Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on September 26, 2000, 04:53:00 PM
-
The other topic just got too long. However, if you are going to join the discussion in progress, please have the courtesy to read all of the previous posts. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Now, as to Brother McCauls last post:
"Ok first off we must make one thing clear. There are NATO troops and UN troops.
NATO troops - protect US intrests
UN troops - peacekeepers"
Sorry. Not that simple and you KNOW that (I hope).
Another NATO troll? May I suggest that they protect the interests of each individual member nation and do it jointly?
Further, NATO nations have essentially the SAME interests? Why else would they join the alliance. NATO has a specific Charter, with specific goals. To imply that these are SOLELY US goals is...well, ignorant. There I said it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Try a quick trip to the NATO homepage for some good information.
UN troops are peacekeepers? You're saying they do not/will not engage in combat to change a situation? Check the history books. UN troops HAVE engaged in combat. Further compounding my problems with these two statements is the fact that NATO troops have been used under the aegis/direct command of the UN.
So NATO troops engaging in active Combat under UN command are your definition of peacekeepers? Confusing, eh? Not as easy as your first simple division into two categories of NATO and Peacekeeper.
"Which do you want to come home."
ALL US troops outside of our national borders. Simple concept, eh? NATO doesn't need the US presence anymore.
About 109,000 American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are permanently assigned in Europe, Africa and Asia as part of the United States European Command.
This total includes:
about 65,000 people assigned to U.S. Army Europe;
about 34,000 people assigned to U.S. Air Force Europe;
about 10,000 people assigned to U.S. Navy Europe; and,
about 50 people assigned to U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe.
Surely you folks can take up the slack? Roughly 100,000 people, not all of which are Combat forces..in fact, probably a small percentage are Combat specialities.
Not included in this total are American servicemen and women on rotational deployments, including those aboard ships at sea.
"i.e. what proportion of military spending is spent on UN activities verses other countries % spending."
Well, without deep research, I did find a few facts about our military spending
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/mili-a29.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/mili-a29.shtml)
"Even before the latest increases the US military budget exceeded by a factor of five the military budget of any other country. The US government allots more than half its discretionary spending to the military, an amount that exceeds the military budgets of Russia, China, Japan and all the NATO countries combined. Even without additional funding the US military budget will rise to $276 billion next year." 29April99
From:
http://www.comw.org/pda/bmemo10.htm (http://www.comw.org/pda/bmemo10.htm)
"Conclusion
Two important conclusions supported by this review of world spending trends are that:
* Despite post-Cold War spending reductions, the United States and its friends and allies today have a spending edge over potential adversaries that is far greater than existed during the Cold War, and
* The burden of defense born by the United States, its allies, and close friends is today more equitably distributed among the members of this group
-- even though the United States continues to devote more of its GNP to defense than is the average for the group.
In 1994 the 25 OECD industrial democracies accounted for almost 65 percent of all military spending worldwide, NATO accounted for more than 55 percent, and the United States accounted for almost 35 percent -- in all cases a dramatic increase in spending share since 1986"
So, yes, I think we have done more than our share, more so in the recent past than now. There are also TONS of facts to back that statement up. These are just two sites.
"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."
It's really hard to take this seriously due to the lack of knowledge this comment presents. Additionally, it makes your criticims of US goals, intentions, motives and foreign policy even easier to disregard.
There are many websites that will help you understand how the two organizations are structured and work but I'll waste some more electrons on a mini-review.
1. Yugoslavia NEVER has been a NATO member state. NATO could NOT intervene in Bosnia. To do so would be a violation of the Charter and could rightfully be considered an act of war by the UN. There's irony for you, eh?
2. The UN DID intervene in Bosnia, using both NATO and Non-NATO forces. In this case, NATO forces were not acting as "NATO Forces" instead, the member nations supplied forces to a UN Force. They absolutely did NOT act solely as a NATO force.
3. NATO did NOT attack Iraq in Desert Storm. Once again, this was a UN action. On November 29, 1990, the UN Security Council authorized force if Iraq didn't withdraw from Kuwait by midnight EST Janu. 15.
It was a world-wide coalition, not a pure NATO show.
Military Presence, Allied Forces
AFGHANISTAN, AUSTRALIA, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BELGIUM, BRITAIN, CZECHOSLVAKIA, EGYPT, FRANCE, GERMANY, HONDURAS, ITALY, KUWAIT, NEW ZEALAND, NIGER, OMAN, POLAND, QATAR, ROMANIA, SAUDI ARABIA, SOUTH KOREA, SYRIA, UNITED ARAB EMRIATES, UNITED STATES
Not a NATO operation was it? It was a UN operation.
