is done, is tempered by the approval of the member states. This way, with America/Britain going alone, gives them free-rein to conduct a war in any way they see fit. Whether that be bombing of pure military targets, or hitting civilian centres.

Éomer of Rohan

To the reckless one, yes I will concede the point with regards Egypt - I do not like the US but the protection of a nationalised Suez was vital for Egypt and benefitted the working class.

With regard to the points made about WWI, logistically the Germans HAD NO SUPPLIES FROM THE EAST. The Kaisers army was superior in man power but no reinforcements were forth coming other than those that had arrived already due to the collapse of the Russian front in 1917 (and being a communist I am well aware of the revolution). Also, you do not consider political developments in Germany and her allies; the German High Seas Fleet was in revolt. Many soldiers were also clamouring for the end of the war - some violently so. The Ottoman Empire had collapsed and Austro - Hungary was on the point of civil war (a war avoided ultimately by the loss of the war ironically). Germany would have been defeated simply due to Britains maritime Empire and the supplies this entailed. France also had access via the British controlled Mediterranean to supplies and together ultimately they would have defeated Germany, US or not. That is not to say they didn't welcome another ally, they just didn't go hunting for one (or crying, the word used by someone else).

With regard to World War II, as has been shown countless times, by the time of Stalingrad in late 1942, early 1943, the Soviet Union was outproducing Germany by a factor of nearly three to one and if we consider qualitatively, Soviet armour, the new IS-2, the T-34 and the Kv-1 and -2 were alll able to withstand even the 88mm Tiger Tank ammunition whereas the same could not be said in reverse, especially for the much overrated Panzer Mark IV. The Russians would have pushed to Berlin as they did and without Patton to halt them, they would have pushed to the Rhine. They did not need D-Day, thus your point about where would the Russians have been without Britain who was in turn supplied by America is irrelevent. As to the Atlantic War, no impact was made until the introduction of convoys which first began after 52 destroyers were given to the UK under the lend lease agreement (which was a sale, nothing more) hence the Brits could have held out without American intervention - look at the offensive (albeit an unsuccessful one) that they even launched at Dieppe using Anzac and Royal Canadian troops.

In conclusion, in neither war was the US required.

Éomer of Rohan

PS please excuse me for not inserting quotes like you each seem to do - I have not yet worked out how and would be much obliged if someone could explain it. Thanks.

PPS - You didn't have to insert my entire article reckless one lol!!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
but the fact is the US is the most selfish nation on earth and has killed in the course of its wars more people than any nation save Nazi Germany.

Two words:

Soviet. Union.