Not enough US casualties?

PH01

From - http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2483085

According to a senior US military person that U.S. casualties in the 12-day-old war had so far been "fairly" light.

And,

There will come a time maybe when things are going to be much more shocking," he said, adding: "In World War II, there would be nights when we'd lose 1,000 people.

Amazing stuff. And it makes me wonder at what stage would these guys become 'concerned' about their own casualties? Sounds like the US are prepared to lose quite a lot of their own people, not to mention the Iraqi people

casualties to the allies have been very light in this war. Western armies have grown soft in the last 20 years, simply because they rely so much on technology to take out the enemy from afar. This will change in Iraq, just as it was in Vietnam.

The US will see alot more casualties, since their superior armour and air power cannot help them in the streets of a city.

davej

There are already at least 135 dead coalition soldiers and 480 wounded according to unofficial sources. There is little doubt that the figure will be in 4 digits before the end of the conflict. The americans are going to have to make a judgement call between the levels of US casualties they think their public can accept and the levels of Iraqi civilian casualties they (the public) can accept. It seems to me that these two figures are probably inversely proportional to each other. You can bet that there's a think tank out there trying to work out the magic numbers.

davej

MAC_E

"We Americans aren't very good at judging what a totalitarian regime looks like, does, acts like," he said. "I just don't think we're very good at it."

I think that us offical hit the nail on the head.

Éomer of Rohan

FFS! It is unreal how the casualties are being discussed! These men have wives, children, parents! They seem to be only numbers on a page to most senior staff at the Pentagon and in the White House - is it any fecking wonder why the US is so ready to go to war? They don't give a stuff about men getting slaughtered, having limbs blown off and so on - the realities of war seem to have escaped them. I think OBL should have sent two or three planes to finish off the damn Pentagon!

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I think OBL should have sent two or three planes to finish off the damn Pentagon!

Oh Good God Éomer, is there no end to the lenghth you are going to make Sands signature by the years end!!
mm

Victor

Hmmm. If the USA suffers too few casualties, it will create problems in the future where the threshold for war will be too low.

Originally posted by Man
Oh Good God Éomer, is there no end to the lenghth you are going to make Sands signature by the years end!!

He is "merely" advocating an attack on a military target ....

Coalition casualties in the 12-day-old conflict total 67, including 43 Americans and 24 Britons, a light tally beside the hundreds of Iraqis the coalition has reported killing.

http://www.canada.com/national/features/iraq/story.html?id=9BEF17C1-264C-48DA-BC9D-2054981258F7

Éomer of Rohan

Tell me it is not a viable military target?? Yeah well, anymore quotes in Sand and I will be asking Bonkey or Gandalf to remove them. They can be read out of context as it is.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Tell me it is not a viable military target??

That depends. Are you going to let the passengers off those planes before you crash them?

Éomer of Rohan

Did I say there were passengers on the planes? Did I ask were passenger planes a viable weapon? Did I suggest so? I was questioning whether or not the Pentagon was a viable military target. Of course it is.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Did I suggest so? I was questioning whether or not the Pentagon was a viable military target. Of course it is.

Sometimes Éomer what you leave out of your statements,lead to Baaaaad conclusions being drawn from them.
It's reasonable to infer, that you were talking about hi-jacked passenger planes, and that you had wished that OBL had sent a few more in to finish the job on 9-11, or in the future.

OBL is a terrorist, so the Pentagon is not a military target for him, it's just a target for terror via arson, explosion and murder, by a passenger plane.
mm

Éomer of Rohan

Allow me to clarify - terrorist or not, the Pentagon is a viable target upon which to unleash one's fury against America, her warmongering, insensitivity and stupidity amongst other things. Mind you, using the military logic of the Americans, those passenger planes were viable weapons - the people on them would be called collateral damage just like those people 'accidentally' annihilated when American bombs destroy the tv station next door. I'm a fecking humanitarian compared to them!

mike65

Allow me to clarify - terrorist or not, the Pentagon is a viable target upon which to unleash one's fury against America

You're beginning to sound like a terrorist to me Eomar...or just a nutty humanitarian.

Mike.