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.
I beg forgiveness for this long post, but some things should be cleared up. There is another side to "US Debt to the UN" and who is paying a "fair share".
From:
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/hr346.html (http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/hr346.html)
106th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 346
To prohibit the payment to the United Nations of any contributions by the United States until United States overpayments to such body have been properly credited or reimbursed.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 19, 1999
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To prohibit the payment to the United Nations of any contributions by the United States until United States overpayments to such body have been properly credited or reimbursed.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `United Nations Erroneous Debt Act of 1999'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS- The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) A March 1996 General Accounting Office report entitled `Peace Operations' details that the United States has provided $6,600,400,000 during fiscal years 1992 through 1995 in support of military and peacekeeping operations of the United Nations.
(2) These funds which have come from various Federal agencies, primarily the Department of Defense, were used to provide military supplies, transportation, humanitarian relief, and other services.
(3) Only about $1,800,000,000 was credited against assessed contributions to the United Nations .
(4) Of the remaining $4,800,000,000, only $79,400,000 was reimbursed to the United States by the United Nations .
(5) In effect providing a $4,720,600,000 gift to the United Nations from the United States, which has not been credited against the alleged arrearages in assessed contributions owed by the United States to the United Nations in the reported amount of $1,300,000,000.
(6) It is not in the United States taxpayers' best interest to pay so-called debts to the United Nations that do not take into account all of the other assistance the United States has provided to the United Nations .
(7) There is no United States debt to the United Nations .
Ok, Dowding and JMcCaul let's see:
$4,720,600,000 gift to the United Nations from the United States
versus
contributions owed by the United States to the United Nations in the reported amount of $1,300,000,000.
Do the math. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-26-2000).]
-
Gotta agree with Toad here.
But, toad, ya gotta admit; NATO and the UN are pretty much run by the US. It's not a democracy there, for sure. The three biggies make the decisions, and the US will use its influence and sometimes strike even when there is no UN resolution.
I learned that when the NATO forces attacked, there wasn't a UN resolution in place. It was drafter a little later, so technically, NATO weren't acting on a UN resolution, if this is true.
Ya wanna spend less on the military in the US? Fine with me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif), ubut it seems most Republicas intend to upgrade what they see as an armed forces neglected by the Democrats, even if fundings have increased during the Clinton administration of late.
Hell, I dunno. Your money. I'm fine with either (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
In the end, for developed European nations and the US, trouble areas is SEP (Somebody Else's Problem. SEP is explained eloquently in Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.
As long as we are fat and happy who cares about a few million dying here and there? Let's be honest here. We'll be a bit concerned, but not enough to give up cheap gas prices and a comfortable life to distribute wealth more equally. I sure ain't losing my internet connection in order to feed starving children. A bit sickening, aye, but at least I am honest about it. Makes me feel a little bad, but not enough to make me donate all my cash away, or live in a house without running water with 7 other people.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
-
Toad - I never said my info about the figures was right, I just knew there was a controversy within the UN about the situation. Don't see what the fuss was about in light of your info.
-
LOL Toad, the first think jump in my mind when i see this thread's title is:
Kosovo II, the Revenge !!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Joking
-
Toad - I never said my info about the figures was right, I just knew there was a controversy within the UN about the situation. Don't see what the fuss was about in light of your info.
Believe it or not Dowding, the reason this is an issue is because it is presented as such to people that are more than willing to believe what they are told without really hearing the figures behind it.
As a US citizen with constant exposure to international viewpoings, I am quite accustomed to this type of information popping up in any discussion. I used to look up information to refute the claim, but that got extremely tiresome.
My new policy became "you said it.. you prove it".
So... a suggestion to all. Unless you know something to be truth... it is better left unsaid.
Opinions are one thing - everyone is encouraged to express them here. Presenting something as fact without accurate information, however, is becoming a problem.
AKDejaVu
-
Thanks for the info Toad.
Naso LOL I thought that too.
"KOSOVO II - BUBBA STRIKES BACK"
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Presenting something as fact without accurate information, however, is becoming a problem.
Read exactly what I said in the other post, deja. I never said it was an irrefutable fact (so don't even pretend that I did), and essentially what I said was true - money was owed to the UN. The inaccuracy was that I didn't mention the money owed in the other direction. Toad set the issue straight.
