Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: leonid on September 16, 2000, 06:51:00 AM
-
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army will release an edited version of a report Monday dealing with members of a peacekeeping unit in Kosovo that have been disciplined for beating and abusing civilians they were there to protect.
"This squad was bad news," one senior Army official told CNN on Friday. "They were bad apples."
The report, which was introduced as evidence during the trial of convicted killer Staff Sgt. Frank Ronghi, shows that soldiers assigned to Ronghi's unit engaged in beatings, intimidation and illegal detention of civilians in the Kosovar town of Vitina.
Ronghi was sentenced to life in prison without parole after pleading guilty to premeditated murder, sodomy and committing indecent acts with an 11-year-old Kosovar Albanian girl earlier this year. His plea enabled him to avoid the death penalty.
Unit said to be 'generally abusive' toward women
Following Ronghi's arrest, the Army launched an investigation into the conduct of his unit, the 3rd Battalion, 504th Parachute Regiment of the famed 82nd Airborne Division.
The investigation was conducted to collect evidence to be used against Ronghi, but officials learned along the way that other members of his unit had also engaged in misconduct. Nine members of the unit, including four officers, were punished.
All of the punishments, announced in March and April of this year, was "non-judicial" or "administrative" in nature and the men were not jailed.
One official described the unit as "generally abusive" toward woman.
Investigators found that the nine soldiers had threatened civilians with weapons, assaulted people and held people in custody for unreasonable periods of time given their offenses.
Other punished soldiers not named
Military officials said the report raised questions about the kinds of training the men received in preparation for peacekeeping duty.
While the central facts of the case and the unit's conduct had already been made public, the 1,100-page report is expected to provide additional detail even after the extensive removal of classified material.
The names of the soldiers who were punished administratively were withheld by the Army since they were not charged with felony crimes, but Army officials did say that the punishments included reduction in rank, the withholding of pay and in several cases "career ending letters of reprimand."
-
Sounds like they got what they deserved. I'm sure the whole peace-keeping operation is not like that. Can't be worse than the Serbs at any rate.
It would be intersting to know how long they were able to get away with it.
-
These guys went there to protect those civilians (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/mad.gif)
I'm little confused;
Ronghi raped and killed a 11 year old child when he was serving his country as a peace-keeper.
You got death penalty; Why didn't they use it?
Couple my friends were on Lebanon and Golan heights on U.N peace keeping unit;
There local citizens wanted these guys stop by tea in evenings; That propably not gonna happen in few months (years?) in that town where this tragedy happened.
-
What are troops still doing in Kosovo? Why were they sent there in the first place? When will they exit Kosovo??
I have a feeling the next pres will have to address the sorry state of our military and thier current world assignments. I would hate to be part of the military for the last 7 or so years!! All I can say is hang in there troops, help is on the way(that's if the American public will open their eyes)!!
-
Well, the news report I heard mentioned that these charges were against 10 men out of a force of 6000.
I'm glad the US Army has the ability to catch and prosecute people like this.
I wish they had hung that guy in the town square. But then, I'm cold and heartless when it comes to folks that knowingly and deliberately harm other people that are minding their own business.
I'm also glad that the Army didn't try to cover it up.
I think the easiest way to make sure this doesn't happen is to bring all 250,000+ US troops home from overseas bases.
We are not the world's policeman.
If slaughter breaks out again somewhere, let the local neighbors handle it.
-
A few bad apples, to be sure, but that doesn't reflect the general performance of US troops, methinks.
Toad, bringing home the troops stationed elsewhere is an option. The price is reduced influence of course. And probably a reduction of armed forces, since less are needed.
I gather there are American politicans who wouldn't like either of them. republicans and democrats alike.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
1. Sad to see that killers (soldiers) are being used as policemen. WTG Bubba.
2. Glad to see these guys were punished.
3. Let's get the rat bastards that arranged this out of office.
-
Anyway I'm happy this world has something like U.N and countries who are able to send units to protect civilians.
Current peacekeeping operations (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/cu_mission/body.htm)
Finland in U.N (http://www.undp.org/missions/finland/fininun.html)
U.N Photos (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/photos/)
Big <S> for these guys !
[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 09-16-2000).]
-
"I think the easiest way to make sure this doesn't happen is to bring all 250,000+ US troops home from overseas bases. We are not the world's policeman. If slaughter breaks out again somewhere, let the local neighbors handle it."
I loudly second that TOAD. In the mean time that Staff SGT. should have had his nuts cut off to go along with the life imprisonment term. Hopefully he's somebodys "squeak."
-Westy
-
Splendid isolation? Lessons from the past surely rule that option out.
Toad what are your opinions on the Middle East? Withdrawing from places like Iraq will make America look very bad -it would look like you running away from a situation that you must have some responsibility for creating (I count Britain in that as well).
Perhaps you shouldn't have supported Israel as well (arms and training).
I agree with what StSanta says (I'm not going to make this a habit (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)) - what will your armed forces do then?
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-16-2000).]
-
Ronghi raped and killed a 11 year old child when he was serving his country as a peace-keeper.
You got death penalty; Why didn't they use it?
The death penalty is voted in by each state. Some states have it.. some do not.
The Federal system does not have a death penalty except during war times or in cases of treason. Since this happened overseas, it is a federal crime and not a state crime.
On the other side of the coin.. life in a federal penetentary is not supposed to be all too pleasant. Hard time is an understatement.
AKDejaVu
-
Your federal system DOES have a death penalty. It just hasn't been succesfully used since the 70's. The first criminal due to be killed is in NY right now undergoing his latest round of appeals.
As for a few other comments:
"At least our army didn't try and cover it up"
Yeah right. roadkill. I bet if that report hadn't come out in trial they would have never admitted it. And I further stake a double or nothing on the fact they are not the only bad apples. US forces BTW have the 3rd worst reputation of any peace keeping force. In campbodia they spent more time using up condoms on potatos than patrolling for Khmer rouge. And in Kosovo it's just as bad. It's like a free vacation to the troops there, except you get guns and authority to go along with it. My own personal sadness is that this sort of performance is rubbing off on our own peacekeepers. In somalia the killing of that boy by our parachute regiment was the darkest mark in the history of canadian peacekeepers. Something like that would have been inconsiderable 10 years ago- now it's part and parcel.
"I think the easiest way to make sure this doesn't happen is to bring all 250,000+ US troops home from overseas bases.
We are not the world's policeman. If slaughter breaks out again somewhere, let the local neighbors handle it."
oookaaaay. Downtown made a good point. Isolationism is for people that refuse to believe there is a threat until the guns are pointed right in their face. Every time the US and NATO forces intervene they send a strong message to the world. That message is "we won't tolerate this". It means that genocides, coups and armed aggression against your neighbours will bring the might of NATO right down on your balls like a sledgehammer.
If you think that 3rd world countries don't affect you then your ignoring the message given out when you ignore it. And that brings the same attitudes right home. And lastly: there is only 1 way to train troops for combat- put them in it. US has the best armed forces in the world. Every time they flex them those forces get valuable combat experience.. and those that would consider combat with them see just how good they are... For toejam and giggles take a look for USSR reports on the effects of US air power over Iraq and the performance of the Iraqi pilots. It's funny to see despair spelled out on paper.
"Let's get the rat bastards that arranged this out of office."
They are. But you can always re-elect them through his son? Believe me- Clinton dragged his heels bellybutton and balls so long over these decisions that by the time he agreed the worst atrocieties were OVER.
-
Been a peackeeper.
The important thing is to focus on the good work that the vast majority of the 82nd has done in trouble spots arround the world.
We cant read the minds of the people we recruit.
Doctors, lawyers, pastors,busdrivers, police men shoe salesmen every profession, every race, every creed contain rapists and people that will abuse power they find themselves holding.
When Canadian Airborne troops in Somalia tortured a local man to death several years ago people could not believe it. Canadians?
Canadians, Finns, Brits, all of us are people. People can be evil.
One of the many downsides of peace keeping is that you never see the alternative. How many lives have been saved in the balkans by external intervention in the last 10 years? We will never know. But the list of casualties from all sides is getting long.
The other unfortunate side to peacekeeping is that the locals rarly appreciate it. they start to see you as the enemy, you start to see them as the enemy.
This animal could have taken advantage of that sentimant and his rank to build an attitude of hatred in his unit. Soldiers are trained to obey, trained to admire the men above them. People that question the people above them even about obviosly stupid things are weeded out.
It is not that supprising. On this board all the time we see people that are instantly aggressive with people that question the powers in authority. Many men probably challanged this guy at different times. They probably paid the price in their careers and in the barracks.
It is extremly hard to be one of those people that will contest idiocy in a military unit.
In the case of the Canadian incedent. Only one man appears to have imediatly grasped what was going on and stoped it. There were supperiors there that hid their heads for hours while it happend and many subordinates that did nothing.
One man from dozens stoped it.
I knew that man. does he get a medal? No because we want to think he did the average thing. Anyone could have stoped it right...
But that is not the case.
I have served with the 82nd. I hope that they can look at themselves and straighten this out. I am sure they will.
The Canadian Airborne unit was disbanded after the Somalia incedent. That is a typical Canadian response to a problem.
Peace Baby
-
My own personal sadness is that this sort of performance is rubbing off on our own peacekeepers.
Rubbing off on your peacekeepers? Nice try. Unless... of course... human nature is finally rubbing off on Canadians?
Power corrupts... absolute power corrupts absolutely. Its human nature. Young men were (are) being given power they weren't expirienced enough to handle. This is inevitably something that happens as a result. Unfortunatly, there is no sure fire way to predict who is/isn't ready for that kind of authority with 100% accuracy.
AKDejaVu
-
hi all:
peace keeping troops from all over the world have a hard job to do, and I beleive they do a great job.
they leave there familys for 6 months or so at a time. they have to try and keep peace well there hands are tied as to what they can do. they wittness the horror of what others have done. and what others are doing.
and after they come home, they return for more peace keeping missions to try and help where ever they can. and for the most part, it is a thankless job.
as little as I can say to these people,
SALUTE, you are doing a great job, you can be proud of that.
------------------
wolf37
C.O.
THUNDER BIRDS
-
Originally posted by funked:
1. Sad to see that killers (soldiers) are being used as policemen.
How true, this is waste and misuse of resources . This is a job better off left to marines and mp's not soldiers . This has a negative effect on these units, training them to be killers, destroyers and avengers and then giving them the mission of civil policing and guarding is taxing on these units that should be training for war . It used to be marines and mp battalions would be deployed to quell civil unrest, and if infantry and artillery battalions had to be deployed they would start killing untill the problem was fixed and then come home, not stay around fulfilling a civil affairs mission .
-
Originally posted by funked:
1. Sad to see that killers (soldiers) are being used as policemen. WTG Bubba.
Bingo. Only I would say "combat troops" instead of killers. Gotta be PC, now don't we? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The US doesn't have a huge force of "policemen" to deploy around the world. I don't believe our combat troops are suited to that job AT ALL.
Further, I no longer see huge threats to world peace that require US combat troops to be permanently stationed outside of the US.
So, it's time for them to come home.
Since WW2 we've kept huge numbers of combat troops stationed overseas, paid for out of the US budget. Had just SOME of that money been spent on our domestic problems, I think the US would be in a far better situation than it is right now vis-a-vis some important domestic issues.
IMHO, someone had to do that job during the Cold War. We were the only country able to take on the task at the time.
We did it as well as we could, we weren't perfect, it cost us a bundle and now it's not necessary. No regrets, no whines but the time for it has passed.
Should problems break out, let the locals handle it to the extent that they can.
IF and that's a BIG "if" the US then needs to get involved, we still maintain the capablity to deploy amazing firepower in short order.
I do, however, also support clarification of the Executive Branch's authority to commit US troops without Congress being involved. It's a fairly gray area right now.
If there's concern about not having a "world policeman", you folks can always hire a force, just like any big city does. Please don't call on the US, however. We've done our hitch for a while and we're due some R&R.
Surely some other outfit can handle it for the next 55 years?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Was this girl Serbian or Abanian?
The whole "peacekeeping" operation in Kosovo is a comedy.
Serbs could have done the job. KFOR is a circus.
Leonid, was it a special topic for me? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Sure, Let Russians do it.
Or Finnish;
Just sit down and look how mighty Finnish army again kicks the bad guys prettythang
uhmmm...
Send more Hornets and ammunition, please ?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Boroda:
You wanna go digging some graves? (http://www.un.org/icty/bulletin21-e/images/New-exum2.gif).
Well Serbs were quite good in that job.
International Criminal Tribunal of former Jugoslavia (http://www.un.org/icty/)
Here are the charges (http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii950724e.htm) against former Jugoslavian leaders, Karadzic and Mladic.
[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 09-17-2000).]
-
Staga, you probably watch Clingon News Network too much.
Even the pro-Western NTV shows someting wery different from what you see on TV.
The world is very much different from what the US shows you.
BTW, don't you know that Russian peacekeepers have much more losses then the "UN" troops? "UN" has shown itself 50 years ago in Korea. And now it's just a US puppet.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Yeah all those mass graves in Kosovo were just irrigation trenches. I think the 2,100 bodies exhumed from those ditches must have just fallen there. I'm sure the Serbs had nothing to do with it.
I'm sure it was all fabricated by the US because we really like to spend billions of dollars and risk thousands of our soldiers' lives to screw around in a piddly little barbaric nation.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 09-17-2000).]
-
Boroda would you like to show me the truth of Kosovo ?
I really would like to hear your opinion about those graves and charges against Serbs.
-
Yanno what's really funny?
After WWII everyone griped that someone could of done something to prevent the rise of Germany and nobody did.
Then all the allied nations blamed the US for remaining in isolation, where they could saved countless allied lives by commiting earlier (in theory of course)
From that point, the US tried to kill that old reputation by stepping in every chance they got.
Genocide starts again, we vowed "Never again!" and commited.
You do what people ask and they hate you even more.
sigh.
- Jig
-
I say bring em all home. Let the barbarians kill each other off.
-
funked:
Don't you think that it is likely that one or several of the following things would happen if the US troops wer ebrought home:
the US economy would get at least an initial boost. Or rather, the government would, which in turn one way or another would help the US, either by direct tax cuts, extra benefits, or paying the loans. Once again, Americans will be able to afford three McDonald burgers a day, and one heart surgery bypass to go along with it.
Some American soldiers will be happy since they won't have to go away from their loved ones. Others will be a bit disappointed as they hoped to see and do cool stuff, and not just train and stay home. Varies with each individual soldier.
American public would be happy in a way because no American GI's would die outside its own borders.
Parts of teh American public would be dismayed and shocked as the US watch atrocities being committed - they'll feel like they're the big kid on the block and they ain't stopping some of the nasty buggers from taking it out on the smaller ones. ut, they may or may not be in a majority, doesn't really matter for the same of this argument.
Americas armed forces will undergo a reduction in size, since less is needed when external bases are non existent. Some leftwing politicians will argue that for a national defence and strategic defense of interests, much less than what the US armed forces have now is needed.
American international influence, and with it the power to gently or violently prod partners/enemies of interest will be reduced. Smaller nations will know of America's reluctance to get involved with "internal affairs", which is a nice euphemism covering everything from genocide to just plain old opression.
American options will be a bit limited - they're no more a police force, and their options will be conventional warfare, or (as now) peace enforcement through the UN. With low intensity warfare being the norm rather than the exception, flexibility is lost.
Trouble *will* spread, and sooner or later the US will face a direct threat to its national security. This not only includes military threats, but also drug trafficing and things such as the AIDS epidemic in Africa and similar issues. Since these problems are not caught when in their infancy, a larger amunt of resources will be needed to control them.
In an ever increasingly international community, I don't think isolationism is the key for success for a big and powerul country that wants to stay influential.