Sometimes Éomer what you leave out of your statements,lead to Baaaaad conclusions being drawn from them.

It's reasonable to infer, that you were talking about hi-jacked passenger planes, and that you had wished that OBL had sent a few more in to finish the job on 9-11, or in the future.

Personally i thought he was referring to if Iraq, attacked the US, who they are currently at war with. And before anyone jumps up abt Iraq using passenger planes also, Saddam hasn't been linked to terrorism, as such.

Question though, if Saddam launches a biological attack on the Pentagon, is that a valid attack? it is against a military target.

Éomer of Rohan

Question though, if Saddam launches a biological attack on the Pentagon, is that a valid attack? it is against a military target

Now that I would cheer. America would deserve it after what they have done to that country.

I hope that you will explain your comments Mike 65

Now that I would cheer. America would deserve it after what they have done to that country

well i wouldn't. Any more than i cheer when i see baghdad being bombed. I'm not anti-war, but i don't have any time for wars that could easily have been avoided, or wars i find to be for the wrong reasons.

An attack on the US by Iraq, would at least bring america into the real world. Since they haven't ever been attacked on their home ground by a nation they were currently at war with, with the possible exception of Canada. At least then, they would realise what they bring to other nations, with their warmongering.

mike65

I hope that you will explain your comments Mike 65

See Klaz post above....humanitiarians don't urge the murder of thousands coz a countries politics pisses them off!

Mike.

humanitiarians

If i knew a proper definition for this, i probably wouldn't so insulted

Éomer of Rohan

I am not saying it is a good thing because I disagree with the politics of the US, I am saying it because it would make America understand precisely what it means to be engaged in a proper war where you might face invasion, have your cities bombed and so on, maybe forcing them to reintroduce reality to their warmongering - avoiding more wars possibly? Thus saving many more lives than would be lost - unless of course the stories of a nuclear reactor under the Pentagon are true.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I am saying it because it would make America understand precisely what it means to be engaged in a proper war where you might face invasion, have your cities bombed and so on, maybe forcing them to reintroduce reality to their warmongering - avoiding more wars possibly?

Unless some military is actually going to invade the US, then this is no more than wishful thinking. It will not make the US understand anything.

No-one (well, statistically....almost no-one) in the US is ever going to equate guerrilla tactics used on the US mainland as anything but "terrorism".

If it is an attack on military forces, by a clandestine "special Ops" from another nation, it will still get classified as terrorism....if for no other reason than that as a strike in and of itself it has no strategic value. It is purely a strike to send a message. Multiple strikes just become repeated messages.

The US bombed Saddam's palace....as part of a war. If you were to bomb the White House, it wouldnt be seen as part of a war...just as an isolated incident....and thus will still be billed as nothing more than more terrorism.

Lets say an Iraqi bombed some military resources in the US tomorrow....it will still be sold as terrorism, and the people will still believe it. So who would learn anything? The government? Hell - they already know. They just choose to sell a different story.

As an aside, I really do find it hard to understand how you can claim to be humanitarian and/or pacifist (or "humanitarian/pacifist compared to.....) and repeatedly come up with statements wishing that some death and destruction was visited on "the other side", and saying that you would cheer such.

Humanitarianism and Pacisifism do not have sides. You oppose violence or you dont. If you do, then quit making these comments about attacks on America, otherwise quit claiming your a pacifist or a humanist because quite honestly no humanist or pacifist would ever suggest cheering if any group of humans got killed in an attack of any nature.

You are advocating (or would welcome) violence on a nation who's ideals and methods you disagree vehemently with. You criticise this nation for advocating violence on a nation who's ideals and methods they disagree vehemently with. Can you not see that you are now no different to them?

Also...if you have a problem with Sand's sig, then turn off sig-showing. Alternately, take it to the admins....its not a forum-specific issue, so there's nothing I can do about it as a result. Oh - and you forgot to mention our hard-working third mod as well

jc

Unless some military is actually going to invade the US, then this is no more than wishful thinking. It will not make the US understand anything.

