Bush is now President - what about the Former Yugoslavia?

[miko2d]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:

This system will in no way protect Britain (and indeed make it a target for pre-emptive strikes to disable NMD). So what do we get out of the deal?

 You should llok up a geography atlas, Dowding!
 An advanced warning station would be able to protect England against sudden attack from, say, Russia, if you place it in Kiev or Smolensk. Or maybe in Belgrade... Otherwise the missles will arrive few seconds later then the warning.

 Does the fact that England is closer to a potential enemy mean that US should not be defended just our of spite?

 Wouldn't enemy considering a "preemptive strike" against England be deterred by the fact that US will get early warning and retaliate for it's ally? Isn't that why NATO is for? Americans using their strategic geographical advantage to guarantee safety of it's european allies?

 As for technology, it will improve, but only if someone is working on it. With the current technological progress it is possible that US will be able to create a working NMD system by the time some terrorist group can create a working delivery system. Russia is not the only threat, you know. Not even a major one and hopefully with the end of the Cold War.

miko

[StSanta]

Let's not forget that the NMD violates a missile treaty.

Really, if Bush goes through with this, *he* is the violator and starter of tensions.

While the US is the only superpower, it's not immune and it's not unbeatable. Great at conventional warfare, the US public is very reluctant to accept casualties and I don't think any country fighting the US will be using conventional methods.

It's not a very good thing to break a treaty when now we have a great shot at actually improving relations between most countries on earth.

One of the most frightening aspects of Bush is his apparent lack of interest in the environment. The deal that broke down in Europe with greengas omissions stuff will be almost impossible to get through now. Sure, Americans are gas guzzlers, but there was some kind of a compromise in the works. I fear that with Mr Bush, green gas production in the US will rise, not be lowered.

And the US is about the worst country in the world with regards to gasses coming from oil products.

Oh well. The sad thing is that many of these things DO influence us Europeans. Therefore, we have a legitimate interest in who's the US presidency and you really cannot say "only Americans reply".

We might not be able to in any way affect the US election, but we do have our own worries and opinions, as noteworthy as those of extremist left/right wingers and centrists.

Anyway, let's just hope he grows with the job. He'll have a lot of help.



------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Dowding]

Raubvogel - but those airbases (which are still there, by the way) would be of no consequence if a nuclear warhead equipped nation wanted to attack America. Why should they 'waste' warheads on a few air bases, when they could hit a major US city instead? But there is every reason why a strike should be used to knock down the defence system, before an attack on mainland USA.

Mietla - I think you mistake NMD for the ICBM Early Warning System that has been around for decades. That does benefit us all, but NMD only benefits the States; the anti-ICBM missile system coverage does NOT extend to UK, and simply adds an incentive for a UK attack, with no benefit to the native population.

Great - so we get a few minutes warning about an incoming ICBM strike. Just enough time to gather the family under the table, kill your pets, and get those tins of canned Spam ready. Frankly, I'd rather not know.

 

Does the fact that England is closer to a potential enemy mean that US should not be defended just our of spite?

But how can Bush credibly want a withdrawal of forces from Kosovo, yet still demand that Britain make itself vulnerable for America's defence?

'You cannot have your cake and eat it.'

I've got to say that Bush's ignorance is pretty unnerving. He didn't seem to realise that the majority of the money and man power in Kosovo is European in origin. Or that Kosovo is still an ethnic timebomb. I just hope that he doesn't get involved in Northern Ireland.

Like Santa says, I hope his team if advisors bring him up to speed.

[LJK Raubvogel]

Does Kosovo threaten your national security? As far as I know, the Nato treaty is for mutual defense, not peacekeeping. And Dowding, I think you would have a different outlook on this if you had to rotate through Bosnia or Kosovo. (US Army 1989-present). When I went to Desert Storm, I knew I was there to kick someones ass, thats what we train for. We dont train to be the worlds policemen. You put soldiers into a situation they arent trained for, and bad things happen. Not to mention that our readiness for conflicts suffers.


------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

 

[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 12-15-2000).]

[Dowding]

 

Does Kosovo threaten your national security?

I'm sure people were saying the same thing about Czechoslovakia in 1938. Ethnic tensions spread like wildfire; conflict between Muslims and Christians will spread to neighborouring European countries, and would impact on Britains immigrant populations eventually. We all cannot afford to let instability and chaos reign, where we know we can make a difference (which is the case with Kosovo).

Don't you think that the developed world should use its military influence to try to help peace get a foothold? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are against using soldiers as peace keepers in all situations.