Blaming Clinton for US troops stationed abroad is sort of silly too - there's been troops at foreign bases since the end of the second world war. The US have also created some issues that they need to deal with - don't start something if ya cannot finish it (Iraq).
America's committment to the world could be a great deal smaller without a huge negative impact on its influence, I agree. But, for us old cynics, it's just the same politics that have been played out throughout human history; nations protecting their influence, and in many cases using big fancy words to justify it.
I believe what yer advocating is a no BS approach - let the world know you'll do what's in your best interest, and enough of this altruistic nonsense that waste valuable American resources, since it appears to be a neverending problem that cannot be stopped by external forces anyhow. I.e we'll protect our oil supply, so we can get cheap gas, and if there's a secondary win, cool, we can use it for propaganda purposes.
Just some thoughts.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
And, StSanta, in you scenery you forgot to mention the European community.
Without the big boy in the block, the second big boy will become more influent, and the EC will start to be a REAL superpower, not enemy of the US but strong enough to talk with equal power.
Remember, the US enter in Kfor when the Euro decide to start the operation anyway, with or without the US help.
Think! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
LOL Europe handling it's own problems <G> For hundreds of years europe has been the most unstable area in the world. for a reminder how about World War 1 and World War 2. Europe has never been able to solve it's problems, read your history books! I admit Europe has taken more responsibility for what goes on politically in that arena. World War 2 for instance England so graciously gave permission to Germany to take the Sudatenland, gee, wasn't that swell of them to give them something they didn't own! Chamberlain as I recall was the culprit! They appeased germany hoping WW2 could be avoided. As for desert storm.....the coalition wouldn't have been created if it weren't for the US. The US kept it together and assembled it. And after scud missles were launched on Israel, it was the US who kept the Israelis' from attacking Iraq and staying out of this War. If the Israelis had launched missles aimed at Iraq during this crisis World War 3 could have been a possiblity. Yes.....the US makes mistakes, we all do......but give the US credit for being born with a spine! France as of yet hasn't developed one.
By the way when there is a natural disaster anywhere in the world the US is always there to help. Earthquakes, floods, etc. And we in the US when we suffer Earthquakes, massive floods etc. handle it alone! WE're not perfect, never will be, If someone else has the resources to have the responsibility of being looked to as the most powerful nation on earth, please send in your resume! Can you feed, supply medical and disaster services? Can you send troops to help keep the peace and police those who wish to use their armed forces to take what their neighboring countries have, including their civilians personal property? Remember folks it's the people of the US who provide those services through their tax dollars and by participating in the Military. Get off the US's back! If the rest of the world could do the same, the US wouldn't have to! And I for one am getting tired of bailing everyone else out, and getting spit on at the same time because "we are americans" To other countries who whine about the US....Grow some balls! develope a spine! If you can do it better....by all means do so and present it to the world so we all can be witness to that fact! As a US citizen I would be more then happy to step back and let someone else carry the load.
-
Get it right - England is part of Great Britain, which combined with Northern Island is the UK. England is only one country in the Kingdom. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Chamberlain was wrong, with hindsight, to appease Germany. But everyone (including the US) was so afraid of another World War, they'd do anything to avoid it, even if it meant giving some obnoxious dictator a bit of land.
The Sudetenland had a high proportion of Germans in it anyway - this was how the world could justify Hitler's actions - he wanted Lebensraum and unification for all German people. It wasn't until too late that the world (including the US) realised that he wanted so much more.
And BTW, Britain stood alone against Germany for years without US intervention and we were prepared to fight to the death. Churchill even had a speech prepared which called on people to 'take one with you' in defence of the British Isles. All Europeans must be grateful for what the US did in the war, but w/o Britain, Nazism would BE Europe.
Surely its obvious that the key to a stable world for America to exist in, depends on a stable Europe? Fortunately for us all, the US government realised this and has hand in European affairs ever since.
-
Surely its obvious that the key to a stable world for America to exist in, depends on a stable Europe? Fortunately for us all, the US government realised this and has hand in European affairs ever since.[/B]
So let me see. If the US wants a "stable world to exist in" then the US basically has to be deeply involved in the affairs of other governments? We get to be the world's policeman?
Lucky us!
Guess we can't expect the rest of you sophisticated, civilized, morally superior, "old world" countries to behave yourselves and keep the peace without us. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The US is continually "b*tched at" for getting involved in the affairs of other nations, simply because NO ONE...not a person or a nation...likes someone meddling in their affairs. It is impossible for ANY country to meet all the expectations of the world community as a perfect "world policeman".
It such a damn easy job that we are eager to retire and let someone else have this cushy job. We've done our share...and more. Let's see someone else handle it out of THEIR budget for a while.
It's my perception that the "common man" in the US is sick and tired of having to be the "world's policeman"....just to have a stable world.
In fact, it's when we stray outside our own boundaries that we stumble. The rest of the world doesn't accept our values or our methodology in problem solving. We expect what works for us to work for everyone. (A faulty expectation, IMHO...our history is SO different from the "old world".) It's simply a "no win" situation.
Santa (BTW, this isn't a personal engagement, but you have summed things up for the "other side" pretty well, so I'll clip your text to make things easy) may think we have some "need" for influence..."a big and powerul country that wants to stay influential." but if there's much sentiment like that remaining, it's in the minds of some outdated politicians. (We do have plenty of those yet!)
I doubt there's many average citizens in the US that fear that: Trouble *will* spread, and sooner or later the US will face a direct threat to its national security. This not only includes military threats, but also drug trafficing and things such as the AIDS epidemic in Africa and similar issues. Since these problems are not caught when in their infancy, a larger amunt of resources will be needed to control them.
This nation has a history of rising to the crisis. If anything, it is our forte. When a problem truly and finally needs solving, we put aside our differences and pull together.
Given our technology, military, economy and (luckily) two huge oceans on each side (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)....I think the average American is quite ready to face the future without being the "world's policeman" or trying to force "stability" on an unwilling and unready world. Direct threats to our national security notwithstanding, I feel the "average joe" thinks we can handle ourselves and our future quite well.
-
"Walk quietly and carry a big stick."
Modern translation=
A ripple from a Trident can solve a lot of foreign policy issues.
------------------
JG 2's current cannon magnet
Milo
-
Leonid,
Just what IS your point??? The troops were ordered there to perform a mission given them by politicians. They were not trained or equiped for this job and it is not in their normal duties. Why don't the "civilized" European nations handle their own back yard? Seems they are closer to the problem than the US is.
They screwed up and they were prosecuted. The ex sergeant is now likely residing in Leavenworth. This is a MUCH different prison and far harsher than the typical fed "joint". They still believe in HARD labor, long solitary and very few "priveleges". If you are going to judge the US by the behavior of a few then you are living in a fantasy land. After all, I do not think all Brits are like you do I? Fortunately I know they are not.
Last note. As usual the US put this out in the open for all to see. It wasn't hidden or covered up. It happened and OUR military took steps to correct it.
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 09-18-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Is Leonid British, Maverick? I didn't realise Seattle was in the UK, although a small village just outside London might have a similar name. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Are u an ex-pat Leonid?
Maverick - I don't know what Leonid's point was, couldn't say, but perhaps there was no point and he just wanted to see the reaction. His post is a purely factual news report I think, and as such doesn't seem to carry any bias.
BTW Boroda, I'd rather believe CNN or the BBC than any Russian news service - just look at the job they did in covering up Chechnya, and how they wouldn't even consider Andrei Babitsky's news reports.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Leonids post is really "Neutral", I can't find any negative from it ?
(Thought English isn't my native lang. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
..And still waiting Boroda's answer (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Here's just ONE example, in just ONE place, in just ONE year of what the US has been spending for the priviledge of being the "world's policeman". I'd hate to even try to come up with a total number for the last 55 years.
http://www.bosnet.org/archive/bosnet.w3archive/9609/msg00010.html (http://www.bosnet.org/archive/bosnet.w3archive/9609/msg00010.html)
NEW GAO (United States General Accounting Office) REPORT ON BOSNIA
8/30/96
"Title: Bosnia: Costs are Exceeding DOD's Estimate, 36 pages.
Precis: The costs of deploying U.S. troops in and around Bosnia as part
of international peacekeeping operations spanning fiscal years 1996 and
1997 could exceed the Defense Department's (DOD) initial estimate of $3
billion by more than $450 million, and further increases are possible. DOD
has so far deployed about 22,000 troops to Bosnia and surrounding countries
in an effort to
end years of hostility in the former Yugoslavia. DOD's costs for fiscal
year 1997 will likely exceed the current estimates and depend heavily on
upsoming decisions on force requirements and deployment.
-from Reports and Testimony, July, 1996, p. 25."
Oh, what the heck...here's another:
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/balkan/Kosiak060799.html (http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/balkan/Kosiak060799.html)
"CSBA estimates that the deployment of 7,000 U.S. peacekeeping troops to Kosovo would cost about $2-3.5 billion a year. This figure reflects the incremental costs of the operation-i.e., the additional costs that would be incurred by the U.S. military, above normal peacetime costs, as a result of conducting the operation."
Like I said, after 5 5years it's somebody else's turn. We have a few things we need to fix at home that are going to cost a bit of money.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Toad! I must say well put! I also must apologize for gettting a little angry at what appeared to me "bashing" the good old USA again.
Dowding- yes the people of sudatenland were mostly of german speaking peoples, but so what? Who gave that country to the UK so they could give it away? I don't recall the Sudatenland being under "The Empires" umbrella. Also.....I don't know if you recall "lend Lease"....the US was "leasing" destroyers, and aircraft to the UK before the US officially entered the War. Roosevelt knew the US was going to have to enter the war eventually. His problem were a few Politicans, one being Henry Cabot Lodge as I recall who were set against getting involved with "Foreign Entanglements" And who could blame them for feeling that way? After the first world war the US did not want to fight "someone elses war" again. Europe had always been a problem throughout history politically,as evidenced by the Treaty of Versailles. It was probably the number one reason that World War II started. It wasn't bad enough that Germany had to rebuild it's country after the war also....but they were forced to pay the most rediculous reparations ever heard of! Wilson, then Pres. of the US did not want them to be so harsh, he wasn't against making Germany pay retribution for the War, but he full well realized that the reparations they were made to pay could possibly lead us into another War! Hence his idea of the League of Nations, that politicians in US flatly refused to belong to because of Europes Political climate past and present. Hence, Germanys economy collapsed, not to mention a world wide depression, Germany couldn't pay the reparations. In order to do so they printed Marks with nothing to back them...therefore depression with inflation, the result being it taking a wheelbarrow of Marks to purchase a loaf of bread! Wasn't hard to get the nation of germany angry....Hitler appeared on the scene and the rest is History (unfortunately) Let's not do anything as ridiculous as that again.....the world can do better. <G>
Dowding....by the way I don't recall the US signing the peace agreement with Germany giving them the right to the Sudatenland...also just before world war II Joseph Kennedy was the US Ambassador to the UK <G> one of his assignments was to tour Germany and let Roosevelt know what was going on. His report to roosevelt about germany cost him his job as Ambassador to the UK....he reported to Roosevelt in favor of what germany was doing and thought it no threat, Roosevelt knew better, recalled him and that was the end of Joseph Kennedys aspirations to the Presideny of the United States. He never held high political office again.....but helped his son get elected to the presidency....chiefly by Cook County, the chicago Illinois area.....where the dead voted <G>
But that's another story <G>
[This message has been edited by Hajo (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Toad:
Take yer average exponential curve. Then take a country which has X points, which is 20 times as much as any other country has.
Move out on the timeline, see how much time it buys after a while.
The US ain't invincible. It has limited resources and limited morale. And there are a few problems of the exponential kind out there.
It is foolish to wait for a problem to stare in your face, huge and overpowering, if you can deal with it in its infancy. The question of course is whether troops abroad is needed to do this. I have no idea.
As far as what the average American thinks; it sounds a little conflcting to me. The left, which traditionally have had a smaller military budget than the right, seems more prone to committing troops abroad lately. The right on the other hand says "strenghten the defense!" all while calling for the taking home of US troops abroad, which would lead to cutbacks in numbers.
I really have sort of an amused outlook on it, and it will be interesting to see how well the American politicians and population can cope with not being such a big kid on the block anymore. The EU, while still a bureaucratical ineffective mess, will (I believe) grow more and more powerful and if plans go through, will have its own standing army. Africa is of no interest to the US; except future findings in oil and whatnot, and most African countries are weak and corrupt enough to be supressed through money and some manipulation.
Russia is currently too weak to present any real military or political threat, aside from nukes.
The interesting bit would be the Middle East and Asia. There are growing players there.
So, by all means, take 'um home. But I bet a good deal on the right side will eventualy be irritated over not being able to put as much pressure on "countries of interest" and will begin lobbying for more troops. And the cyclus would go on (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Oh, btw, did you know that the UN specified the AIDS epidemic in Africa as a major concern and a very potent world destabilizer? And the UN is pretty much a US puppet (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
I believe Americans also said something about drug trafficking being a threat to national security.
Whatever way it goes, it'll influence me quite little; sure, some genocides will take place here and there, but my government will keep me fat and happy. Which seems to be the attitude of most Americans, if I am to believe you, which I do (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Hajo - the help the US gave us before they entered the war was useful and I'm sure we a re all grateful for it. For instance the Eagle squadron of volunteer americans who fought in the Battle of Britain.
But we did stand alone militarily, and very nearly lost.
The Versailles treatment was a disgrace, and is not just probably responsible for WW2, but IS responsible for it. It embittered a generation of Germans, who had the very weak Weimar government to lead them. Nature abhors a vacuum, especially a political one. I know all about the hyper inflation; buying an egg cost billions of marks for eg. But the US were involved in the negotiations, and must share some of the blame as part of the international community. I can understand (but not justify) why the world wanted the reparations - WW1 shocked them, the loser had to lose all.
Britain did not own the Sudetenland - we did not give it away. We did not say "Herr Hitler, why don't you have the Sudetenland, just forget about France". They took it and we turned a blind eye. And that includes the US.
It's alright with hindsight to say, they were a bunch of naive fools to let Hitler do what he did. But look at it from their point of view, and the suffering WW1 caused. They wanted to avoid that at any price. It wasn't until Hitler's intentions became crystal clear, that action was taken; it was too late by then and things went the way they did.
To somehow blame Britain for the appeasement of Hitler is a bit naive. Britain just reflected the political climate at that time.
As for the League of Nations - it was a joke from start to finish with no power to back up its idealistic decrees. It did nothig to stop Hitler also, and was shown to be powerless from its inception.
-
Another interesting snippet...
Sunday September 10, 2000
American officials in Kosovo are being accused of interfering with an investigation into a senior Kosovo Albanian politician implicated in murder, drug-trafficking and war crimes.
Ramush Haradinaj, a former commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), was the key US military and intelligence asset in Kosovo during the civil war and the Nato bombing campaign that followed.
In the latest twist in the saga of an increasingly flawed electoral process, United Nations police in the province complain that US personnel withheld evidence about a gunfight involving Haradinaj, who is now head of one of the province's leading political groups.
UN investigators leading the case say US officials based at their main base, Camp Bondsteel, removed forensic evidence from the scene of the gun battle, including bullets retrieved from walls. The incident, which took place in the village of Strellc in the west of Kosovo, is well out of the US Army's area of responsibility, which lies in the south-east of the province.
Following the shooting Haradinaj, known almost universally in the province as simply Ramush, was flown by helicopter to Camp Bondsteel and then onto Germany to be treated in an US Army hospital for shrapnel wounds. UN investigators were denied access to him during that time.
Evidence from the incident was eventually handed over after angry phone calls from Fred Pascoe, the American policeman heading the UN investigation.