It doesn't necessary involve an invasion. Constant bombing by conventional methods would have the same effect, however theres not much point of that except get the US mad at you. Which, would probably mean a nuke thrown at you.

dathi1

Again when this war is so called "won" the repercussions for the US and Britain (and us since we live next door) will be phenomenal. They’ve already galvanized Arab opinion and are creating thousands of OB's across the Islamic world. It just takes one tactical mini N Bomb in a Taxi in downtown Chicago to bring reality home to Rumsfeild+Co and unfortunately American and British Citizens that the world really did change on Sept 11th. And don’t give me what they will do in Iraq afterwards will make the difference...the track record of the British and American Imperialism (especially the Bush crew) doesn’t bode well for the future.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
No-one (well, statistically....almost no-one) in the US is ever going to equate guerrilla tactics used on the US mainland as anything but "terrorism". If it is an attack on military forces, by a clandestine "special Ops" from another nation, it will still get classified as terrorism....if for no other reason than that as a strike in and of itself it has no strategic value. It is purely a strike to send a message. Multiple strikes just become repeated messages.

Of course the Americans consider guerilla tactics in Iraq as terrorism, when patently it isn't. This raises the question as to whether American group consciousness can identify the difference.

Originally posted by bonkey
As an aside, I really do find it hard to understand how you can claim to be humanitarian and/or pacifist (or "humanitarian/pacifist compared to.....) and repeatedly come up with statements wishing that some death and destruction was visited on "the other side", and saying that you would cheer such. Humanitarianism and Pacisifism do not have sides. You oppose violence or you dont. If you do, then quit making these comments about attacks on America, otherwise quit claiming your a pacifist or a humanist because quite honestly no humanist or pacifist would ever suggest cheering if any group of humans got killed in an attack of any nature.

There is a middle ground here and while I neither agree with nor condone Éomer's comments, I can understand, in part, where he is coming from. There is a threshold where violence must be used, but that must be a very high threshold and I agree that both the Bush administration (and unfortunately the American group consciousness) and Éomer have too low a threshold.

Is there a better word for "American group consciousness". I want to claim to be anti-"American group consciousness".

I want to claim to be anti-"American group consciousness".

this is probably going to create a 3 page thread discussion, that actually goes nowhere... lol

Éomer of Rohan

As an aside, I really do find it hard to understand how you can claim to be humanitarian and/or pacifist (or "humanitarian/pacifist compared to.....) and repeatedly come up with statements wishing that some death and destruction was visited on "the other side", and saying that you would cheer such.

Humanitarianism and Pacisifism do not have sides. You oppose violence or you dont. If you do, then quit making these comments about attacks on America, otherwise quit claiming your a pacifist or a humanist because quite honestly no humanist or pacifist would ever suggest cheering if any group of humans got killed in an attack of any nature.

You are advocating (or would welcome) violence on a nation who's ideals and methods you disagree vehemently with. You criticise this nation for advocating violence on a nation who's ideals and methods they disagree vehemently with. Can you not see that you are now no different to them?

I never claimed to be a pacifist. I accept the necessity of violence on some occasions but once a precedent is set, dangerous things result and this is one such precedent.

By the way, humanism (you called me a humanist) is a religios belief. What you meant was a humanitarian. On this matter, see above - I do not necessarily have to like death in order to see that it may serve a greater purpose. For example if America was properly engaged in a war by every other nation on earth for example (sheerly hypothetical and somewhat unrealistic but give me the benefit of the doubt) and was defeated without things going 'nuclear' many people would die but the power of America would be removed - Canada would get territory, Mexico. states would become nations and so on - removing an aggressive, corrupting power and so benefitting the rest of humanity - so, as in a Democracy, doesn't the need of the many outweigh the need of the few?

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
By the way, humanism (you called me a humanist) is a religios belief. What you meant was a humanitarian.

Apologies - you're right. I did mean humanitarian - and I still maintain that a humanitarian would not be so quick to embrace death and destruction. Surely seeking other options is what you should be advocating, instead of echoing sentiments that are scarily like those the US are putting out about Iraq - that diplomacy has failed and nothing short of a good ol' bit of violence will sort it out.