If you look at my post, I use the word 'might' several times. In English, this is used to imply insecurity as to the validity of the statement.
So you see, I never said my information on the subject was etched in stone, so calm down.
Is there going to a Kosovo III? Probably not, it will get called 'The Madness of Kosovo' because of the perceived lack of intelligence of the american audience. (hehehehe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-27-2000).]
-
Santa, there was NO UN resolution to start bombings of Yugoslavia. If it was - it should be vetoed by Russian representative.
It was a pure act of agression, intervention into the internal affairs of a souverign country and an outright violation of Helsinki agreements.
More to say: it was a violation of NATO regulations.
Why the hell did EC authorities and officials from US, UK, Germany and France state that last Sunday's elections in Yugoslavia were a fake?
Now, when elections in Yugoslavia showed 40% for Miloshevich and 48% for opposition - what should that Western polititians say?
Look: again an intervention into internal affairs, and into a democratical elections!
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Ok Toad you have simply pulled me up on definitions and not answered the meat of what i wrote.
My mistake on the definitions I bow to your superior knowledge. I bought those simple broad (wrong) definitons in because of weather US troops are also defending US intrests as well as peacekeeping. and they obviously have any right to recall these NATO troops (but i likened it too a supermarket not having security guards - it's up to the US though maybe it would be better for the US).
OK i repeat my main points.
=============================================
1) Does the US give a greater proportion of it's military budget/personnel to the UN than other nations?
If so i don't think anyone could argue with cutting back in line with other countries.
What justification does the US have over any other country to not contribute to the UN or would this be a purely selfish act?
============================================
===========================================
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 outside world did little to stop it. With iraq the west 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.
This is almost a carbon copy of the orginal post my definitions were wrong but the point still stands.
=============================================
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
But, toad, ya gotta admit; NATO and the UN are pretty much run by the US.
StSanta,
You are absolutely wrong. US public despises the UN and US politicians despise the UN and would not be caught dead cooperating with UN lest they lose their votes.
Many people argue for leaving the UN because it costs US money and gets us involved into somebody elses troubles. That is why the Congress did not pay the membership dues for a while.
We think that UN is an inefficient bureauctratic organization. That it's anti-capitalist and anti-western. That because of it we get dragged into stupid local disputes where out soldiers die and then get blamed afterwards. That it costs us a lot of money that go towards the purposes hostile to US and western way of life. We do not feel like we in any way control UN despite all the money it costs us. As for NATO, NATO is US when it coms to fighting and it is our european friends when it comes to defending (with an odd Kuwait thrown in from time to time).
European countries, not us had problems with refugees flooding their borders. If Milosevich instead of driving people out closed the borders and killed everybody inside, the surrounding NATO countries would not have raised a cry and not asked US to help. Just like they do not care about millions dying in Africa (and neither do we). They need our help because they are impotent militarily. The only armed force in Europe worth mentioning (in spirit if not in numbers) is Brits, and they do not even border with Yugoslavia! Why should they care?
What's a big deal - some refugees? We get over 500,000 of just illegal mexicans coming across the border every year and it is not a problem. They are honest, hardworking people and you can never have too many of those. Of course here we are much more tolerant of aliens than europeans. A couple of milions of gratefull, unspoiled, hardworking Kosovars, albanians, croatians would be great citizens for them. Especially considering that the population of most developed European countries is dropping. But of course, with their socialist economies they have huge unemploynent already even in the middle of unprecedented world-wide economic boom!
We (USA) are a prosperous country and if we need something from the rest of the world, it is not to exploit someones resources and people, but find market for our products. For that we need other countries rich, peacefull and prosperous, so they could afford our products (including AH). BTW, do not try to blame us for pushing our products on everybody - we have a trade deficit. So we drive the economies of the rest of the world by buying their stuff!
We care about our municipality, state and far third - the federal government and the president. As for foreign policy - most people could not care less.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 09-27-2000).]
-
Thank you Miko!
-
It comes down to the fact if the US doesn't care what attrocites occur in foreign countries, fine pull all your troops out.
Don't pretend it is moral or in anyway justified.