The news of American reluctance to co-operate with the investigation comes amid a catalogue of accusations linking Haradinaj to murder, drugs trafficking and war crimes.
The shooting revolved around a dispute between Haradinaj and members of the Musaj family, who accuse him of ordering the murder of their brother and three other men shortly after the arrival of Nato troops in Kosovo in June 1999. The men were all part of FARK (Armed Force of the Republic of Kosovo ), a rival group to the Kosovo Liberation Army.
Three Musaj brothers had visited Haradinaj's father to demand the bones of their brother, a right they had according to Albanian custom. Haradinaj admits he went to the Musaj family home at around one in the morning to stop the brothers from visiting his father again.
This is the second time this year Haradinaj has been caught up in violence. He was injured in a fight with Russian soldiers at a K-For checkpoint in the spring. Western diplomats say he has damaged his party's prospects in UN-organised local elections due this October.
This latest incident does not appear to have damaged his contacts with US military or political figures.
His party officials were invited to a discussion on the future of Kosovo at a meeting organised by the US state department. He himself is currently in Washington on a fund-raising trip and as the guest of a US Congressman, Benjamin Gillman.
His standing with the international community is summed up by British officials who describe him as 'one of the few former commanders of the KLA who can deliver'. They say he was crucial in smoothing over the transition of the KLA from a guerrilla army to a civilian-based national guard.
But British military personnel who liaised with Haradinaj before and during the Nato bombing campaign paint a different picture. One former soldier, who served with the Kosovo Verification Mission, described him as 'a psychopath' and accused him of terrorising his own men and the local population into loyalty to him. 'He would beat his own men to maintain a kind of military discipline,' he said.
'Someone would pass him some information and he would disappear for two hours. The end result would be several bodies in a ditch,' he added
The man said he was also present when Ramush 'went to deal with' an Albanian family who had let Serb police into their house. The incident matches a human rights report issued by the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) last year in which seven masked men entered a house in the village of Gornja Lucka. Two men were beaten and a third was taken to a nearby canal and never seen again.
During this time the same former soldier says Haradinaj was maintaining daily contact with American military personnel in the US and that these links were then taken over by Nato at the beginning of the bombing campaign in Kosovo.
Another alleged victim of Ramush's men was Suad Qorraj, who had operated a satellite telephone for a rival KLA commander during the war. His family say he went missing from the town of Decani on 23 June 1999, two weeks after the end of the war. On 1 August Suad's charred remains were found in a nearby forest. The burial notice said he had been 'killed by Serbs'.
A year on from Suad's death, Haradinaj still wields considerable power in western Kosovo. 'He can very easily bring the area to a halt,' says Robert Charmbury, UN administrator of the biggest town in the region, Pec, citing as evidence the fight against Russian peace keepers in which the town was 'blockaded in minutes'.
The Alliance party has strong representation on local municipal boards and is discussing the possibility of a pact with the Kosovan Democratic Party (PDK), led by Hashim Thaci, former political leader of the KLA. Such a deal might squeeze out the favourites to win in the region, the Democratic League of Kosovo, in October's elections.
Whatever the outcome of the polls, senior UN officials are concerned about Haradinaj's long-term impact on the province. One aide claims Haradinaj is now financed by two men, Naser Kelmendi and Ekrem Lluka, both of whom are suspected to be involved in smuggling. UN police reports, seen by The Observer, go further and describe Lluka as trafficking drugs and cigarettes in Greece, Kosovo, Albania and Italy.
Meanwhile the Musaj brothers are worried about what Haradinaj will do in the next few weeks. 'If he doesn't attack us before the elections he'll attack us afterwards,' said Sadic Musaj. He and his brother have already built up the walls around their compound in case of another attack. He doubts however whether anybody will take action against Ramush. 'Nothing will happen, he has strong people behind him.'
**
Just to remind people that things just aren't so black & white as they perhaps wish they were...
-
Well well....this O Club is an interesting place (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Look guys....the world is full of evil and it always has been...no perfection walks this earth, at least not in the flesh (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
If the EC is such a mighty group of visionaries, let them handle issues on their own turf...oh yeah, forgot, they want the U.S. to keep funneling cash into their pockets...also doesn't hurt to have us spend our resources so they dont have to spend theirs.
The fault lies with the U.S. and it's leadership...do whatever makes me popular so I can retain power (Bill Clinton and Al Gores Credo). Not that other U.S. leaders have not done the same, jus Bill took it to a new level (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I say let the world handle its own crap until you need our help, then we should intervene at a pace so unbelieveably brutal, that the next time the oppressor will give it a thought before abusing anyone.
Last thought....
"Love your neighbor as yourself"
God
May God help us all (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Later!
-
Lol - that depends on who anyone decides is the next 'oppressor'...
-
dowding I agree in most repects, well said! But I am forever marveling at the lack of logic the human race exhibits from time to time. I really don't understand why people go on killing one another for hundreds, maybe thousands of years and get no solution. Bosnia, and the Palestinians and Israel. I do however understand that these are political as well as religious differences. But one would think, that after so many years of killing one another, someone would step forward and say "Hey! This isn't working!" They have resolved nothing, and accomplished placing the entire world in a precarious position. One would think that logic would prevail, and all would understand that burying their families and friends for these past many years has been all for naught. Our President , whom I really don't care for, at least has stepped forward and tried to get a resolution in the Middle east, as have past US Presidents. But alas........logic does seem to be seriously lacking in the Mid East and the Bosnia-Herzogovina area (excuse my spelling please) and I'm afraid that either of these two areas could be the start of the worst failure mankind has ever suffered, and probably the last, WWIII, heres' hoping that somehow logic will prevail, emotions bridled, and a resolution of peace is obtained.
OH....and by the way..you mentiioned the weimar republic.....hmmmm weimer, spelling changed when great grandparents came to the US....I know, my last name and village in Germany where my family came from <G>
[This message has been edited by Hajo (edited 09-19-2000).]
-
Well said Hajo, I agree completely. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Sorry about the spelling - couldn't remember the spelling just how it was pronounced. I think. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It is strange that people keep killing each other for religion etc. But it's alot easier to hate someone who is different to yourself, than find empathy and understanding. Its also very easy to demonize people, and to see them as the faceless 'enemy'. I watched a documentary on the persecution of the Jews through history, and it described how they were frequently described as animals to spur people to treat them as such.
I think that the foreign policy of the States has been largely successful in the decade past - I think Clinton made some difficult decisions and came out with the best solution. Let's hope peace negotiations in the Middle East etc can continue.
Except for the treatment of Iraq, however - but that's a world community problem. Oh, and then there's Cuba of course. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
BTW - just because Bosnia and Yugo. are in Europe doesn't necessarily mean that we should deal with it. We have about as much in common with that area as you do. But I think that we should fight barbarism where it is possible to do so.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-19-2000).]
-
Question.
When the area in contention is populated by nothing but barbarians, which barbarian group do you support / believe???
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/confused.gif)
Mav
-
That one who got some oil (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Mav- Niether. You take the Russian approach to peacekeeping in Yugoslavia and shoot anyone holding a gun against his neighbour despite his race/religion or politics. Funny how peacefull the Balkans were from 1950-1986 or so...
-
Heres' another point of thought....we all knew after ww2 what hitler did to the Jews and anyone else who opposed him. I believe the estimates were around 6 million...but believe it or not....Josef Stalin made Adolph Hitler look like Mary Tyler Moore in that respect.....it is estimated that Stalin was responsible for the execution of 30 million! If I were invited to the Kremlin by good old Joe....if he invited me to the basement to see his Billiards table.....I'd be worried <G> A great number of the executions were done in the Kremlin basement....
[This message has been edited by Hajo (edited 09-19-2000).]
-
Hajo - I posted a topic in the O-club called 'Communism in Post-Communist Russia' a month back. It dealt with Stalin and his 'activities', turned into a good discussion in the end.
Stalin was a monster when you look at the deaths he caused. But some people are able to turn a blind eye to this because of what he achieved - turning Russia into an industrial state, rather than an agrarian one.
Maverick - in no country in the world could you call the whole population barbarians - there are always innocents to protect, even if they are only children. And its always the innocent who suffer the most.
You're right, Staga, sadly.
------------------
Dowding
99th 'Raging Rooks'
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Hajo - I posted a topic in the O-club called 'Communism in Post-Communist Russia' a month back. It dealt with Stalin and his 'activities', turned into a good discussion in the end.
Stalin was a monster when you look at the deaths he caused. But some people are able to turn a blind eye to this because of what he achieved - turning Russia into an industrial state, rather than an agrarian one. ...
Hm. Not sure what you mean by 'some people', Dowding. Millions of Soviet citizens would be more than 'some people' by my definition. And no, they didn't turn a 'blind eye', Dowding. It was an internal conflict, and still is, within their soul. A conflict of emotions, judgement. Life is never as easy as people would wish it to be, and this is something many Russians know only too well. Dowding, you appear in danger of almost being a little too simplistic with your assessment. It would be better to just accept and respect how many Russians feel about their leader of the past. Their feelings don't imply that they are just as cruel and heartless as Stalin, anymore than a gentle person who is the offspring of an abusive parent.
Intellectualizing helps to address most problems, but to get to the core of a problem in humanity you need to look at the heart. In this case, the Russian heart.
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
IN a hurry and could only skim these..will try to re-read in depth later tonite.
Dowding, do a little research for me on the Versailles treaty in the mean time please?
Which country came to the negotiations with a non-punitive set of goals?
Which country opposed most reparations from Germany?
Which country gave more in LOANS to Germany (that were NEVER repaid) than it received in reparations?
I can find this for you, but I am in a bit of a rush....and you'll enjoy the search.
-
Toad.....most of the War debts from WWI and WWII were canceled by the US....most did not have to repay the US. The US and, rightly so forgave these debts because it knew that major rebuilding in these countries had to be done after the wars. They dind'n want a repeat of WWI, which Wilson saw early, but alas no one else recognized.
As far as analyzing what we humans do....no matter what one thinks...it all boils down to right or wrong. Unfortunately we've gotten to the point where we've made it possible to make any action look favorable, no matter how wrong it might have been. Is the human race more intelligent now? Or have they just learned how to cloud the issue? Spin doctors? Psychology can do just as much harm as good, especially in life, there are more then a few points of view. Mankind has managed to "muddle" thinking. Make it less clear then it would have been say, one hundred years ago. It still boils down to right or wrong....a law in physics states "For ever action there is an opposite and equal reaction". Mankind has manged to change that somewhat, now it's "for every action there is an opposite and more powerful reaction". Looks like Physics doesn't apply there. WE must use reason and logic, all actions must be considered before taken, because the reaction might just be what we don't want. Unfortunately mankind only occasionally can see "down the road" in time a few days at a time....maybe we should look farther down the road in the future before any actions again cause a greater reaction.
[This message has been edited by Hajo (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
That's what I meant Leonid, and I understand that Russians can be in two minds about Stalin. I just didn't really want to get into the detail again after going through it all in that other off-topic discussion. In fact, it was also my point that many Russians see Stalin as an all-time great leader, if I remember correctly. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) As for 'turning a blind eye', perhaps that is too easy a cliche to describe how Stalin's admirers arrive at the position they do. 'Apologists' may be a better word - they can excuse what he did because of his achievements. Maybe thats how Nazi apologists can still think Hitler a great man. Hitler and Stalin were very similar (something they both recognised), and perhaps their modern day supporters are. I don't know.
I respect what anyone thinks - even Nazis. But understand? That's a little harder...
Perhaps you're right Toad - my history lessons were taken many years ago and I can't remember the fine detail of the peace 'negotiations'. Sure Wilson didn't want such harsh reparations to be paid, but did he truly understand the consequences? I don't think anyone could really foresee WW2 when Versailles was signed. Especially considering the idealism of the 20s - 165 nations signed an agreement never again to wage war on each other. That lasted about two minutes. Again, it's easy now to see where WW2 stemmed from - but then? I don't think so - there was no precedent for what happened from 1914-18. Besides, the world's attention swung from Germany to Russia and the 'Red Menace'.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Perhaps you're right Toad - my history lessons were taken many years ago and I can't remember the fine detail of the peace 'negotiations'. Sure Wilson didn't want such harsh reparations to be paid, but did he truly understand the consequences? I don't think anyone could really foresee WW2 when Versailles was signed. Again, it's easy now to see where WW2 stemmed from - but then? I don't think so -
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-20-2000).]
Oh, come on Dowding...do a little research. Try google.com and put in Treaty of Versailles or just Wilson.
It's not a question of anyone being "right"...it's simply historical fact.
I don't want to tip the surpise ending of the research for you, but I will say that what I just quoted from your post above pretty much ignores the written record on Versailles.
You DO know which countries wanted to absolutely PUNISH Germany after WWI don't you? You can't have missed THAT in your schools; you live in one of those countries.
While Wilson may never make my list of "5 Best Presidents" I admire his goals at the end of WWI. In fact, of all the allied politicians in attendance at Versailles, I think the BEST hopes of avoiding another World War were without doubt Wilson's ideas.
I'm on the road using a slow modem, but if you can't find some stuff by the time I get home to my cable modem, I'll be happy to find you those enlightening references.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Hajo:
Toad.....most of the War debts from WWI and WWII were canceled by the US....most did not have to repay the US[This message has been edited by Hajo (edited 09-20-2000).]
Yes, Hajo, I know. I'm reasonably familiar with US aid to Europe after BOTH World Wars...and the fact that most debt was never repaid, but forgiven. Just another part of our b*stard nature, I guess.
My point was that even while Germany was making WWI Reparation payments after the War, the US was LOANING Germany more money than the Versailles Treaty alloted to the US in Reparations.
Further, we received no loan payments during that time or after and we did not make an international incident out of it. We forgave it....as we did for our allies as well.
In short....WE were not the ones hammering the Germans into the ground after WWI.
I have a nice reference for this situation on my home computer. I'll have to see if I bookmarked it.
-
I think you misunderstand me, Toad. I KNOW that the aim of Versailles was to punish and humiliate Germany. That's why I wrote: "I can understand (but not justify) why the world wanted the reparations - WW1 shocked them, the loser had to lose all." I also know that the people who dreamt up the treaty were Britain, France etc. I even had to learn the principle clauses of the treaty for exams at school - so I am familiar with the background.
The point I was trying to make was that even if Wilson believed that the treaty was not a good thing, and would lead to an uneasy peace (I admit my knowledge of the attitude of Wilson is not exactly exhaustive), could anyone from back then have truly foreseen how bad things would turn out? I doubt this is true with Wilson, and as for the countries directly responsible for drawing up the treaty, they definitely could not imagine it leading to a second world war (why would they do it if they knew that 30 years down the line things would be even worse?) In fact, one of the reasons it was so harsh was to prevent Germany ever becoming a threat to their respective empires. For what good it did. As I also said before, what precedent was there for drawing up a peace after the wholesale destruction of 1914-18? They were all on virgin territory, I think, and I can understand why they created such a harsh treaty.
-
...and my point is that the US opposed harsh reparations. If you read some of Wilson's work, I think you'll find he warned of the repercussions and his warning included possible further world war.
Us "over sexed, over paid & over here" Yanks are alwasy easy targets for cheap shots, as this thread and many others have demonstrated.
However, when you do a little digging into history one usually finds that we have "given" far more than we have ever "taken".
-
Let us also not forget, that after WW2 the Marshall Plan rebuilt most of Europe, and kept a great many people from starving in Europe. The Marshall plan was a master stroke that repaired many European nations economy, in an indirect way.