BTW - I recently had interviews to get an RAF commission, and one of things they emphasise is Britain's increasing committment to peace-keeping. Indeed, the idea of being an officer in the RAF is sold on the issue of going to foreign countries and helping to keep the peace. Moreover, the last part of the IOT (initial officer training) is called 'Peacekeepers'. You basically have a command position on a mock air field and have to spend a week defending it from either the 'rebels' or 'protestors'.

[Eagler]

Pull peacekeepers out, choose a side and arm them...

Don't remember any "peacekeepers" in Afghanistan

If necessary, carpet bomb the borders to contain a particular conflict.

Eagler

[Staga]

Right Eagler and look what happened in Afghanistan...

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
Don't you think that the developed world should use its military influence to try to help peace get a foothold? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are against using soldiers as peace keepers in all situations.

I will tell you this much: I am sure as hell glad that no one sent peacekeepers to N America back in the late 1700's. Or back in the 1860's. I am all for keeping the peace if 1 nation is threatening the soverignty of another. But internal conflicts, no.


------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[miko2d]

 Dowding,
 England is not made more vulnerable for america's defence. Ther radar station warns against threats to england as well as to US.
 It is the missle launchers that are in US. So England is less vulnerable, not more.
 If someone blows up a radar warning station, it will probably be unnecessary by then. But the missles will be intact and ready to respond.

 American army is located in Europe, in front of England, not behind it.
 So all England does is rents us some space and gets lots of protection from US for that.

 Does it mean that if Englang is threatened with potential immigration problems, US soldiers should die?

 As for Chechoslovakia, England and her european allies were caught with their pants down in both World Wars. If you are afraid of repeat of Chechoslovakia, shouldn't you have an army that could defeat at least Serbia?

 I bet that if M. Thatcher was running things now, americans would never have been involved in Ugoslavia.

 miko

[miko2d]

 NMD may be against the treaty but the situation changed drastically.

 When the treaty was signed US and USSR were the only superpowers with nuclear capability and both could keep their secrets, especially USSR.
 Now Russia is not an enemy but it leaks nuclear and missle technology like a sieve.
 So we are concerned about terrorist groups and dictators that can get their hands on those weapons.
 Russia should be concerned about them too because they have a religious war and terror campaign going on already.

 They do not want US to get NMD because there is no chance they could afford it and even if they did, they are too close to the potential enemy for it to do any good.
 That would much prefer that US doesn't have NMD and had to go after the terrorists themselves.

miko

[Dowding]

If you are serious, then thanks Eagler for another well argued, rational response. You're not exactly a fan of 'Compassionate Conservatism', are you?

 

England is not made more vulnerable for america's defence. Ther radar station warns against threats to england as well as to US.

This is not the issue; we've had a radar system for years. The problem is that the radar is used for a system that brings not a single benefit to Britain, and just increases the likelihood of an attack. At the same time Bush wants less to do with Europe.

 

Does it mean that if Englang is threatened with potential immigration problems, US soldiers should die?

I think you misunderstand what I mean about ethnic tensions. I'm not talking about an influx of refugees, I'm talking about the people of the various ethnic groups that are already here (and have been for years). Raised tensions between ethnic groups, have a (proven) knock on effect around the world. This is why I'm saying we should have our peace-keepers deployed where we know we can make a difference.

 

As for Chechoslovakia, England and her european allies were caught with their pants down in both World Wars. If you are afraid of repeat of Chechoslovakia, shouldn't you have an army that could defeat at least Serbia?

I'll ignore the snide remark for the sake of the argument. The whole was caught 'with their pants down' - if you study history, you'll see that there was no single reason why the Nazi party came to power. Versailles was a factor, but so was the Wall Street Crash. Before 1929, the Nazi party was on the fringe, and German middle classes had no interest in them. But when the crash ruined the middle classes (taking their savings and other assets), they flocked to the Swastika.

 

I bet that if M. Thatcher was running things now, americans would never have been involved in Ugoslavia.

If Maggie was still in power, then this country would probably be in the middle of a civil war. Because there is no way on earth she could have stayed in power democratically.



[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 12-15-2000).]

[leonid]

Dowding,
As long as the USA holds onto bases in foreign countries and territories, then it should be expected to provide a significant percentage of peace-keeping forces for the UN.  

I won't even go into questioning the concept of peace-keeping, because there's nothing to question:  the only alternative is war, and in this age war is just too destructive.  The world's getting too small for that sort of nonsense to continue.  

And, putting an ally in dire straits over a system that isn't cost effective, or reliable, or mutually inclusive, is pretty poor.

[jihad]

  It`s time for the euros to wipe their own ass,after 55 years you would expect them to be potty trained.

 Its time to bring our men home.

[Toad]

Is this about missile defense or is it about the US role in UN Peacekeeping?

[Dowding]

A bit of both Toad.