P.S. I am not really nationalistic but i do like being British i am not proud of everything britain has done and i wouldn't defend a lot of things birtain or brits have done. But i am proud of the fact when Hitler invading Poland we went to war despite Hitler in fact hoping britain would become an ally and even while at war Hitler did not want to be at war with britain as he believed world stability depended on a strong britain. I am proud if the fact that britain fought alone against an evil regieme and i think it is that same attitude which involves countries in UN matters and the attitude of it's nothing to do with us is the same which prevailed in the US in 39-41.
How many americans are proud thier country didn't join the war untill they were directly attacked?
-
jmccaul,
How come Britain didn't declare war on Soviet Union when it invaded Poland few days later according to the previously signed Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact dividing Poland between them?
Stalin tricked Hitler by delaying his invasion and relying on brit's gullibility.
How come Britain is directly responcible that Hitler could even come to power because of their greed in 1918?
Germany was dragged into war according to the alliance pact with Austria and Italy (which betrayed them). A war allegedly incited by Serbia, started by decauing Austria, joined by Russia and only then by Germany and England.
Of course Germany started becoming a considerable colonial and economic power by 1914 and besides, in a continental war french and russians were supposed to bear the blunt of the destruction, so Britain would get rid of all three competitors with one strike - Germany, France and Russia.
Germany came much worse after the WWI and had a revolution on top of that and still the Brits and French (who could do nothing without US help) robbed it with their ridiculous reparations and annexations. Of course Hitler could find followers - after famine and many germans dead from hunger/desease while billions went to victorious Brits every year.
Americans in 1939 knew wery well that Brits and French had screwed themselves up all over again and had no one but themselves to blame for that. Why should have they been eager to get involved again and drag your bellybutton from the fire? Just so that you could screw up again and lay foundation for WWIII?
Eventually, when US intervened and won the war losing only half of Europe, including same Poland, to the Stalin's butchers (thanks to Hitler for weakening him), they (US) did not let Brits and French screw up again - instead of reparations US came up with Marshall plan which gave Germany and Italy money to rebuild and recover! Because of that Germany now is prosperous peacefull country more successfull economically then England or France and driving Europe into the future, not planning another war.
If you refer to history, use the whole picture, not a small piece that can be made look like anything you want.
Britain always planted the seeds of dissent everywhere - that was it's policy over the last few centuries. Not just WWII. Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan, hostile arab countries, tribel fighting in former african colonies - those conflicts were intentionally seeded and will be with us for many more genertaions thanks to it's "divide and concuer policies".
Americans who know, care about atrocities everythere. But we also know that we cannot send soldiers and make you love each other. We just get called "world policemen" and other names. We are fighting fires started by brit's and other's colonial policies, so we take part in much fewer "peace" actions then we are asked to.
It was not our stupid idea to take several countries that fought WWII on different sides, with half-dozen different religions and hostilities going back centuries and combine iy into one Yugoslavia dominated by serbs! Actually, I ment to say it was not US stupid idea, it was "ours" - soviets rather smart idea. I have to keep my personal history straight... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
P.S. You do believe that Hitler truly wanted alliance, not war with England and it is obvious from to his words and actions. He gave brits every chance to evacuate in Dunkerk and other places, did not press his advantage where he could and sent his close associates to negotiate peace.
He was of the highest regard of brit's character and their willing to fight to the last drop - even in 1924 when he wrote Mein Kamph. He was wlling to forgo any activity - economic, colonial, etc. which would bring Germany into competition with England.
So it would not have been in his interests to start bombing british cities and thus provoke irretrievable hostility in the people.
The version of an accidental bomb dropped by a lost german nightbomber and hitting a populated area after which brits started intentional mass bombings of the german population centers seems much more reasonable, doesn't it? Of course then germany lost hope of the peacefull solution and replied in kind. They did not count on the fact that brits will end up on the winning side and write history.
There is very little to be proud of in the history of all our coutries. I can be proud that my homeland is likely to heed the lessons of history and not to repeat the mistakes in the future. I am deeply distressed that my motherland is doing just that. I made my choice. What will europe do is up to you.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 09-27-2000).]
-
Probably besides the point here- but I think if you look up some info on Azerbajaan and the city of Boku some interesting trends would be discussed.
Namely it affect some of the topics discussed:
Chechnya and the lack of involvment by the UN over Russias fighting there, and Russia's persistance in fighting for that land despite letting other places leave.
Why US Troops are being committed to Yugoslavia and the likelihood of them being recalled.
Serb elections and confusion over results and pressures over these elections.