Now as to Stalin....history has shown us he was a complete failure......Communism, his communism<( I don't know if Karl Marx would agree with it)....but communism has died! Many people in communist nations not only suffered through atrocities, but shortages of necessities such as food, medical attention, education, and just quality of life. in the mid 1980s' I have a friend who came from Poland, his parents came to visit on a ten week Visa. Anyway, I had the pleasure taking him, along with his mother to a grocery store. His mother couldn't believe her eyes! The first thing she asked us when seeing all the fresh vegetables and fruits was" How many are we allowed?" When we told her the answer tears came to her eyes, and she said" It's really true what I've heard about the US! There were actually tears in her eyes, she could not believe that anyone could have the food, public services etc. that we have. she had to use the same phone that 8 other families were using in her building. She couldn't believe that most of us have more then two phones in our homes, not to mention automobiles, Shopping Malls etc. It took about 70 years for communism as we know it to fail. The poor economy that communism breeds just can't compete in a world class market with world class economies. Give me a free market anytime....where the best rise to the top, and those who work hardest and smartest are rewarded for their efforts <G>
-
Hajo, let's not forget that the US sorta got people employed, got a market for their huge post war industry wares either (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
A stroke of genius, with all parts winning, the Marshall plan.
SOme have speculated that countres that were spared devastating bombing really gained short term, but lost long term, because their machine park wasn't renewed. Pretty interesting reading.
--
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
-
Hajo,
Regarding communism, much of what you say is true. Now, its a common belief that the Soviets defeated Germany despite communism. Word is out that the more foremost historians of Russia/Soviet Union are beginning to believe that the Soviets actually defeated Germany because of communism. In other words, the political structure of democracy could not have withstood the type of attack that the Soviets endured from Nazi Germany. Actually, this makes sense when you realize that communism is really socialism on a permanent war footing.
-
Originally posted by Hajo:
Now as to Stalin....history has shown us he was a complete failure...
If you do study what Stalin did to Russia (even the cursory research I've done into the man), I don't think you'll come to the conclusion that he was a failure. He turned Russia into a super-power; don't forget that he died in 1953 when Russia was at the height of its power. Communism falied, not Stalin.
I'm not a supporter of the man in any way, mind you, and believe the benefit he brought to Russia can never outweigh the suffering he brought in its wake.
As for the state of Russia in communist control - I visited Moscow and Leningrad in 1990, shortly before the coup. Most of what you say was true, and there was so much poverty. But there was a pride within the Russian people, that even as an 11 year old schoolboy, I could appreciate. Despite the differences between our countries at that time, the people I met (both my age and much older) were genuinely friendly to us. I have very fond memories of that visit.
As for the US and WW2 - I've never been anything other than grateful for what the US did. We could never have cleansed the world of Nazism without them. They did a great job in rebuilding afterwards, too. It did make the States wealthy though - the 50s were completely different for the US and UK.
Taking economic advantage of post-war rebuilding didn't stop there; it happens to day in Bosnia and Kosovo. The US, UK and rest of Europe are always struggling for the right to lucrative building contracts for construction companies int their respective countries. Makes good sense, really - everyone's a winner.
-
Dowding, in my humble opinion, anyone that has to execute his enemies out of fear, in my opinion is a failure....simple as that. Stalin made mother russia an industrial force, but at what cost? and who paid the price, it wasn't Stalin! He made his own people suffer and endure his iron fisted rule. Of course after the failures of the tsarist regimes, I guess maybe Stalin could look good. the people probably had pride at what Russia had become, but they had no idea how individuals outside the Russian Sphere were living! They probably thought that everyone lived as poorly as they, it wasn't until mass communications became availabel to the entire world, including communist bloc states that people behind the "iron curtain" started questioning their way of life, and asking "why can't we have these things also?" If Stalins communism, and if Stalin was a sucess, there isn't anything left of either to demonstrate or even suggest stalin was anywhere near the success some thought he might have been. He was succesful at enslaving people of other nations, was very succesful against the Hungarians during the revolution, great use of tanks against the people of hungary, don't think they thought Stalin was succesful at anything! And if he were so sucesful, why the electrified fences and guard towers to keep people in? Not to mention the assasinations of anyone who seemed to be a threat to him politically. That my friend , is in no way a sucess. <G>
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Hajo, let's not forget that the US sorta got people employed, got a market for their huge post war industry wares either (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
Well, let's do a little checking and see which country provided the money, through loans, to the "devastated countries" to buy those wares.
Then let's see which countries ever paid back those loans.
I wonder what would have happened if the US had just made all those wares available to it's own citizens, provided loans to buy the stuff and then not demanded repayment.
Yeah, that's it...I forgot, we were trying to hose you folks again. Sheesh, my mistake.
Here's a list of the "suckers" we "took" in the Marshall Plan Scam.
U.S. Economic Assistance
Under the European Recovery Program:
April 3, 1948 - June 30, 1952
(Total Amount in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
United Kingdom 3,189.8
France 2,713.6
Italy 1,508.8
Germany (West) 1,390.6
The Netherlands 1,083.5
Greece 706.7
Austria 677.8
Belgium/LuxembourgŬ 559.3
Denmark 273.0
Norway 255.3
Turkey 225.1
Ireland 147.5
Sweden 107.3
Portugal 51.2
Iceland 29.3
Here's how we worked the scam (it ended up at over $13 billion between 1948 and 1952, a sum equivalent to more than $65 billion today):
Set up for a limited period of four years, 1948 - 1952, the ERP (European Recovery Program) operated through a counterpart fund.
The money contributed by the U.S. included currency for loans, but went primarily (70 percent) towards the purchase of commodities from U.S. suppliers: $3.5 billion was spent on raw materials; $3.2 billion on food, feed and fertilizer; $1.9 billion on machinery and vehicles; $1.6 billion on fuel.
The OEEC (Organization for European Economic Cooperation ) decided which country should get what (based on what each country declared it needed), and the ECA (Economic Cooperation Administration) arranged for the transfer of the goods.
The American supplier was paid in dollars, which were credited against the appropriated ERP funds. The European recipient, however, was not given the goods as a gift, but had to pay for them (although not necessarily at one go) in local currency, which was then deposited by the government in a counterpart fund.
This money, in turn, could be used by the ERP countries for further investment projects.
Most of the participating ERP countries were aware from the start that they would never have to return the counterpart fund money to the U.S., and it was eventually absorbed into their national budgets and disappeared.
...and we're still doing it today, right Dowding? The only reason we offer loans and flat out GIVE money to other countries is to keep our industry busy.
I guess it has NEVER struck us that we could use a little rebuilding in our own downtown areas and "rust belt" factory areas. After all, why loan or give money to our own people when we can GIVE it to other countries and then make our own money bqck?
Pretty clever...taxing ourselves to give money to others so we can sell them things. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-21-2000).]
-
Toad:
What did they do with the money they lent?
Purchased equipment from countries that weren't war torn.
What country had the mightiest industry just crying for a market?
Sounds to me like a win-win situation (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
-
So, a little girl is sodomized, raped, abused and murdered and all that is commented is:
1- bring home our troops
2- Serbs can manage Kosovo on their own.
to 1-) I'll answer. Yes, do it. Please. From ALL spots on the globe. And when all the finantial interests you have in 90% of the zones were US soldiers are deployed, are stolen from your influence then tell me how do you feel (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
to 2-)yeah,serbs could handle the situation better. I bet they had left the girl alive to rape her another time next day. And all while Yeltsin was drinking his third vodka bottle and Putin was gettin ready to give a cheer to the Kursk's submarine crew.
Noone repairs in the REAL background of this thread. A little girl was horrendously raped, and murdered by an animal. That shows that not all US soldiers are saints, as many people want us to believe.
And the reaction to the post shows what does interest to each one. Not the life of the girl humilliated until the death, but the politics behind that. Not the fact that a zone in Europe is a war zone, with actions nearing genocides, but the fact that you want the peace troops back to home.
There are spanish soldiers there, too. 800 or so, I think. Yet we have to read or learn for something near that criminal action from that sargent and his group.
And we dont whine about our troops being out. bosnia has so much interest for us as for you, americans. In fact, less.
And if someone dares to tell about "world policemans" I will start asnwering about South America, About Nicaragua, About Panama, About Irangate, about Israel, about Vietnam, about Torrejon (spanish air base used by US troops until late 80's), about...
Dont cry about your "policeman status". You liked it for 40 years when USSR existed. DOnt tell us now that you dont like it any more. Sheesh!
God, how MUCH hypocresy is over this world.Stinks.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 09-21-2000).]
-
Santa, you miss the point.
Yes, we benefitted. From OUR OWN MONEY WHICH WE GAVE AWAY.
How could it be any other way? What other country had any industrial capacity left? What other country had that much money to lend?
Would you have been happier if we had said "shift for yourselves...we're busy". No, then you folks would lambast us for being inhumane and uncaring.
We GAVE that money away; we could have just as easily given direct subsidies to our industry and our citizens. That would have been of much greater benefit to our industry and infrastructure than taxing ourselves, giving the money away and then getting 70% it back with commodities and hardware.
Would have been quicker and more cost effective...if selfish.
We did the same thing after WWI, if you do your research. We GAVE money to the combatants on BOTH sides.
Refresh my memory....give me some examples of countries that rebuilt the enemy countries they had just vanquished and never asked for repayment of the loans or gifts (as well as their allies).
To imply that we did it solely for our own enrichment shows a lack of knowledge of how the Marshall plan worked and our previous history of helping to rebuild after WWI.
Ram,
Read it again.
I said I would have HUNG that guy in the village square.
I mean it. There is no room for that kind of scum on the planet. And nobody said all US soldiers are saints, either, so stow the inflamatory rhetoric.
The thing most of non-US types are missing is that the "common American in the street" doesn't give a fig about "influence" around the world.
What influence we have doesn't come primarily from military prowess anyway. It comes from being the largest, most profitable economic market. Everyone wants a piece of this action....that's why we're presently powerful. In time, that too will wane.
I doubt the "common American" was ever excited about being the world's policeman. I've talked to many of my father's WWII generation. I've flown with the guys that were called up for Korea. I was "in" during VietNam. None of them seemed to excited about it.
But you don't live here, so you probably know more about the "common American" than I do. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
We didn't want the job and we don't want it now. You'll recall that the US public has been less than enthusiastic about sending troops to the Balkans.
IMHO, this is not because we are not sympathetic to the plight of the poor b*stards being slaughtered there over issues that stem from what, to an American, are essentially "ancient history" and worse, "religious intolerance".
It's simply because the "average American" is sick and tired of having to be the "world's policeman".
It's somebody else's turn. Let Spain do it for 55 years, buddy. Then we'll talk.
Besides, your troops are perfect, right? Couldn't make a better choice for the job....go get 'em, tiger!
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-21-2000).]
-
RAM.....the bastards that did rape and sodomize that little girl should get what they deserve, as a matter of fact if you've been following the news at all the last many months and American Soldier also was found guilty I believe of molesting a female in Okinawa Japan.....He also received harsh punishment. The US does lay it out for the world to see. Now about the Marshall Plan after WW2, sheeeesh where did you obtain those ideas that we were trying to make a profit out of someone elses misery? Read what TOAD has stated in this debate, he gave actual numbers on how much the US spent, where it was spent, and what it was spent on!
If this is the attitude that people outside the US have......the hell with everyone else, the US could actually spend our tax dollars on the citizens of the US instead of giving it away to ungrateful Nations! We, the taxpayers who supply this money, and those of us who served in the US armed forces never complain, or question when money is sent to Nations that really need it! Believe it or not the American People are very charitable and will rush to any countries aid when needed. Food, Medical assistance, Rescue Teams for major earthquakes and floods etc. And I've never ever, in my 50 years even heard of an offer from a foreign country when we have huge natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes. And lets face it, when these disasters occur it takes more money to make repairs in the US. When we lose buildings in Los Angeles or San Franciso they aren't mud huts or antiquated structures filled to capacity with people or equipment. We have a larger and more costly infrastructure to repair also. So maybe we should just sit back and let the world clean up it's own mess? I don't think so....the average american does feel the grief when other nations suffer disasters and just can't sit idly by and watch people suffer. It is not our nature,we do have compassion, and we will help when and where we can. The US will always offer assistance. And...we probably are the only nation that does it on a regular basis. We handle our own disasters, and help those in need with theirs. Doesn't sound like a country wishing to make a profit to me. I am all for bringing our Servicemen home that are policing around the world. They weren't trained to be Policemen, they were trained to be efficient killers in times of War. They aren't suited for the Policemans' role, and I don't want any of them to die or be injured in some God Forsaken Dump half way around the World, for someone elses' stupidity. I'm not an isolationist by any means,but if our help isn't appreciated, then I believe it's time for someone else who's help would be appreciated, it they could offer help, take over our roll in world politics and charity.
[This message has been edited by Hajo (edited 09-21-2000).]
-
I was reading in recent declassified documents on how the US deals with ungrateful countries. Like how the strategic, no-yield subterrainian nuclear charges are set along Spain's borders with the main land and Portugal. No point in killing the population. We just sever ya, and place an embargo on ya as you float merrily in the Antlantic. Further lack of compliance and the old Battleship fleet is pulled out of mothballs to strategically shell the new Island of Spain until it sinks and a rescue tax is put into place. Those who refuse to pay have to fend for themselves.
You know us lame Americans. Always out to make a profit.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
OTOH it's nice how some nations of the UNO send just a enough troops to claim credit in peace-keeping operations but not enough to gain notice when they are yanked when things go sour.
I think the best thing to do would be to pull out, let them kill each other off, and then, in the true American spirit, take over their land and resources and make monsterous profits. Think how much better we would of been off if we had done that in Desert Storm!
[/sarcasm][/tnc][/dweebish][/artificial poltical views created to PO someone]
Welcome back Ram, yer a lil late for this one (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-
Originally posted by RAM:
to 1-) I'll answer. Yes, do it. Please. From ALL spots on the globe. And when all the finantial interests you have in 90% of the zones were US soldiers are deployed, are stolen from your influence then tell me how do you feel ----> (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)<----
LOL, Finally! I baited TOAD! Wow. (hehehe)
anyway most of the message is serious. US has had political and economic interests all around the world since WWII, you can't deny it. Vietnam happened because US wanted. Chile coup happened because US wanted, Argentina militar dictatorships happened because US Wanted, South Korea has US troops there since 1945 because US wanted, Granada happened because US wanted, US attacks over Lybia in 1986 happened because US wanted...
Etc etc etc. If the common guy in the street doesnt like it, fer sure that his presidents in last 50 years DID WANT IT.
And that is a fact.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 09-22-2000).]
-
That was bait?
I thought it was the usual "pseudo-professor" ill-informed anti-American diatribe.
Well, anyway, let's take a look at your latest...
US has had political and economic interests all around the world since WWII, you can't deny it.
Well, duh! Have your history studies at University suggested to you why this might be the case? Particularly the "since WWII" part?
"Vietnam happened because US wanted."
Your History studies have surely covered VietNam during WW2 right?
French colonialism in the post-war era?
The Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam on July 20, 1954?
The provisional division of the country at approximately the 17th parallel?
The fact that the cease-fire agreements also referred to "general elections" that would "bring about the unification" of the two zones of Vietnam?
The fact that agreement was not accepted by the Bao Dai (non-communist nationalist) government, which agreed, however, to respect the cease-fire?
The fact that the "Domino Theory" was generally accepted by the non-communist world powers? (You know what the Domino theory is, right?)
The fact that in December 1961, President Diem requested assistance from the United States?
That Australian, New Zealand and South Korea sent troops, to name a few other nations?
That the US had a signed military assistance treaty with South VietNam?
South Korea has US troops there since 1945 because US wanted
Your studies have also undoubtedly covered the fact that in 1943, in Cairo, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Gerneralissimo Chiang Kai-shek together announced on Dec. 1st the "Cairo Declaration" which proclaimed that "the aforesaid three g reat powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent"?