I accept that there are cases where war may be the only resort as the lesser of certain evils (although usually that evil is an even bigger war), but given that we both agree that Iraq is not such a case, I find it hard to accept that you are so...I dont know....wishful that someone would visit violence on the US, when clearly there are other avenues which should be given their chance first.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Haven't the other avenues all been tried with that particular country? The people are even too stupid to see that they are ensconsed in a dictatorship.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
doesn't the need of the many outweigh the need of the few?

Unfortunately in your example the many would be dead. I suspect Hitler / random demagog would also have said "doesn't the need of the many outweigh the need of the few?" - it is a principle that needs to be used carefully. Why don't you just cut off their oil?

PS Have I lost the argument by invoking Hitler?

Éomer of Rohan

Unfortunately in your example the many would be dead

Which example was that?

Why would invoking Hitler forfeit the argument? Actually knowing many examples of demagogues from history, I would have said Hitler was plainly insane rather than a man with any real interest in the 'populares.'

Cutting off the oil would be an excellent idea but two things prevent it;
1) they would proceed to militarily invade every country with oil to ensure the supply.
2) The people with oil tend not to sell it in the interests of the many - oiligarchies, to use an almost clichéd term is a derivative of the word 'oligarchy' or government of ther few - the few who are interested in profit regardless of any nation or political ideal and so on (again, one of my grievances with capitalism but that is OT) - they would sell the oil to the highest bidder; hence the USA.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Why would invoking Hitler forfeit the argument?

Godwin's Law

There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Haven't the other avenues all been tried with that particular country? The people are even too stupid to see that they are ensconsed in a dictatorship.

Are you talking about the US or Iraq?

I know you intend to be referring to the US, but you are using exactly the same language as the US have used about Iraq.

So...if the US are wrong (which you maintain) about Iraq, how can you be correct about the US, without acknowledging that such issues of right and wrong are simply a matter of perspective.....at which point you once again legitimise the US action in Iraq - they see diplomacy as failed, so they are right to use force. You see diplomacy as failed with the US, so for you its ok to use force.

Same logic, same argument, but you're taking both sides, depending on the nation....again, exactly the type of thing youve been criticising the US for doing.

Once you join them, you can no longer credibly criticise them, for you are just like them.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

So...if the US are wrong (which you maintain) about Iraq, how can you be correct about the US, without acknowledging that such issues of right and wrong are simply a matter of perspective.....at which point you once again legitimise the US action in Iraq - they see diplomacy as failed, so they are right to use force. You see diplomacy as failed with the US, so for you its ok to use force.

Same logic, same argument, but you're taking both sides, depending on the nation....again, exactly the type of thing youve been criticising the US for doing.

On the surface, this criticism is valid and I accept that however if you really want to analogise these nations, allow me to continue.
Diplomacy in Iraq did not fail - anyone paying attention to what the UN was saying as opposed to the US could clearly see that Hans Blix and Kofi Annan both regarded the diplomatic option as far from spent - especially considering Mr Blix's efforts to disarm Iraq in accordance with the UN mandate given him. The US simply overruled the UN - hell, those pro-War supporters from the US posted a thread here not so long ago 'thank[ing] god for the death of the UN' - proving that the perspective in this case is not an issue. Even considered from a historical perspective, when one nation concentrates all the power into it's own hands, ignoring international treaties and so on, there are major problems - for nearly 60 years many nations have attempted to deal with the US and her foreign policy through negotiations in the UN and privately too - all to no avail, generally because of that ridiculous item called the veto. So, negotiation time in Iraq; 6 months. Negotiation time with US; 58 years. Bit of a disparity there in my opinion.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Diplomacy in Iraq did not fail - anyone paying attention to what the UN was saying as opposed to the US could clearly see that Hans Blix and Kofi Annan both regarded the diplomatic option as far from spent - especially considering Mr Blix's efforts to disarm Iraq in accordance with the UN mandate given him.

Agreed. No argument from me there. I continue to oppose this war purely and solely on the grounds that all other options had not been exhausted - the powers that be simply decided that this was the option they preferred.

So, negotiation time in Iraq; 6 months. Negotiation time with US; 58 years. Bit of a disparity there in my opinion.

Yup, but thats not the point. Its not time elapsed which is the issue, but what has been done.