Honestly not starting a fight here; saw some stuff on TV about it and made me look around. Casts an interesting light on why maybe the Balkans becoming stable is a big priority for the US. Especially in light of OPEC's recent actions?
Anyhow- new fuel let er fly.
-
miko you completley missed the point my piont wasn't look what britain did and america did my point was being a memeber of the UN was in that same spirit. Your vitriolic reaction proves my point. I suggest you re read the post.
-
<erased>
This is getting tiresome. Let's just say the US did everything possible they could to help the British during both World Wars and still remain neutral to give the US a chance to build up non-existant armies.
To say the British "Stood alone" is a very disrespectful thing to say, not to the US, but to the French, Belgium, and German underground, amoung many others.
- Jig
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 09-27-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:
Chechnya and the lack of involvment by the UN over Russias fighting there
Send troops to Russia!? You would be more productive and safer invading US. Most of the people we defeat end up better off...
Saddam Hussein seems an excepion, but really he is not. We slapped him silly for attacking our friend but kept him in power as a linchpin of stability in the mid-east. He is is a Shi'a imposing mostly secular regime on the suni majority and broviding balance agaist findamentalist suni Iran.
He even has more weight and respect in the otherwise hostile to him and to us arab world because of our perceived animocity towards him.
Do you see us supporting Kurds who want to separate from Iraq? No, and won't in the forseeable future. Not only would it upset our friend Hussein, their state would include a piece of the former Soviet Union and our NATO friend Turkey. Sorry, Kurds, you are on your own.
What does Russia need in Chechnya? Mostly oil pumped nearby and going through it that some want to control. Many other reasons that have little to do with wellbeing of the russian people. Some militant fundamentalists want to impose islamic rule on that worthless armpit and ready to cause mayhem for generations? Fine. Offer whoever doesn't like it a place in the huge and sparcely populated Russia (who's population is declining). Then close the borer forever. If the Chechnya attacks Russia, no need to send troops - just bomb the hell out of it because there will be no bystanders or unwilling civilians.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 09-27-2000).]
-
Miko2d, probably you dont want listen to me, since i am not so exact and professional like Toad (S!), and what i am going to express are only my opinions and percievings.
But i have to say something.
Originally posted by miko2d:
StSanta,
You are absolutely wrong. US public despises the UN and US politicians despise the UN and would not be caught dead cooperating with UN lest they lose their votes.
Many people argue for leaving the UN because it costs US money and gets us involved into somebody elses troubles. That is why the Congress did not pay the membership dues for a while.
We think that UN is an inefficient bureauctratic organization. That it's anti-capitalist and anti-western. That because of it we get dragged into stupid local disputes where out soldiers die and then get blamed afterwards. That it costs us a lot of money that go towards the purposes hostile to US and western way of life. We do not feel like we in any way control UN despite all the money it costs us.
When you say "we" you are talking about the common US citizen, correct?
The perception about the UN for other country's citizen is, for good % of them, the opposite, with US controlling and deciding where and when and what, and defending the western capitalistic country interests, funny indeed.
As for NATO, NATO is US when it coms to fighting and it is our european friends when it comes to defending (with an odd Kuwait thrown in from time to time).
NATO is a mutual defence treathy, in the latter times forced to be a more aggressive think, but is a common responsability to send troops and share the actions.
Pitfuly the US, for their bigger and stronger contributions (as the unique real superpower involved in the treathy), feel the right to control the actions of a pact intended to be between equals (and somethink similar happens in UN).
European countries, not us had problems with refugees flooding their borders. If Milosevich instead of driving people out closed the borders and killed everybody inside, the surrounding NATO countries would not have raised a cry and not asked US to help. Just like they do not care about millions dying in Africa (and neither do we). They need our help because they are impotent militarily. The only armed force in Europe worth mentioning (in spirit if not in numbers) is Brits, and they do not even border with Yugoslavia! Why should they care?)
Well, since i was here, and was interested to the happenings, i want to give you some informations.
When this kosovo think start, (remembering Serayevo), big numbers of citizen ask for a quick and strong intervention to avoid to repeat the same situation.
But the UN (meaning in this case the US), was'nt interested in this internal affair and clear violation of human rights.
Because of the strong public opinion pressure some of the EC nations try to found a solution using the EC structure of armyes coordination (not NATO, i dont remember the acronyme).
At this point the US suddenly awake (EC doing somethink without me? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif) ), and the US medias become full of reports of the atrocities.