That on Nov.14 1947, the United Nations passed a resolution that created a U.N. presence in Korea. The resolution called for a "United Nations Temporary Committee on Korea" (UNTCOK) to watchdog national elections to be scheduled sometime before March 31st 1948?
That when the UNTCOK arrived in Korea, the special commission, consisting mainly of American allies, were met warmly in the American Occupational Zone. In the Soviet Zone, however, UNTCOK was not even recognized by the authorities there and was denied entrance?
That in May 1948, elections were held in the South? That mirroring the proceedings in the south, elections were in held in the autumn of 1948 and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was born?
That on April 8, 1948 U.S. troops were ordered to withdraw from Korea on orders from President Harry Truman?
That on June 29, 1948 the last U.S. troops were withdrawn from South Korea?
That on January 15, 1950 Secretary of State Dean Acheson stated that the Western defense perimeter of the U.S. stops short of South Korea?
That on June 25, 1950 early in the morning, the North Korean People's Army under General Chai Ung Jun, invaded South Korea with seven assault infantry divisions, a tank brigade, and two independent infantry regiments. The United Nations Security Council resolution called for an end to the North Korean aggression. The resolution got passed only because the Soviet Union had boycotted that particular meeting?
That the way the UN Security Council works is not the same as the way the General Assembly works?
That on June 27, 1950 the United Nations asked member nations to aid the Republic of Korea?
That on July 7, 1950 the United Nations created the United Nations command under General Douglas MacArthur?
That today there are about 37,000 American soldiers who are stationed there?
Are you really suggesting that Korea would have been less of a world "hotspot" over the years WITHOUT the presence of US troops since the ceasefire?
I'm sure your studies went into detail on the Libyan raid and cleared up the following points:
That the actual attack concerned was a pointed response by the American government to what it regarded as Libyan-sponsored terrorism?
That on April 14, 1986, thirty-two American aircraft attacked selected targets located at Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya? Thirty-seven people were killed; an undetermined number were injured?
That the incident took place against a background of heightened tensions between the US and Libya, involving terrorist attacks in Rome and Vienna airports, confrontations at the "Line of Death" in the Gulf of Sidra and, on 5 April 1986, the bombing of the LaBelle night-club in Berlin, leading to the death of one American and injuries to sixty-three others?
That the US had stated its intent to use force against terrorist bases and the US government claimed that it had evidence linking Libya to the Berlin bombing and to other planned terrorist attacks?
That after examining the facts leading up to the American airstrike and the relevant international law, if the Libyan government was indeed part of the plot to bomb the "LaBelle" night-club and if it was planning further such attacks on American targets, then the American government was entitled to act?
....and now Grenada.....
The trouble began on October 13, 1983, when the Grenadian Army, under the direction of the former Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard, deposed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and established military rule of the smallest independent country in the Western Hemisphere.
However, the US IMO should NOT have intervened. If anything, we should have offered to evacuate any US citizens that wanted to leave and then left the area.
There was no threat to US national interest and no obligation by treaty or other agreement that required the US to invade. Even the Soviet/Cuban airfield was not really a problem...just another target for the Strategic Integrated Operations Plan. (SIOP, the standing US warplan).
This was a mistake in US foreign policy. I don't think any US writer on this BBS has ever stated the the US hasn't made mistakes.
US intervention in Chile through the CIA was also a huge mistake and illegal. It has taken the US a long time but our Congress has begun to act.
From the Congressional Record: May 13, 1999 (House)
Page H3112-H3141
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
[...]
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hinchey (NY)
Mr. Hinchey: I have an amendment which requires that no later than 120 days after
the date of the enactment of this act, the director of the Central
Intelligence Agency shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees which are mentioned in the amendment a report describing all
activities of officers, covert agents, and employees of all elements of
the intelligence community with respect to the following events in the
Republic of Chile:
One, the assassinations of President Salvador Allende in September of
1973;
Two, the ascension of General Augusto Pinochet to the presidency of
the Republic of Chile; and
Three, the violations of human rights committed by officers or agents
of former President Pinochet.
The report submitted under this subsection shall include copies of
unedited documents in the possession of any such element of the
intelligence community with respect to such events.
Mr. Chairman, I think that after the passage of all of this time, it
is appropriate that the United States Congress and the people of the
United States and the people of the world understand with much greater
clarity than they have been able to up to this moment the specific
events which took place in Chile which led to the assassination of the
duly-elected president and the ascension of power by a military junta.
It is important for us to understand these events because it is
important for us to take action to ensure that these kinds of illegal
activities do not occur in the future.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
It took us a while, but it's all going to come out.
Argentina? You are referring primarily to Peron?
You know that Peron was elected in 1946 with 56 percent of the vote?
That he was reelected by a large margin in 1951?
That on Sept. 19, 1955, he was overthrown by a group of officers opposed to the corruption and oppression of his rule?
That he went into exile and settled in Madrid, Spain?
That in March 1973 Peronista candidates captured the presidency, and Perón returned to a tumultuous welcome?
That he was again elected president, and his wife became vice president?
Or are you talking about later, when Jimmy Carter, one month after his inauguration, began his human rights campaign by targeting Argentina, Ethiopia, and Uruguay for aid sanctions?
Ah, well, this cheerful bantering has gone on long enough.
I do have two questions for you Ram:
It's true that Bosnia and other overseas operations cost the United States $7 billion in 1999.
What was Spain's entire military budget in USD for 1999?
How much is it costing Spain to keep a huge 800 man contingent in Kosovo?
Oh, one other thing...
Are you saying that the US has done such a poor job as "the world's policeman" that we HAVE to stay on the job?
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-22-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-22-2000).]
-
Jigster LOLOLOLOLOL <G> maybe spain could raise the "Spanish Armada" and increase it's influence around the world. Just kidding <G>
-
Toad,
From an amature historian to an obviously professional historian SALUTE!!
Mav
-
You guys can jerk and piddle all ya want.
Fact is a GIANT asteroid is on a collision course with Earth and NO ONE KNOWS IT!
HAHAHAHAHA............
Yeager
-
humpf-some things are well taken others not. Lets see:
Originally posted by Toad:
That was bait?
the 1) and 2),obviously, yes. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) see the smilie (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Well, duh! Have your history studies at University suggested to you why this might be the case? Particularly the "since WWII" part?
Since WWII until 1990 US of A has been the key in any important world matter, along with USSR. After it USA has been the ONLY world ruler.
Facts are facts. You feared communism expansion and did ANY thing in your hands to stop it, Communist party was banned in USA (go freedom, GO), and you wanted it banned from the world. So you took the job of "world policemans" because YOU wanted. noone forced your succesive presidents to do it so. (and I dont tell that I'm not grateful about it).
BTW I have no university studies on the matter, but since I was seven I have read a lot about WWII and post WWII world. I'll never consider myself as an expert, but I think i know enough about the matters to give my opinions over them-
Your History studies have surely covered VietNam during WW2 right?
yes
French colonialism in the post-war era?
too
The Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam on July 20, 1954?
[/b]
something less stable than Versalles'19. But yes. That too.
The provisional division of the country at approximately the 17th parallel?
Obviously NV took the "provisional" as a literal description (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The fact that the cease-fire agreements also referred to "general elections" that would "bring about the unification" of the two zones of Vietnam?
The fact that agreement was not accepted by the Bao Dai (non-communist nationalist) government, which agreed, however, to respect the cease-fire?
The fact that the "Domino Theory" was generally accepted by the non-communist world powers? (You know what the Domino theory is, right?)
all is nonsense in this matter. Because I am referring to the 1962-75 Vietman conflict. all you have said dont explain what happened in 1960s in VIetnam.
The fact that in December 1961, President Diem requested assistance from the United States?
Diem eh? lol, that was the president of one of the most corrupt governments in the world, one that passed human rights over his private parts. One that was feared and hated by his own country. He was a monster by any measure.
You supported it because the "enemy" was the communism. You supported it because you had POLITICAL interest in the zone (mostly the same reasons you always defended israel at all costs).
VIetman happened because USA put its nose in a hornet's nest. And of course you got the nose VERY red.
That the US had a signed military assistance treaty with South VietNam?
Today to sign that treaty with a monster as Diem would mean a political earthquake in washington...
Thanks god some things are being fixed by themselves.
Your studies have also undoubtedly covered the fact that in 1943, in Cairo, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Gerneralissimo Chiang Kai-shek together announced on Dec. 1st the "Cairo Declaration" which proclaimed that "the aforesaid three g reat powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent"?
Knew about the declaration, and the people involved. Didnt know the date and location. Again, it doesnt explain Korea.
That on Nov.14 1947, the United Nations passed a resolution that created a U.N. presence in Korea. The resolution called for a "United Nations Temporary Committee on Korea" (UNTCOK) to watchdog national elections to be scheduled sometime before March 31st 1948?
That when the UNTCOK arrived in Korea, the special commission, consisting mainly of American allies, were met warmly in the American Occupational Zone. In the Soviet Zone, however, UNTCOK was not even recognized by the authorities there and was denied entrance?
That in May 1948, elections were held in the South? That mirroring the proceedings in the south, elections were in held in the autumn of 1948 and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was born?
That on April 8, 1948 U.S. troops were ordered to withdraw from Korea on orders from President Harry Truman?
That on June 29, 1948 the last U.S. troops were withdrawn from South Korea?
That on January 15, 1950 Secretary of State Dean Acheson stated that the Western defense perimeter of the U.S. stops short of South Korea?
LOL and eastern defence perimeter in 1941 for Japan was the Marianas and, exactly SAIPAN, Guam and Tinian!...was Japan right to take Saipan because fell into its "defence perimeter?"
Come on, this are wasted words, the thing is that USA had its nose kept into a FOREIGN country because, again, communism threatened to win a victory. You couldn't accept it, and you fought against it. Anything else, IMO, is superfluous. Fact is-USA had political interest in the zone-USA sends troops.
Again, world police in action. I dont say that south korea deserved to fall into communism, I say that when it was going to happen YOU WERE THERE because OWN reasons. nothing to do with korean people.
Own interests...allways own interests...Using a lot of excuses, but in the end, OWN USA interests...
That on June 25, 1950 early in the morning, the North Korean People's Army under General Chai Ung Jun, invaded South Korea with seven assault infantry divisions, a tank brigade, and two independent infantry regiments.
The United Nations Security Council resolution called for an end to the North Korean aggression. The resolution got passed only because the Soviet Union had boycotted that particular meeting?
That the way the UN Security Council works is not the same as the way the General Assembly works?
And as you saw that UN couldnt say what you wanted,you sent unilaterally troops to Korea, so breaking UN decisions and its ability to take part from there onwards as a REAL interlocutor between sides in conflict.
The veto right in the security council of UN has sucked ALWAYS.I agree in it.
Still if you want to respect the very same organization you just created then you MUST comply with its resolutions (or lack thereof).
Since then I think that NOONE has really taken seriously UN until 1991. Because USA and USSR were known to do what they wanted, not what UN said. Great isnt it?.
That on June 27, 1950 the United Nations asked member nations to aid the Republic of Korea?
That on July 7, 1950 the United Nations created the United Nations command under General Douglas MacArthur?
The guy who asked permission to drop an A-bomb over NOrth korea?... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
That today there are about 37,000 American soldiers who are stationed there?
Are you really suggesting that Korea would have been less of a world "hotspot" over the years WITHOUT the presence of US troops since the ceasefire?
No, I suggest that if USA has the role it has today is because USA WANTED IT for 50 years. and it is something not easy to let now that you start to feel tired because communism is not a threat.
Noone called USA into Korea, UN did when USA had already sent troops there. YOu did it on your own, so taking with you the role originally given to UN. And you kept that attitude until now.
Sure that world is now a better word with no communism. Still you WANTED the policeman role. You wanted it for 50 years, and sorry ,it is something that now can't be stopped.
I'm sure your studies went into detail on the Libyan raid and cleared up the following points:
That the actual attack concerned was a pointed response by the American government to what it regarded as Libyan-sponsored terrorism?
That on April 14, 1986, thirty-two American aircraft attacked selected targets located at Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya? Thirty-seven people were killed; an undetermined number were injured?
That the incident took place against a background of heightened tensions between the US and Libya, involving terrorist attacks in Rome and Vienna airports, confrontations at the "Line of Death" in the Gulf of Sidra and, on 5 April 1986, the bombing of the LaBelle night-club in Berlin, leading to the death of one American and injuries to sixty-three others?
That the US had stated its intent to use force against terrorist bases and the US government claimed that it had evidence linking Libya to the Berlin bombing and to other planned terrorist attacks?
That after examining the facts leading up to the American airstrike and the relevant international law, if the Libyan government was indeed part of the plot to bomb the "LaBelle" night-club and if it was planning further such attacks on American targets, then the American government was entitled to act?
In short words: There was terrorism against US interests and soldiers. You threatened a sovereign country with the use of pure force. You violated a sovereign country's national skies and commited war actions against it. You killed a sovereign country's people and damaged its military, buildings and structures.
Call it whatever you want. I call it a war action, something on the line of Pearl Harbor.
If that behavior is done by a guy in real life, he would be sent to prison for the rest of his days. USA went ahead with an UN condemn (One that REagan must have found VERY funny, BTW), and nothing else.
I dont see how that way of action can be defended, toad. Really. I live in a land with the weight of a terrorist independentist group, and I will NEVER support the use of force against them. Very few things give the right to use the force. Lybia in 1986 was not one of those times. Even France and UK denied USA the use of their airspace for the attack! (Spain didnt...oh, well (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif))
....and now Grenada.....
The trouble began on October 13, 1983, when the Grenadian Army, under the direction of the former Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard, deposed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and established military rule of the smallest independent country in the Western Hemisphere.
However, the US IMO should NOT have intervened. If anything, we should have offered to evacuate any US citizens that wanted to leave and then left the area.
There was no threat to US national interest and no obligation by treaty or other agreement that required the US to invade. Even the Soviet/Cuban airfield was not really a problem...just another target for the Strategic Integrated Operations Plan. (SIOP, the standing US warplan).
This was a mistake in US foreign policy. I don't think any US writer on this BBS has ever stated the the US hasn't made mistakes.
But is another example of same thing, toad. Granada could've been a propagandistic problem for USA, nothing solid,nothing real, but still was something not to be "tolerated". THere WERE interest there. Propaganda. To make clear that US would actively act against such things. USA didnt want another Cuba. And made a lot of noise to make it clear.
US intervention in Chile through the CIA was also a huge mistake and illegal. It has taken the US a long time but our Congress has begun to act.
It took us a while, but it's all going to come out.
Didnt know that the congress is in it. Glad , mighty glad to know it. BUt I doubt that 27 years after it there is much more than an apology to do. Still deserves a salute.
Argentina? You are referring primarily to Peron?
No, to the succesive militar dictatorships in 70's and early 80's. Had CIA support much in the same way as in Chile, but it has much less press than Chile (after all Salvador allende's assasination is IMO, one of the grimmest moments in XX century).
Or are you talking about later, when Jimmy Carter, one month after his inauguration, began his human rights campaign by targeting Argentina, Ethiopia, and Uruguay for aid sanctions?
CIA supported Argentinian militar dictatorships up to 1980s. Carter may have said anything (Uruguay?...CIA members directed the torture of opposition members to "extract" information from them...read about it, Toad, some stories about those interrogatory sessions belong to Mauthausen more than to Uruguay). But the fact is that CIA actively supported those things until 1982.
And I wont start about Nicaragua (sandinists), Colombia, PANAMA (please can you give another explanation for Panama? I'd really love to hear about it) CUBA (same)...etc...