The point is that there are several non-violent options remaining which have not been tried. Why? Because the ramifications would be that a principled stand by one or many nations would probably ultimately hurt those nations as much as the US....and no-one seems to be willing to stand by their convictions if they cost too much.

And thats the thing. Violence becomes an option because we are not willing to pay for the discomfiture of trying other stances. Its easier to say "I wish some terrorist would blow up the Pentagon / WhiteHouse / United States" than it is to say that you wish your government - and others - would do something constructive and non-violent rather than sit around alternating between making encouraging noises and discouraging ones depending on the issue at hand. Let it cost us. Let us pay the price of our wants and convictions. And then, when that fails, let us consider if violence is the only remaining option and if it is merited.

Until all other options have been exhausted - sanctions, trade embargoes, whatever you like - resorting to violence on the grounds of "everything else has failed" is simply the same cop-out that the US used for its current invasion.

If you want an example, look at what happened when the US refused to pay its back-debts to the UN. It was effectively kicked off one of the boards (cant remember which one) in retaliation, and when they started blustering about how important they were on the issue, the response simply was "but why should you not have to pay like the rest"? Needless to say they coughed up the cash to get their prestige back. Or am I misremembering me?

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Well, lets examine this.

sanctions, trade embargoes, whatever you like

Just remember who controls the UN and why most of these therefore become automatically impossible and untenable.

And thats the thing. Violence becomes an option because we are not willing to pay for the discomfiture of trying other stances.

Its easier to say "I wish some terrorist would blow up the Pentagon / WhiteHouse / United States" than it is to say that you wish your government - and others - would do something constructive

Whatever others may say, my faith in democracy in Ireland, the UK and the US was finally destroyed by the governmental ignorance of the massive demonstrations that occurred in protest against the war - how are we meant to convince any of our governments to do something that will economically threaten the country but which is the morally right thing to do when we can't even convince them to refrain from killing people for their own benefit?

If you want an example, look at what happened when the US refused to pay its back-debts to the UN. It was effectively kicked off one of the boards (cant remember which one) in retaliation, and when they started blustering about how important they were on the issue, the response simply was "but why should you not have to pay like the rest"? Needless to say they coughed up the cash to get their prestige back. Or am I misremembering me?

Yeah they were kicked off Human Rights for not paying 500 million dollars in arrears to the UN. I did laugh however; the UN will kick them off in order to get salaries paid not because the US violated the very tenets which the UN is based on. While the US are the primary economic power in the world, we cannot change them without violence. I am really hoping you will prove me wrong here Bonkey, honestly.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
The point is that there are several non-violent options remaining which have not been tried. Why? Because the ramifications would be that a principled stand by one or many nations would probably ultimately hurt those nations as much as the US....and no-one seems to be willing to stand by their convictions if they cost too much. And thats the thing. Violence becomes an option because we are not willing to pay for the discomfiture of trying other stances.

Does this make them terrorists? The logic is very similar to that whcih could be used regarding terrorists (not freedom fighters) - "We don't have the patience to do it politically / diplomaticly, so we are just going to resort to violence."

ferdi

who gives a sh!te? they chose to go to war so they are gonna die. its always the kids who die, its rare to hear of a 50 year old general dying. kiddy-kannon fodder, its the way it goes

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Éomer of Rohan

Well, they control them to the extent that any supposed measure such as sanctions against the US could be vetoed. Of course, this ignores the fact that many of the nations represented at the UN are entirely self interested and thus would not support such measures. In the instance of France threatening to use her veto, that was a single example of US control of the top 5 wavering a little. Even Russia and China usually toe the line.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

For example if America was properly engaged in a war by every other nation on earth for example (sheerly hypothetical and somewhat unrealistic but give me the benefit of the doubt) and was defeated without things going 'nuclear' many people would die but the power of America would be removed - Canada would get territory, Mexico. states would become nations and so on - removing an aggressive, corrupting power and so benefitting the rest of humanity - so, as in a Democracy, doesn't the need of the many outweigh the need of the few?

Youd simply see the rise of another superpower - whod have the power to enact *their* particular world view on others.