US argued this kind of operation will be better suited for the NATO (where they have right to speak (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
And the intevention begin WITHOUT the UN.
After some protest from, and some new financial aid to Russia, the UN take the risolution, LOL.
Realpolitik in action. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
What's a big deal - some refugees? We get over 500,000 of just illegal mexicans coming across the border every year and it is not a problem. They are honest, hardworking people and you can never have too many of those. Of course here we are much more tolerant of aliens than europeans. A couple of milions of gratefull, unspoiled, hardworking Kosovars, albanians, croatians would be great citizens for them. Especially considering that the population of most developed European countries is dropping. But of course, with their socialist economies they have huge unemploynent already even in the middle of unprecedented world-wide economic boom!)
Worldwide economic boom, what a BS.
Is only US boom, but obviously for you US IS the world.
For you a nation privatizing everithink, cutting the social wellfare with an axe, is socialist?
Did'nt know US was a socialist country. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
We have a media 12% of unenployement (caused for big part by the exterior investment and the privatizations), and the terrible think is:
In southern Italy, where this refugees usually enter, we are about 25% (reaching 50% in age 20-35) of unemploiment, do you think we need workers?
Not saying the best work they can found is in the big criminal organizations.
More, lot of them claim the status of refugees, this meaning, we have to prepare a place where they can stay, and feed them at OUR expences, as they dont work.
We (USA) are a prosperous country and if we need something from the rest of the world, it is not to exploit someones resources and people, but find market for our products. For that we need other countries rich, peacefull and prosperous, so they could afford our products (including AH). BTW, do not try to blame us for pushing our products on everybody - we have a trade deficit. So we drive the economies of the rest of the world by buying their stuff!)
So never rise to your mind the consequence of your statement, you need countries rich (but with weak economy), peaceful (except the ones where you have to sell weapons) and prosperous (but not indipendent).
We care about our municipality, state and far third - the federal government and the president. As for foreign policy - most people could not care less.
miko
You included.
"I am in my house, if world is burning who care?"
knock knock....
"who's at the door?"
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Naso
[This message has been edited by Naso (edited 09-28-2000).]
-
miko, I think you're misunderstanding me.
There are three or four major players in the UN. One traditionally backs the US (the United Kingdom), one is generally arrogant, but shares similar interests (France) and one has actually worked against the former three (Russia).
With all the veto's and so forth, there is still a lot of politics involved. In terms of decision power, the US has the power to "influence" smaller countries to support their decision, either by gentle nudging, or some bullying.
This regardless of how the American public or politicians feel about the UN.
The fact is that the UN is intended to to be sort of a judge, ensuring everyone plays by the same rules, and, where possible, fix the game if some don't. Whether it meets this intention is very much open to debate.
Funny enough; I believe the Swedish air force is actually one of the larger ones in Europe, with the UK and probably France having larger:
Fighters/fighter bombers:
80 JAS-39 Gripen (with more being produced)
35 AJS 37 Viggen
130 JA 37 Viggen
Other:
14 SK 37 Viggen
105 SK 60
16 transport planes, with 8 C-130's.
6 SAAB 340, for airborne radar
This in a country of a little more than 8.5 million.
European armed forces still pack a punch, methinks, even if it is a small one.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
-
Fw 190D-9 to AH now !!
And perk it ! Only available to JGs !
Oops....
-
Miko lets not get into the 'my country is better than yours' argument, it get us nowhere. Sure the British looked after its own interests, but you can level the same criticism at the US. Depending on where you live, both nations have been pretty nasty to certain countries; I guess that's my point, the 'my country better than yours' discussion is pointless because your opinion is so coloured by where you come from - there is no objectivity. Talk to a villager in Vietnam and you might get the same hate towards the US, as the hate felt by someone in Sierra Leone towards the British. I don't think anyone can have the objectivity to give the issue a truly unbiased appraisal (except God, if you believe in him (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)). There are no absolutes in this world.
...broviding balance agaist findamentalist suni Iran.
Not only would it upset our friend Hussein, their state would include a piece of the former Soviet Union and our NATO friend Turkey. Sorry, Kurds, you are on your own.
Firstly, I don't think Iran can be described as fundamentalist 'sunni' - it's a shi'ite state, isn't it?
Secondly, the Kurds are not just localized in former S.U. states and Turkey - there's the Syrian Kurds as well. Perhaps if they formed a cooperative movement, they might get some progress towards a unified state; at the moment, the problem of the host countries not wanting them to leave, is exacerbated by in-fighting.