All in all, US policy on South america has been a whole disaster, of unmeasurable proportions.
It's true that Bosnia and other overseas operations cost the United States $7 billion in 1999
Let me answer with another question....
wich was,exactly, the benefits on USA military doing the Yugoslavia bombings?...the weapons they tested?...the weapons they USED in real combat?...
2 sides of the coin.
Are you saying that the US has done such a poor job as "the world's policeman" that we HAVE to stay on the job?
NO, I say that US has done some good jobs and some bad jobs at the same time. And that many times "human rights", and "right reasons" have had nothing to do with your intervention, but only and purely USA own interests. Political, economical and propagandistic reasons.
And that after 50 years WANTING the job, now is a bit problematic to say "i want to resign". You wanted the job, you got it. Sometimes you did it well sometimes you blewed it bigtime. But you wanted the job and you got it.
the problem comes when USA people realize that the "job" its something hard to left aside, and THAT is my only point in this thread.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 09-22-2000).]
-
Originally posted by RAM:
Since WWII until 1990 US of A has been the key in any important world matter, along with USSR. After it USA has been the ONLY world ruler.
Facts are facts. You feared communism expansion and did ANY thing in your hands to stop it, Communist party was banned in USA (go freedom, GO), and you wanted it banned from the world. So you took the job of "world policemans" because YOU wanted. noone forced your succesive presidents to do it so. (and I dont tell that I'm not grateful about it).
BTW I have no university studies on the matter, but since I was seven I have read a lot about WWII and post WWII world. I'll never consider myself as an expert, but I think i know enough about the matters to give my opinions over them
Yo RAM, remember what happened last time soneone did NOTHING when genocide, violence, etc. happened and no body bothered to step in?
Remember the world's vow "NEVER AGAIN!"?
Sure we feared communism. It was not the utopian society that Marx had wrote in the Communist Manifesto. Why? Communism was suppose to come naturally to a civilized people. Name one, ONE single damn time that communism was not placed on the people by military force! That is why is has never ever worked! In every case communism was used to let the government take total control of people, with what seemed like a sound idealology!
Btw study the communist party in the US. It never went away, neither has the socialist and anarchist parties. They are just very very unpopular or very small in most cases.
Since WWII, the US has had "moral obligations" to step in as the world's police men. People hated us when we remained in isolation, when we could of helped during WWII. We set out to remedy that. But thats just one part. There are many others reasons, some were stupid or crap thought up by politicans, but hell, cut the US some slack. Then again, dont. No one else does.
We suck. And we know it. We functioned perfectly well in isolationism. Sure we would need to make some changes to go back to it. I'd like to think how much better off we'd be if our tax dollars were spent on domestic problems rather then foreign affairs. The WTO is just going to steal more domestic jobs anyway. Fudge other people's economy. We outta fix whats in our back yards first.
Btw I saw a Drednaunt class battleship being rearmed today. Hope ya can swim (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
btw I just notice the title of this thread is very illsuited. It should read more along the lines,
"A few bad seeds amoung the thousands of moral peace keepers( who would rather be elsewhere doing what they are trained to and making good use of civilian tax dollars) in Kosovo in attempts to prevent further genocide"
But then again nobody would read the story under that headline. The Media is evil.
- Jig
-
And BTW, my <SALUTE> and respect for your knowledge...
but I have another point of view about USA, thats all (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Jig, my only point in this thread is that USA has taken the policeman spot for 50 years. And used it at will repeatedly with good, non-so good, and BAD intentions.
You can bet that half South american people hate USA. You earned it, sorry but it is that way.
And because big blunders, you earned the lack of confidence and untrust of half the world. Sometimes you have used your "policeman" spot reaching true INTERVENTIONIST levels. And that only creates enemies, and makes some people wonder why has US to put its nose in their own matters.
I dont say that USA is an evil country. I say that it has used its power for its own interests hiding it behind the "policeman" job. It worked for 40 years...but now that you TRULY are involved in Bosnia only to help you find that people doesnt trust you.
Is it so hard to understand?
-
You can bet that half South american people hate USA. You earned it, sorry but it is that way.
You mean Central America don't you? We don't do as much in South America.. that's pretty much Europe and Asia's stomping grounds. A little dabling in Columbia.. but not what you'd think.
I've actually been to South America (3 countries) and Central America (2 countries) and felt firsthand how they view Americans. With the exception of Panama (understandably so).. we're pretty much viewed with whatever the overall mood is. Usually that's pretty good. Seldomely is it much different than they view their own people. To be honest.. we weren't really considered much while we were down there and it was fine for everyone.
Of course.. there will always be those peole from outside the US that have a massive chip on their shoulder, but I haven't noticed them to predominantly come from any one country. So far... this forum shows them coming from North/South America, Europe and Asia. Of course, Spain seems to sport some of the bigger chips.
AKDejaVu
-
Humm, well, I have met several people from Chile, Argentina, Paraguay and Venezuela. I can tell you that none of them had a good view about USA, and one (the chilean) really disliked it.
And that about Central America, not South america...Again, USA was VERY involved in Chile's and Argentina's coups and Uruguay's repressions, not to talk about Colombia.
I dont understand well your comment about chips (for me a chip is a metal thing used in PCs (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)). I guess you say that I dont like USA.
I like some things about USA. I dislike others. I have my own point of view about USA and its people. And I share it here. You are free to like it or not, but at least respect it.
If I took the comment badly, sorry. I repeat, for me chips are for computers, not for my shoulder (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 09-22-2000).]
-
Originally posted by RAM:
but only and purely USA own interests. Political, economical and propagandistic reasons.
Sorry, my friend...not quite.
First of all, the US didn't just act unilaterally or without consulting the UN/Western Allies. Many, many times our actions were the results of a world consensus.
Often we did serve what we perceived to be "our interests". What were some of those? Perhaps "world peace"? "World economic stability?" Yes, we benefit from those too.
Are you saying that things that benefit the entire world are of no value if they also benefit US interest?
It's easy to "cherry pick" issues and demonize the US but it simply doesn't show the whole picture. Our 55 years, while not perfect, have led you to the world as it is today. Would you prefer the world as it was between WWI and WWII? We DIDN't lead then; we followed the lead of the major European powers.
Would you have preferred Stalin to lead the world after WW2? What a nice "human rights" guy he was! I'm sure he'd have done better than we did though.
And that after 50 years WANTING the job, now is a bit problematic to say "i want to resign". You wanted the job, you got it.
I disagree. I think it is problematic for YOU not myself and the ever-growing number of Americans who are sick and tired of this thankless task. We won't be asking your permission; we'll just be bringing our troops home where they belong. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Beyond that...we never, ever wanted this job. We filled a vacuum because after WW2 there WAS no one else.
You feared communism expansion and did ANY thing in your hands to stop it
"You" being the US? Are you implying that the US was the only country concerned? How do you explain the formation of NATO? Oh, of course! We MADE them join!
all is nonsense in this matter. Because I am referring to the 1962-75 Vietman conflict. all you have said dont explain what happened in 1960s in VIetnam.
Now THERE'S a bit of NONSENSE! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) If you don't understand that the history of Vietnam from French Colonialism up through WW2 has a DIRECT "cause and effect" relationship with what happened in the 1960's when Kennedy started our involvement....then there is absolutely no point in even discussing ANY History with you.
Diem eh? lol, that was the president of one of the most corrupt governments in the world,
Ah, so the "good" governments of the world only deal with other "good" governments? What and whose standard shall those governments use to judge "good"? How will you deal with "corrupt" governments? Ignore them? Try to improve them? It must be true then that nothing of value can come from dealing in any way with "bad" governments?
You don't agree with Kissinger's "Realpolitik"? Dealing with the world as it is, not as you want it to be?
VIetman happened because USA put its nose in a hornet's nest. And of course you got the nose VERY red.
It happened because Kennedy supposedly believed in the "Domino theory". And if you think we couldn't have won it militarily, you're foolish. However, the politicians ran the war, a mistake that was highlighted and that we learned from.
Knew about the declaration, and the people involved. Didnt know the date and location. Again, it doesnt explain Korea.
Again, it shows that YOU don't understand History. This is the starting point of the Korean conflict; it took a few years to mature.
was Japan right to take Saipan because fell into its "defence perimeter?"
You miss here too. Acheson's declaration that Korea was OUTSIDE the US defence perimeter was taken by the North Koreans as a statement that the US WOULD NOT fight over Korea. It made their action MORE likely.
Come on, this are wasted words, the thing is that USA had its nose kept into a FOREIGN country because, again, communism threatened to win a victory....YOU WERE THERE because OWN reasons. nothing to do with korean people.
US troops left Korea earlier under Truman's order. They returned when North Korea invaded. We were there because, once again, it was American Foreign Policy to oppose Communist expansion. Are you saying that was a bad Foreign Policy? You think history to date has shown Communism imposed by force to be a GOOD thing for a country? Once again, we were not alone in this belief; it was shared by the Western Powers. Go look up the list of who sent troops.
Still if you want to respect the very same organization you just created then you MUST comply with its resolutions (or lack thereof).
On June 27, 1950, two days after the North invaded,the United Nations asked member nations to aid the Republic of Korea. That was when Truman ordered U.S. air and naval forces to help South Korea.
If you have OTHER information, I'd like to see it.
Noone called USA into Korea, UN did when USA had already sent troops there.
I'd like to see your source information that backs this statement.
Still you WANTED the policeman role. You wanted it for 50 years, and sorry ,it is something that now can't be stopped.
Oh, I think we'll be able to get that done before too long. People like you are making it easier all the time! Thanks for the help! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In short words: There was terrorism against US interests and soldiers.
Yes, and under International Law, we were barely within our rights. There are studies that point this out, too.
But is another example of same thing, toad.
Not at all. Here (Greneda) we acted unilaterally, without support from our Western-world allies. Despite the "fig leaf" cover of having the Organziation of Eastern Carribean States ask us to intervene and also supply some (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) "troops".
All we needed to do was escort any US or other "foreign" nationals out of there. We WAY overstepped and it wasn't like the other instances above.
Didnt know that the congress is in it. Glad , mighty glad to know it. BUt I doubt that 27 years after it there is much more than an apology to do. Still deserves a salute.
Yeah, thanks. BTW, what did Spain ever do for the natives of the new world that they exterminated? You guys did apologize, right? That would deserve a salute.
Point is that an apology IS all you can do, basically. You can't go back and rewrite or change History.
(after all Salvador allende's assasination is IMO, one of the grimmest moments in XX century).
Not even close. How about the Holocaust...and not just the Jews, either..all of them, the gypsies, transvestites, political dissidents, etc.
Allende was sad...but nothing to compare with that.
CIA supported Argentinian militar dictatorships up to 1980s....All in all, US policy on South america has been a whole disaster, of unmeasurable proportions.
Yes, a huge mistake. I agree.
As bad as what the Spanish did to the Incas, Mayans and Aztecs in South America? I'm not sure. Well, enough time has gone by that most people have forgotten about that little Spanish pecadillo...perhaps someday they will forget the US made mistakes as well. I guess the Spanish were just acting in their own interest......... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
And I wont start about Nicaragua (sandinists)
I flew quite a few intelligence missions there when the Sandinistas were throwing out Somoza. A fine bunch of fellows, those Sandinos... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) Your heroes, I guess?
wich was,exactly, the benefits on USA military doing the Yugoslavia bombings?...the weapons they tested?...the weapons they USED in real combat?...
Nice try. The ONLY thing we tried there that hadn't been "proved" beyond a doubt in Desert Storm was the B-2. Are you saying that the only reason we flew that bombing campaign was to test the B-2?
Like I said, keep it coming Ram.
Guys like you are the best hope we have of getting all the US troops home!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-22-2000).]
-
Deleted...accidentally doubled.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-22-2000).]
-
Well.. damn ram.. I didn't know you'd "talked to people from South America".
Hell...
That's much better than actually going there. WHAT WAS I THINKING?
It must be really great to be able to sit 8000 miles away and levy judgement on things based on heresay.
And.. having a chip on your shoulder is a figure of speech. It requires someone have a serious inferiority complex.. then dares someone to point it out. That pretty much sums you up.
AKDejaVu
BTW Toad.. great post. I think Europe loves having the US around. That way they can say "forget about what we did to the world for the last 1500 years... LOOK WHAT THE US IS DOING RIGHT NOW! Of course, they aren't commiting genocide, repressing religion or anexing countries to their "empire"... but that's just a matter of time.. RIGHT?
-
RAM,...I got no problem with you....you've always seemed like a cool guy, and I don't mean to piss you off...but I gotta say....
Originally posted by Jigster:
OTOH it's nice how some nations of the UNO send just a enough troops to claim credit in peace-keeping operations but not enough to gain notice when they are yanked when things go sour.
- Jig
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it...
Man, Jig....after taking 30 mins to read through this...those words sum it up for me
!
-
Ok waht happened in Yugoslavia was a civil war, why is it then just the other european countries responsiblity? Because there closer, because they are on the same land mass? it's no more the UK's, France, Russia etc. responsibility than it is the USA.
Also why is it when saddam hussien invades kuwait it's NATO's responsiblity to protect the free world from this evil dictator but when he's attacking iran he's just someone to sell arms to? You guessed it OIL. If yugoslavia had oil you would soon see the US, UK etc there to help preserve world freedom.
-
Originally posted by jmccaul:
Ok waht happened in Yugoslavia was a civil war, why is it then just the other european countries responsiblity? ....
If yugoslavia had oil you would soon see the US, UK etc there to help preserve world freedom.
To your first question, IMO, simply because it's THEIR turn to pull the wagon a while. Lord knows we're due a break.
In answer to your second statement, sheesh, do a little reading!
It might have slipped by ya (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif), but US and UK troops have been in Kosovo and Bosnia since the beginning of UN involvement.
As of 12JAN00, there were 6100 US troops in Kosovo out of a total of 45,000. UK had 3100. About 36 countries contributed troops, Iceland and Luxembourg lowest with 2, US highest.
As of May 2000, these countries had troops in Bosnia:
NATO:
Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, UK and USA.
Non-NATO : Albania, Austria, Argentina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden.
Total troops number: Initial SFOR - 32,000 approx. Following 1999/2000 restructuring - 20,000 approx.
Like I said, do a little research for pete's sake!
-
Also why is it when saddam hussien invades kuwait it's NATO's responsiblity to protect the free world from this evil dictator but when he's attacking iran he's just someone to sell arms to? You guessed it OIL. If yugoslavia had oil you would soon see the US, UK etc there to help preserve world freedom.
LOL!
1) I do believe that the idea of Sadam controlling such a large chunk of the world's oil supply had more than just a few people worried. As a rule, anything that has global economy ramifications gets everyone worried.
2) What the hell is the US doing over there then? We don't have any troops there? Where did they go? They were supposed to go there. I know we had troops in and all around there about 4 years ago. I wasn't too far away (thank God for long-range reconisance). Could it be that someone is that blind to something going on not that far away? Come now.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by jmccaul:
If yugoslavia had oil you would soon see the US, UK etc there to help preserve world freedom.
Do you remember that spitting image sketch back in 1992. You got two Bosnian soldiers talking over the sound of shellfire.
Bosnian 1 - "The serbs are coming - they'll be in Sarejevo within a week. What can we do?!!!"
<Bosnian 2 picks up spade and startes digging without a word>
Bosnian 1 - "What are you doing, digging more trenches?!!!"
Bosnian 2 - "No, I'm digging for oil. It worked for Kuwait!!"
<Bosnian 1 picks up spade and helps his comrade>
Without oil the developed world dies; we'll do anything to protect supplies, and hide behind moral justification, no matter how dubious.
"It might have slipped by ya , but US and UK troops have been in Kosovo and Bosnia since the beginning of UN involvement."