I am saying it because it would make America understand precisely what it means to be engaged in a proper war where you might face invasion, have your cities bombed and so on, maybe forcing them to reintroduce reality to their warmongering - avoiding more wars possibly?

Whats triggered this recent burst of American military adventures against their enemies? Would it be perhaps them waking up to the dangers of having their cities attacked, their citizens dying? Its re-introduced them to the reality that they cannot afford to ignore hostile forces no matter how seemingly insignificant. A larger attack would most likely simply lead to a greater response - remember that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the White House refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against those responsible.

9/11 has made the US more willing to accept casualties - a Time survey found that 47% ( i think ) of americans would accept 5000 US casualties to take out Saddam hussein, when 18 (? ) dead in the battle of mogadishu led to the US withdrawal from Somalia. Theres no reason to belive heaveir or more severe attacks are going to lead to a sudden meekness in attitude.

how are we meant to convince any of our governments to do something that will economically threaten the country but which is the morally right thing to do when we can't even convince them to refrain from killing people for their own benefit?

Vote for a better representitve in the next elections- and make sure the government knows why its losing your vote.

Simple as that.

Yeah they were kicked off Human Rights for not paying 500 million dollars in arrears to the UN. I did laugh however; the UN will kick them off in order to get salaries paid not because the US violated the very tenets which the UN is based on.

The entire UN is a laughable joke to be honest. Check out the membership of the UNs human rights council when you need a giggle. Then listen to Russia harping on about war not being the answer and scratch your head when wondering how that fits with their levelling of Chechnya. Ask China why they reckon war isnt the answer when if Taiwan was to say they were actually independant from China - which is the reality pretty much - that China would most likely invade them? While youre at it, ask them for advice on how to encourage human rights for the iraqis - theyve picked up some valuable tips from tibet and indeed China proper so i hear. The whole institution is built on hypocrisy and looking the other war. Why blame the US and others for recognising it for what it is?

9/11 has made the US more willing to accept casualties - a Time survey found that 47% ( i think ) of americans would accept 5000 US casualties to take out Saddam hussein, when 18 (? ) dead in the battle of mogadishu led to the US withdrawal from Somalia. Theres no reason to belive heaveir or more severe attacks are going to lead to a sudden meekness in attitude.

the propaganda machine really worked overtime on this one, especially i have not seen any evidence to link Saddam to Sept 11. So they're willing to sacrifice 5k lives to take out Saddam, from misguided revenge traits?

Whats triggered this recent burst of American military adventures against their enemies? Would it be perhaps them waking up to the dangers of having their cities attacked, their citizens dying? Its re-introduced them to the reality that they cannot afford to ignore hostile forces no matter how seemingly insignificant. A larger attack would most likely simply lead to a greater response - remember that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the White House refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against those responsible.

What we were talking about was the actual bringing of war to america's countryside. Sept 11 was not a military attack. It was one attack. Perhaps the US would not be in such a rush to start wars, if they knew the effects of those wars.. A taste of war oin the own doorstep would wake em up a good bit.

Why blame the US and others for recognising it for what it is?

Personally i'm not blaming them for recognising that. However i do blame nations for swinging with the UN, when it suits them, and then buggering off when it doesn't. If you're going to join an org, at least join, with the intention of giving it a chance.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

What we were talking about was the actual bringing of war to america's countryside. Sept 11 was not a military attack. It was one attack. Perhaps the US would not be in such a rush to start wars, if they knew the effects of those wars.. A taste of war oin the own doorstep would wake em up a good bit.

But thats just it - all their dirty foreign wars and proxy conflicts and realpoliticking abroad came home to roost with 9/11 when a group of rabid arab nationalists/islamic fundamentalists with a grudge against the US despite formerly being sponsored by the US launched an unprecedented attack on the Pentagon and the more famously the people working in the World Trade center.

What happened? Did the US review its foreign policy, pull out from areas where it might not be wanted, start paying reparations for crimes and slights, real or imagined, cut defence spending drastically and declare a workers democracy?

The US suddenly decided that its enemies could no longer be ignored, that threats couldnt be put on the long finger, that a pre-emptive war was now part of their defence against more attacks and that people had to decide if they were for or against them, that sitting on the fence wasnt an option.