Toad, I suggest you do some reading. The international community took no real action in Yugo. for years, yet literally days after Kuwait was invaded, the internation community was 'in'.
If you can't see the difference in the policy boils down to oil, then there's no hope for you, friend. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
There's something that's been nagging me for a while, while reading through this topic and others. If the US is so altruistic in its pursuit of foreign policy, then why all the fuss when it comes to 'Big Brother' and the insidious influences of your government at home? It doesn't make sense to me that the government should be so 'nice' to foreigners, yet supposedly so 'nasty' to its own people. It just doesn't add up to me. BTW, before anyone attacks me for slagging off the States, I'm not; I'm just interested on your thoughts on the subject. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-23-2000).]
-
My point is the US (quite rightly) hasn't got troops stationed around the world purely to help other countries it is there to protect it's own intrest.
Also can you honestly compare mobilizing a huge invasion force to liberate kuwait to what happened in bosnia where there was an attempt at genocide which was a far worse humanitarian situation than in kuwit but i didn't see NATO uniting to force the serbs out of bosnia like they did to Iraq at kuwait. I simply do not know how you can compare the two.
-
Dowding: Toad, I suggest you do some reading. The international community took no real action in Yugo. for years, yet literally days after Kuwait was invaded, the internation community was 'in'.
Well, old chum, prior to the "breakup" of Yugoslavia into smaller states you are talking about the internal affairs of a nation. Even after the breakup of Yugoslavia into small "historically independent" states (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) much of the problem was in their internal affairs.
The UN rarely gets into "internal" affairs very quickly. It wasn't designed to deal with those situations. The bloodshed has to get so major that EVERYONE is embarassed.
...and if you are a "major power" the UN won't do anything at all. Chechnya is considered an "internal" affair even now and the bloodshed has been huge.
Kuwait, on the other hand, is aggression against a UN member by an external military force. This is EXACTLY the situation the UN was designed to deal with. Remember the "never again" of WW2? That's what the UN was designed to avoid.
Did oil play a role? Absolutely! Is this not a legitimate concern and policy goal for the entire world? So if it's a "GOOD" thing for the world and the US both, it's still a "BAD" thing?
What DejaVu said in his "Point 1". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
So, the short easily understood reply is: The UN is charted to deal with external aggression against a member nation. Internal slaughter of a nation's own citizens by a member nation is a different situation entirely.
For some pre-bedtime reading, may I suggest the UN Charter? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
If you can't see the difference in the policy boils down to how the UN operates, then there's no hope for you, friend. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
If the US is so altruistic in its pursuit of foreign policy
I've not said that. I've said we OF COURSE acted in our own interests. Every nation does. HOWEVER, I think our interests can be and often HAVE BEEN in the best interests of most other countries as well. World Peace, for example is a mutual goal.
Kuwait is a good example, despite everyone's focus on the oil. The entire world benefits when external agressors are checked. Or maybe we should revert to Neville Chamberlains approach? We could have let Saddam keep Kuwait if he promised to leave Saudi alone I guess. What sort of message would that have sent to the wannabe-Hitlers of the world?
Our internal squabbles over Government policy are just that. You don't see anyone killing Government officials here like the Basques are doing, do you?
We argue over the meaning of the Constitution. So? We have elections and press on.
We don't murder people in the thousands just because they are of a different faith.
The nice thing about the US is that what revolutions we have occur through the use of the ballot box. Remember the term "Reagan Revolution"? Like him or not, he changed many things. That happened because we peacefully elected him, not by gunfire.
jmccaul:
My point is the US (quite rightly) hasn't got troops stationed around the world purely to help other countries it is there to protect it's own intrest.
Well, that is not the point you made.
See above; sure we have troops around the world to protect our interests. Does that mean they are not simultaneously protecting the interests of other countries and, in fact, the world? You gents seem to say that US interests and Global Community interests are ALWAYS diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive.
Is World Peace not a goal of the rest of the world? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
In any event, time to bring them home and let you "armchair world policemen" take a turn on the beat. Enjoy and watch the dark alleys!
Also can you honestly compare mobilizing a huge invasion force to liberate kuwait to what happened in bosnia where there was an attempt at genocide which was a far worse humanitarian situation than in kuwit but i didn't see NATO uniting to force the serbs out of bosnia like they did to Iraq at kuwait. I simply do not know how you can compare the two.
Neither can I, but you and Dowding seem to be trying to compare them.
You can't compare EXTERNAL armed aggression against a UN Member Nation by another UN Member nation to INTERNAL genocide. They simply are not the same and both the UN Charter and the NATO charter are designed to deal with EXTERNAL aggression.
I'm not saying oil wasn't a factor. I'm saying you guys need to understand the difference in the Charters with respect to External Aggression and Internal Persecution.
Have a NICE day!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
You make some excellent points, Toad. But I don't agree with some of them.
Well, old chum, prior to the "breakup" of Yugoslavia into smaller states you are talking about the internal affairs of a nation. Even after the breakup of Yugoslavia into small "historically independent" states (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) much of the problem was in their internal affairs.
The UN rarely gets into "internal" affairs very quickly. It wasn't designed to deal with those situations. The bloodshed has to get so major that EVERYONE is embarassed.
[/B]
Yugoslavia, as you point out, was a federation of nation states - I don't think the UN can hide behind the excuse that it was somehow a civil war, as though this somehow justifies its total inaction. The combatants had very strong nationalistic feelings and could use the history of their peoples to justify hostilities. It wasn't truly a civil war, unlike the English or American wars; it wasn't 'brother against brother' or 'father against son', more like 'neighbour against neighbour' (where each neighbour possesses a particular national identity - sounds like the definition of a cross-border war, to me). The 'senate' of Yugoslavia had completely and irrevocably dissolved, and the representives had retreated to their ethinic origins. Surely then the UN should have realised what was going to come.
Remember that one of the key sparks to the conflict was Germany's recognition of Croatia as a nation state.
As to your last point in the quote; it was noticeable how quickly the international community got involved once the 'Market Square Massacre' reached the world's media wasn't it? What happened to the UN's supposely unbreakable decree about 'internal disagreements'? I'm convinced that if this had not happened, or if it had gone unreported, then NATO would not have got involved. The war would have remained an 'Internal dispute' and the world could have continued to hide behind the high moral values of the UN's mandate, and its approach to 'international' conflict. If they could enter the conflict then, why not in the months before? Like you say, embarrassment at the event played its part; is was nothing to do with UN trying to be true to the principles mentioned previously, if it was, surely they would have honored them.
There are other examples of UN and international community inactivity in the face of conflict. Just look to Africa and the decade long wars there - Eritrea and Ethiopia for example (I think thats right, not sure (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)). There are plenty of 'wannabe Hitlers' in Africa, but we don't even get involved politically, nevermind militarily. I still maintain that if Iraq and Kuwait had been in Africa, the huge military response would not have occurred.
I think the moral justification of 'putting down the agressor' was just used to disguise the real reason for intervention, that being the continued supply of oil. It seemed to me that the West tried to make out Kuwait to be some kind of bastion of civilisation over-run by a barbaric horde; it gets interesting when you look at the serious human rights violations that were occuring in Kuwait before Iraq got involved, for instance the widespread use of torture against dissidents of the regime.
As an aside, the Chechnya conflict is very revealing, especially when looking at international relations. NATO wouldn't dare get involved here and the world chooses to ignore the fact that there is very little reporting on the situation there. When the final assault on Grozny took place this year, there was only one reporter in the city. His name is Andrei Babitsky, a Russian, who chose to report on the true situation there. Only one radio station would accept his reports in Russia, the rest of the media carried the official line (like the good old days). He was captured by the Russian secret service and spent time inside a Russian prison (reminiscent of Stalin's Gulags - he heard torture occuring all around him, both men and women). Only the US's timely intervention, requesting information on his whereabouts saved him; Russia had supposedly released him to the Cheychen rebels he had being living with - they turned out to be bandits selected for the 'task' by Russian forces. Only now is Babitsky's story getting out into the Western press.
When I made the point about the altruism of American foreign policy, I was referring to the people who have made comments here about American aid to Europe being 'caring' or humanitarian - this seems to be a widely held view (I might be wrong) - yet it seems from reading in the O club that the US government is also this malevolent controlling authority, trying to stealthyly impose it's will over the American people. I made no insinuation about internal violence Toad - I was just trying to make the point that the malevolent 'Big Brother' image can't fit with the perceived kindness shown to Europe since WW2 or in other foreign policy decisions. And BTW, I am grateful for what the US did for Europe - I'd be a fool not to.
Hajo - what you said about Stalin was largely true, except the 'failure' part. My definition of failure is when you set yourself an objective that you fail to meet. At which point did Stalin decide to rule in a fair-handed, humanitarian and democratic way? The answer is he never did - therefore you can't say he is a failure at something he never intended to do. He always wanted to be a despot. It would be like saying an olympic champion sprinter failed to win gold at beach volleyball.
Jeez, this is a long post. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-24-2000).]
-
Hehe, toad you make good arguements (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
One thing tho:
Yes nothing new was tested in yugoslavia, but undoubtedly the US wanted to see how their planes worked in a more hostile enviroment than Iraq. They went into Yugoslavia using every bit of air tactics and power they had knowing that they had more sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses in a much smaller area. I think they learned a great deal there- about how well their approaches to the problems worked, about what issues they needed to address and whether or not to retire some of the longer standing planes in the US navy. (I believe the Wild Weasel Phantoms were retired just after the Bosnia campaign, they were no longer effective enough to justify not using F-18's instead) And when reading the reports on the conflict available to us from the armed forces- one gets the feeling they were distinctly disapointed Milsovek (sp?) closed down his air defense radar network before they could kill it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
And beyond a doubt US special forces had a heyday there- like practices in the field except they got to shoot live ammo.
Hehe Jig I agree with Shade-
Too funny yet too true.
And yes- it's far past the time for US to bring their boys home from Kosovo except a small peacekeeping force. They DID their work there- they deserve to come back. Canada and Belgium can easily take up the slack in keeping the peace and settling the dust. And frankly- we can use the practice. We have been doing this type of intervention longer than anyone else but after Rwanda and Somalia both of these countries need a fresh start to apply what we have learned.
Sorro
-
sorry, goofed something up...off to a football game, will fix this Sunday
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-23-2000).]
-
Toad you say : Bring troops home and give us a break from being the worlds policemen.
I say : they are there protecting there own intrests in the main with pecaekeeping secondry(nothing wrong with that).
P.S. You imply it is only the US doing peace keeping work but the truth is all many countries do there share by saying let others take over for a while you suggest other countries are not pulling there weight. I expect you got this impression fro your insular media (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Sorrow, sorry - but you are a fuking stupid.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
??
Casre to expand on that Boroda?
Or just to leave it as a cheap shot and run?
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
You make some excellent points, Toad. But I don't agree with some of them.
"Agreement" is not the important thing in these discussions.
The really important thing is that we all can discuss issues like these without bloodshed. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Yugoslavia, as you point out, was a federation of nation states - I don't think the UN can hide behind the excuse that it was somehow a civil war
Well, you undoubtedly agree that it was NOT a clear-cut case of external agression as was the case in Kuwait.
Further, you will probably agree that without such a clear-cut situation ANY organization made up of essentially every country in the world is going to be slow in acting.
This is simply being realistic. You have to accept the world as it is, not as one would like it to be. Huge bureaucracy = slow action.
The combatants had very strong nationalistic feelings and could use the history of their peoples to justify hostilities.
Sort of like Northern Ireland? Sort of like Palestine? Sort of like every area of "neighbor against neighbor" conflict in the past 100 years?
If you think about it, the UN has to act carefully. You wouldn't want it any other way, either.
Would you have liked the Blue Berets to jump in every time Northern Ireland had an incident?
Should they be leaping into Spain right now over the Basque political killings?
No, Dowding. Some issues are in fact INTERNAL issues.
Even on the questionable ones, like _possibly_ Yugoslavia, it takes time to build a world consensus to act. While this may seem terrible, hasty action may be much worse. Remember the shooting of a certain ArchDuke in Sarajevo earlier in the century? You got some hasty action there, didn't you?
The UN can't act without a mandate to do so either from the General Assembly or the Security Council. Nowadays, one is rather unlikely without the other anyway. Further, it simply takes time to build the consensus to order the action.
The world as it is. Realpolitik.
it was noticeable how quickly the international community got involved once the 'Market Square Massacre' reached the world's media wasn't it?...What happened to the UN's supposely unbreakable decree about 'internal disagreements'...If they could enter the conflict then, why not in the months before?
I disagree here with you as well. In the history of man's inhumanity to man, that attack was pretty small potatoes. Tough on the dead and injured but measured on the scale of world atrocity...a mere blip.
No, I think what moved the UN to act was that this incident made it clear that diplomacy was not ever going to work. Therefore, there finally WAS a concensus to move on to military action. I think you will also remember that this was NOT unanimously supported. IIRC, Russia and several other countries still didn't want intervention.
Still that act brought about the concensus that allowed the UN to act...and the previous lack of same is why the didn't act earlier. (IMHO)
I think the moral justification of 'putting down the agressor' was just used to disguise the real reason for intervention, that being the continued supply of oil.
The external agression is specifically the type of thing the UN is supposed to act against. Of course, in your ideological belief system the West is EVIL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) and always has ulterior motives. So, you seek to say it was simply over "the continued supply of oil" as if that were EVIL.
The continued supply of oil is in the best interest of just about EVERY country on the globe that doesn't have oil supplies of it's own. If this WAS the sole OR primary goal of Desert Storm, and I DO NOT believe that it would probably still be considered a viable reason to act in the UN.
Look at the support the action HAD in the UN! Look at the number of nations that sent AID or TROOPS.
Who do you want to blame for the EVIL MOTIVE of a "continued supply of oil"? Let me guess...it was the Evil US, right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Yeah, along with just about EVERY other country in the world. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
human rights violations that were occuring in Kuwait before Iraq got involved, for instance the widespread use of torture against dissidents of the regime.
Dowding, are you SERIOUSLY going to compare Human Rights violations in Kuwait with Human Rights violations in Iraq? Quit while you're ahead chum; you're grasping at straws to try and make some sort of case that we should NOT have intervened. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
Kuwait wasn't perfect. What country is when you look back through history. Kuwait, however, CLEARLY has a better HR record than Iraq; they haven't gassed any Kurds for starters! The world as it is, Dowding.
the Chechnya conflict is very revealing, especially when looking at international relations. NATO wouldn't dare get involved here
I'm beginning to wonder about the value of that "free" (somebody paid, amigo) education you got.
Allow me to ask you 4 questions:
Is Russia a member of NATO?
Is Chechnya a member of NATO?
What countries and what countries ONLY is NATO authorized to defend by the NATO charter?
Lastly...Why then has NATO had nothing to do with that conflict?
You should be able to figure this out pretty quickly.
yet it seems from reading in the O club that the US government is also this malevolent controlling authority, trying to stealthyly impose it's will over the American people...the malevolent 'Big Brother' image can't fit with the perceived kindness shown to Europe since WW2 or in other foreign policy decisions.
I would never pretend to know what makes Euros tick. I've never lived there longer than a month at a time and I did not grow up in that culture.
Similarly, I don't have any idea what you are talking about with respect to posts in the O-Club about a "Malevolent" US government. Maybe you need to point me to some of those specific posts to clear this up.
Malevolent, as defined at my little state University means: 1) having, showing or arising from ill will, spite or hatred.
Who has posted that the US government is spiteful or acts out of hatred?
The domestic discussions I've been here involved in center around the role of government with respect to the individual and to the States. This discussion has been going on here since our Constitution was ratified. In fact, this issue was basically the prime cause of our Civil War.