Thousands of civillians died in a single day, and sparked this militant attitude. Whilst the idea of american cities in flame might bring a glow of warmth to the hearts of many left wing nut jobs its not going to do anything other than make the US even more aggressive in its own defence.

Personally i'm not blaming them for recognising that. However i do blame nations for swinging with the UN, when it suits them, and then buggering off when it doesn't. If you're going to join an org, at least join, with the intention of giving it a chance.

But isnt that how every state is playing it, at least the "players". They use it when it helps them, they ignore it when it doesnt. The only time a state is forced to accept its rulings ( and its not even a seperate entity, its merely a decision by a committee of nations - not some all powerful independant body with a copyright on justice and equality ) is when the side supporting the UN has more guns and is willing to use them.

The UN will be powerful when it agrees with the powerful states, and it will be weak when it disagrees with the powerful states.

Éomer of Rohan

The UN will be powerful when it agrees with the powerful states, and it will be weak when it disagrees with the powerful states

But when there are several powerful states, of equal power, they have to negotiate rather than use bullying tactics at the first oportunity. The problem is now that there is only one truly powerful state and it does what it pleases.

But thats just it - all their dirty foreign wars and proxy conflicts and realpoliticking abroad came home to roost with 9/11 when a group of rabid arab nationalists/islamic fundamentalists with a grudge against the US despite formerly being sponsored by the US launched an unprecedented attack on the Pentagon and the more famously the people working in the World Trade center.

What happened? Did the US review its foreign policy, pull out from areas where it might not be wanted, start paying reparations for crimes and slights, real or imagined, cut defence spending drastically and declare a workers democracy?

I understand your point Sand (for once LOL). The US decided to wage unrelenting war and kill many more thousands than died in 9/11. So the options are either for the madmen to destroy the power of the US or not to provoke it at all - one of which is improbable though not impossible and the other gives the US its way all the time - and we have seen the results of that. Not good.
Every which way there are unpalatable options. I ask the question, can the US be stopped?

Sand

But when there are several powerful states, of equal power, they have to negotiate rather than use bullying tactics at the first oportunity. The problem is now that there is only one truly powerful state and it does what it pleases.

But that has always been true - and its outside of the UN. It might be argued that Bismarks concert of Europe had greater success at preventing war in a militant, powerful and divided Europe - and Bismark wasnt by any means a pacifist or a believer in international justice, it just suited strategic interests to keep the status quo. It bears consideration that the US may end up running a similar concert of the world - and that it will perhaps use the UN as a cover to do so, thats if you dont already believe its what it was created to do.

Every which way there are unpalatable options. I ask the question, can the US be stopped?

I think youd first have to convince people it should be stopped, or at least articulate what youre trying to stop it doing?

The threat to Syria/Iran for example is most likely minimal given the amount of work theyll have to do in Iraq. Not least of which will be keeping the oil fields safe.

Éomer of Rohan

It bears consideration that the US may end up running a similar concert of the world - and that it will perhaps use the UN as a cover to do so, thats if you dont already believe its what it was created to do.

It is unrealistic to draw a parallel between now and the pre-1914 Empires. France, Britain, Russia, Germany, Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans (and Spain but they were very small and backward) were al counterbalances to each other and one was not that far ahead of the rest - including Britain. Britain's only real strength was that according to the dictum of the Admiralty, her navy was greater than the sum of the next two naval powers and this what she based her empire on; America presently is more powerful on land sea and air, AND economically more powerful too in a world where everything with regard to money no relies on the USA. On a slightly more petty note, Bismarck was a genius, though I am not an adherent of his. George Bush and Dick Cheney are right wing nutters - and before I get asked for evidence, the link to 'Project for a New American Century' is in another of the threads I started - go dig it up LOL.

I think youd first have to convince people it should be stopped, or at least articulate what youre trying to stop it doing?

Well, there are many reasons, but given that I would like to see the opinions of the right wing posters on this one, maybe the most pragmatic - no one nation should have so much power and that power corrupts. Hence someone has to remove that power from the United States before it does some serious damage (not that it already hasn't IMO!).