Some (like me) think like Thoreau that "that government governs best which governs least". (An opinion that was probably favored by most of those who left Europe early on to come here. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ) Some feel that "the Federal government knows best. Do what we say.
Now, we in the States argue this alot. This basic issue plays a role in almost every "national" decision that is made.
But "malevolent US government?" Where did you see that claim?
We all pretty much like it here. We enjoy what we consider to be our freedoms, though you may not value some of them at all.
Do you see a huge exodus from the US? US citizens leaving in thousands looking for a better life? No, in fact you see the reverse, and they come from all over the globe.
Are you just trolling, then?
-
Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:
but undoubtedly the US wanted to see how their planes worked in a more hostile enviroment than Iraq.
Sorrows, either you're trolling or Boroda has a point.
You think we would send our troops in harm's way to TEST EQUIPMENT?
If so, there obviously isn't anything to discuss.
-
Originally posted by jmccaul:
I say : they are there protecting there own intrests in the main with pecaekeeping secondry(nothing wrong with that).
Well, heck, I'm just a poor hick from Kansas.
I see peacekeeping as the US troops PRIMARY mission.
Give me a little help here, okay?
What big threat to US National Security exists in Bosnia or Kosovo?
What solely US interests are the troops protecting there? After the fighting, the whole region is essentially destitute.
In short, what interests does the US have there OTHER than trying to keep the peace?
P.S. you suggest other countries are not pulling there weight. I expect you got this impression fro your insular media (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
No, I'm not suggesting that. If you look in my earlier post, I pointed out exactly who was participating. BTW, I found those facts in my "insular media". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I'm saying that over the course of the last 55 years (the post-WW2 era) the US has done the LION'S SHARE both physically with troop deployments and monetarily overall.
In the overall balance it is time for OTHERS to handle the main job and WE'LL be the back up for a while...say 20-50 years or so. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) That gives us time to work on our problems.
Of course, I'm always willing to learn. Show me where I'm wrong. BTW, how many troops did the UK keep on the Continent full tme for NATO deployments? Please compare and contrast that for me with the US participation through the years. I don't get that info from my media, but I'm sure you do!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
<jump in>
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
BTW Toad.. great post. I think Europe loves having the US around. That way they can say "forget about what we did to the world for the last 1500 years... LOOK WHAT THE US IS DOING RIGHT NOW! Of course, they aren't commiting genocide, repressing religion or anexing countries to their "empire"... but that's just a matter of time.. RIGHT?
LOL Dejavu, why dont go back more? say 2000 or 3000 years? The Evil is in Europe, the diddlying communist and imperialist continent, where all the wars started and all the evil born.
Thank God we have the United States Of America (God bless it), the nation of heaven, seeker of peace, unique place where is real freedom, the perfect society without stains in his history...
what?...
ehm...
well...
My secretary just tell me they dont have stains in history because they dont have history (he is a damn communist)..
So what are you suggesting, you want negate the US right to build his own stains in history??
you... you... freedom violator !!!
(Sorry, i could'nt resist to troll a bit (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
BTW, read between the lines of my troll, and maybe we old evil eritage keeping Europeans are trying to avoid you repeat the same mistakes we made century ago, but, you know, the child learn only when he burn himself, that the fire is dangerous.
WOW, what image, a child with an M-16 in his hands, (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif) .
We know perfectly what we have done in the past and we try to not forget, even if you force the thinks to compare for example the Roman people with the actual Italian people, quite different after 2000 years, but the think scaring us is you are pride of evrithink you made, wrong or bad, just because US did it.
And finally you say we had to be grateful for your help after the 2nd WW, even if you had advantage from this, i agree this, and say: "yes we thank you, thank you a lot... can we stop to be your potato?".
Last think, if we have to feel guilty of the facts committed by the former english or spanish or germans 1500 years ago, you are not descending (better: the white part of you) by the same people??
Or you dropped from outer space for God will??
just some toughs-trolls.
<jump out to cover>
-
Toad - I thought we could discuss this without getting personal. I don't like people putting words in my mouth, and then forming arguments on what I supposedly said.
Of course, in your ideological belief system the West is EVIL and always has ulterior motives. So, you seek to say it was simply over "the continued supply of oil" as if that were EVIL.
The west is evil? Please tell me where I said this, and please don't make wild guesses as to what my belief system is. The point I was trying to make (and this is true for my comments about Yugoslavia) is that the world hides behind moral arguments which often really don't hold water; the lack of honesty is what I object to, often not the true disguised aim of any action undertaken. For the record, intervening to maintain an oil supply is something I agree with, since it maintains a power structure which I honestly believe is the light amidst so much darkness, whatever its faults. But you seem to know my mind better than myself, so that will probably make little impression on you.
And then you introduce a little sarcasm with the 'my little' university crack. Nice. But this sets the scene for a little patronizing comment about Nato. I was only posting what I believe, and if you don't agree with it fine - but don't project it onto yourself as though I was somehow insulting you. That was not my intention, and I apologize if you think it was (can't believe I'm doing the apologizing).
I might have thought about replying to your points but -
I'm beginning to wonder about the value of that "free" (somebody paid, amigo) education you got.
I thought you were a clever bloke before this comment, and I enjoyed the discussion. It's a cheap, humourless shot, 'amigo'. I was even going to reply to your post fully. Don't see the point now.
Sorrow - if your post was serious then Boroda does have a point (and my initial thoughts were spot on).
-
Dowding,
Sorry. It appears to me that you are being obtuse deliberately in order to change the direction of the discussion. When confronted by simple, verifiable policy, like UN intervention in external vs internal aggression, you change direction trying to find _something_ to bang on the US or the Western Allies or the UN or NATO or "Capitalist World" or whoever.
If you are NOT being deliberately obtuse, than I can only think of ONE reason why you would even suggest that NATO should have been involved in Chechnya. If that IS the reason, I'm glad you didn't bother to reply. It saves everyone a lot of time.
Plus, your education WASN'T free. Someone did pay, just not YOU. Most likely, it was thru taxes on the whole of the UK. Complain about high gas tax all you like but if you want "free medical" and "free education" and "free this or that" the money unfortunately has to come from somewhere to pay for the "free" benefits.
You don't see the humor and irony in that? I sure do! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Cheers.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-25-2000).]
-
You haven't replied to any of the points I made in my last post, particularly the point that I found some of your comments personal and insulting. Instead, you accuse me of stupidity and then YOU divert the subject onto taxation and education.
Cheers, mate. Have a nice day, now.
-
Well, what is this?
You want discussion? Back up to the last post of mine you deigned not to reply to and start from there.
It's personal in YOUR mind maybe but not on this end.
What points did you make in that post anyway? (This is getting ridiculous...reminds me of a "Did Not! Did So!" argument)
Every one of your posts implies that the UN/NATO/US/World Whatever doesn't meet your standards for morality/purity of motive/kindness/friendliness/whatever-ness. Go back and read them. All you do is complain about these agencies not doing what you think they should. So I was wrong to draw a conclusion about your POV from these?
Patronizing comment about NATO? No, I am beginning to wonder if you do any research before you post, though. It is TOTALLY OBVIOUS TO THE MOST CASUAL OBSERVER why NATO didn't get involved in Chechnya. Yet you say "the Chechnya conflict is very revealing, especially when looking at international relations. NATO wouldn't dare get involved here" Well, then that's either a troll or an indication of your depth of research/knowledge.
Further, you quote me about the "free education" in your previous post, I reply to THAT and _I'm_ accused of diverting the subject onto taxation and education? I think that's no diversion at all...I replied DIRECTLY to your statement.
I think you are right, however. Not much point in continuing this discussion. <edit> Besides, I just noticed it reached 100...it's too long now. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) <end edit>
...and I'm having a great day! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-25-2000).]
-
Toad, Dowding, please chill out and shake your hands, your discussions are interesting, dont go on personal.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
-
I think you are an all right guy, Naso. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As for Toad, he is too and I'd love to reply to his post in depth, but accessing this subject takes me a couple of minutes now - my modem is crap and I can't be arsed to wait for it.
Interesting discussion Toad, even though I disagree strongly with the things you wrote in your last post - another time maybe...
'The West is Evil'... huh!
As for Chechnya - I thought it would be blatently obvious to the most casual observer that the part that says 'NATO wouldn't dare get involved here' alluded to my knowledge of the situation, and specifically to the reasons why no intervention took place. Believe it or not, but I thought it was too obvious a point to write about.
But anway, nuff said, see ya around. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Like I said bring them all home. Obviously the Euros can do a much better job, because all of their soldiers are men of high moral character. Let's have the rest of the world foot the bill for 50 years. The reduced taxes here in the US would result in great prosperity.
As for Santa's argument about the post-war US aid being "win-win" economically, it's obvious that he has not taken any economics courses yet...
You need a car, right Santa? OK I'll give you $18,000. Then you give me $18,000 back and I'll give you my car. Good deal for both of us right? Win-win?
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 09-26-2000).]
-
Originally posted by funked:
Let's have the rest of the world foot the bill for 50 years.
If my memory serves me correctly (and it might not (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)), the US is in debt to the UN to the tune of 10 billion dollars. I'm pretty sure of this. The government won't pay because of all the service it has given around the world.
So it might actually be the case that the world has been footing the bill. As I say, I'm pretty sure of the existance of the billion dollar debt, just not sure the exact figure or the reason why it arose. Will check out.
-
the US is in debt to the UN to the tune of 10 billion dollars
Ah.. the vagueness of it all.
How about:
1) How much do we owe? Not a guess.. a real number.
2) What do we owe it for?
3) EXACTLY what reasons are being cited for it not being payed.
4) Who do we owe it too? The UN? Or countries in the UN?
How about considering this:
During a UN operation, a country pay significantly more than any of the other countries involved. They fork out enough money to make "10 Billion" look like chump change.
When all is said and done... it comes time to pay dues to the UN. The country that just payed 500 billion to support an opperation is now asked to fork over 10 billion more for dues. Afterall.. everyone else has to pay them.
Try a different aproach dowding.. your incessant attacks are getting quite old. Pretty soon you are going to rank right in there with StSanta.
AKDejaVu
-
This topic is WAY too long now.
..and this won't help things! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Naso, I'm not one of those that take the free exchange of opinion/ideas as personal.
As I said, no one is getting hit by an axe handle here...that would be personal.
Dowding, you have to admit that almost all of your posts are of the accusatory, fault finding nature with respect to the UN/US/NATO/Wealthy Nations.
I think you are an idealist (and that is a good thing, BTW..I feel I am one myself. However, I also temper that with realism; I've been out in the wide-world enough to know that reality beats idealism almost every time, whether we like it or not.).
However, the world is NEVER going to live up to anyone's totally idealistic expectations. Continually complaining that they don't, barely acknowledging the good they do manage to do is unlikely to encourage them to do more.
Now, specifically, this did irritate me:
"the Chechnya conflict is very revealing, especially when looking at international relations. NATO wouldn't dare get involved here"
I can't see your defense of this remark. To me it is either a blatant troll or pretty damn ill-informed. The rest of the paragraph provides no support for this statement, either.
What is "very revealing" with respect to world international relations? That NATO wouldn't "DARE" to get involved because that would be a CLEAR violation of its charter? What's revealing about that? It's surprising that they follow their own rules?
Your inflammatory tone led me to believe it was a troll. I replied sharply to that. I'd rather believe it was troll than the other choice.
Funk, exactly. I continually remind my elected reps that the much more sophisticated "old world" powers are better adapted to the delicate job of "policeman" than US Combat Troops. The day is coming when they will return. Spread the word, E-Mail the politicos. It's really easy now to mass mail Congress with a computer. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
US Debt to the UN. I'm aware of it, haven't researched it or the reasons why we aren't paying.
In the meantime, though, here's a fact for you...a FACT:
Bosnia and other overseas operations cost the United States $7 billion in 1999.
So, in the roughly 55 years of UN history, we're $10 Billion delinquent in dues.
Last year we spent $7 Billion on our overseas military committments. IIRC, I saw data that said Bosnia & Kosovo were about $5 Billion of that. This year will probably be no different.
$5 Billion in ONE year. Half of our " 55 year delinquent dues" bill. Let's see..we went into Bosnia about 5 years ago.....
So, how about the rest of the UN pitches in on that. We'll add up what EVERY NATION that has troops in Bosnia & Kosovo has spent, divide it up equally amongst all UN members and have them send "fair share" checks to the peacekeeping nations. OK? Then we'll catch up our UN dues. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Oh, Dowding, while you are researching our UN bill, could you check on one other thing?
Please check and see how the "dues" for each nation are calculated. In other words, does each country pay equally? If not, what are the % of the UN budget that each of the major industrialized nations pays? Thanks. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Ok first off we must make one thing clear. There are NATO troops and UN troops.
NATO troops - protect US intrests
UN troops - peacekeepers
Which do you want to come home. If you mean NATO troops that is equivelant of a supermarket getting rid of security guards. Or do you mean UN troops.
You seem to suggest that the US has contributed more than it's fair share to the UN. Where is your evidence - i am not talking purley numerically as you can't expect luxemburg to contribute the same anmount of troops as the US i.e. what proportion of military spending is spent on UN activities verses other countries % spending.
Ok on last thing Bosnia vs Iraq
Iraq's "reason" for invading kuwait - formerly part of iraq and they wanted it back.
The serbs reason for aggression against bosnia - was part of yugoslavia and they wanted it back.
The difference between the 2 was the serbs attempted genocide and the NATO did nothing to stop it. The UN did it's best but it isn't an aggresive force. With iraq NATO launched a massive campgien to force iraq out of kuwait.
Before Iraq invaded Kuwait they were at war with Iran what was the wests reaction? Sell arms to Saddam Hussien.
P.S. If the US are pouring a much larger % of funding into the UN than other countries it would be perfectly reasonable to cut back in line with everyone else. If it isn't on the other hand the US has no more reason to stop helping the UN than any other country, in this case your only argument seems to be we are further away from these atrocities than european countries so lets ignore them.
-
Actually Jmmcaul the West not only sold arms to Iraq, but the US actually gave them billions to buy them!
-
I don't see how that remark was inflammatory; I think it is interesting how there is very little made of that conflict in the West, how very few noises are made politically about its conduct. It shows how the West is tredding very gently when it comes to Russia, given the fragility of the government there. Also, there was very little reporting of the conflict by Western journalists - in fact absolutly none towards the end. It wasn't meant to be some major point of contention, beleive me, I just used it so I could talk about Babitsky, and get Boroda's opinion on him (but he didn't bite).
As for the debt thing, AK, I was vague and the reason for that was clearly stated in my post. I was just pointing out that it wasn't one way when it came to funding UN operations involving the US. Maybe the amount is more, maybe less. I can't remember, and to be honest, I don't really care. If you do, do me a favour and look up the info.
Toad, feel free to open a new topic if you want - I can't be arsed replying to this one given its length. The 'last post' hehehe...
As for being an idealist, I guess in some ways I am. But i know how reality works, I know how governments think and how they need to be seen to think. It's just a shame there can't be more honesty, but then asking for honesty in politics is like whistling into the wind. At the end of the day I think most democratic governments act abroad in a way that will be seen favourably at home, and if they don't, then they will find any excuse to justify their actions.
But there is no true alternative to democracy, despite its many faults. BTW - you are against people complaining about the way things are done, just because 'some' good might have come from the situation? I guess that depends on where your standing doesn't it? Back in the 80's when the Thatcher government was destroying communities where I was growing up, putting my whole family out of work, were we supposed to sit back and let that happen without a word, simply because 'some good' had come out of situation (according to the Tories)? I don't think that any reasonable person could - the people in charge should always strive to do better, and be open to criticism, however undeserved.
-
Thats what i like to see (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)