Americans in 1939 knew wery well that Brits and French had screwed themselves up all over again and had no one but themselves to blame for that. Why should have they been eager to get involved again and drag your bellybutton from the fire? Just so that you could screw up again and lay foundation for WWIII?
As I'm continually told when I express my dislike of the pro-LW feeling around here, the Allies were fighting Nazism and totalitarianism, not Germany. We were fighting Germany after all, then? I'm getting confused... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) When you say 'we' created the problem - who do you mean? The politicians in 1918 or the politicians in 1939, who were just kids in 1918. They were just reacting to a problem whose seeds were sown many years before; with hindsight they were slow and ineffectual to begin with, but hindsight is such a great tool, ain't it? They were prepared to avoid a conflict at any cost.
To say the British "Stood alone" is a very disrespectful thing to say, not to the US, but to the French, Belgium, and German underground, amoung many others.
Jigster, my friend, we DID stand alone militarily until you entered the war. Look at the reports of US journos. in the summer of 1940; they were saying that the fall of Britain was inevitable. The US did help, but the great majority of the fighting until the US entered the war was done by the British. To say otherwise is a very disrespectful thing to the servicemen who lost THEIR lives fighting for civilisation. Of course, the help the US gave was invaluable; the destroyers pleaded for by Churchill helped protect channel shipping, and I don't think anyone will ever forget the sacrifice made by the 'Eagle' squadrons of volunteer americans in the Battle of Britain. But we DID stand alone in the early war, that is historical fact.
As for the resistances of the countries you mention. Brave people, one and all - but I think you overestimate the impact they made. They were few in number; in France, for instance, most people kept their heads down and collaborated. Belgium, I'm not sure of. As for the German underground - we're continually told how the people were forced into Nazism, so I should think there were very few in this organisation.
But of course, with their socialist economies they have huge unemploynent already even in the middle of unprecedented world-wide economic boom!
You generalise too far here Miko. In Britain we have a socialist government of 4 years and now have the lowest unemployment for 30 (count 'em) 30 years!!!! That includes 18 years of a conservative government!!
------------------
Dowding
99th 'Raging Rooks'
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-28-2000).]
-
I may have to make my point clearer as some people completley missed it.
I think giving troops and resources is in the same vein as declaring war on Germany in 1939 as such i am glad Britain is involved with the UN. Many US posters want the US to pull out of the UN, NATO etc. It is in the same vein that political pressure in the US prevented them from joining the fight against facism.
Are people from the US proud they didn't join the war untill directly attacked?
P.S. The attitude adopted in 39-41 is nothing to be ashamed of it is even sensible in the same way pulling out of the UN might be sensible, i am just trying to make clear why i think being in the UN is a good thing
[This message has been edited by jmccaul (edited 09-28-2000).]
-
Guys,
Of course my statements are generalised and do not apply equally to all the countries. Heck, when I mention Europe I cover dozens of countries quite dissimilar to each other. For every statement of mine many confirmations and a few contradictions can be found. But we are all intelligent people here and can make reasonable assumptions.
The main points of my posts were that in the history of all our countries there are many more things to be ashamed of then to be proud of. And many things to be proud of actually happened by pure luck or subterfuge/dishonesty - like maneuvers of US president around the Congress before US jouned the War.
My experience with Soviet propaganda makes me very suspicious of every person who is loudly proud of his country past.
Most of those people proved to be quite ignorant of the actual history, had nothing to do with it's making and did nothing in the present to further those causes.
Past is immutable. I do not think we can claim either credit or responcibility for it. The present is another matter.
I will state it again, and history supports me. USA is an isolationist country. The population and the government are not interested in controlling anyone or interfering wnywhere where our interests are not substantially affected.
US was dragged into WWI, WWII, Kosovo and other conflicts - our European allies could not handle the situation or chose not to do so in many cases.
Yes, Italy flooded with refugees could bomb Milosevich itself. Then it would have had a hostile neighbouring state right next to it for the next few generations. Better to ask US to intervene and take the blame.
The statement that US want other states prosperous to buy our products but with weak economies is self-contradictory. Prosperous country is a country that has strong economy. That means Gross National Product (GNP) per person. Is there any other definition?
Americans did everything possible after WWII to hepl it's former adversaries rebuild their economies - Germany, Italy, Japan. Because rich and content country would never be a threat to anyone. It would have nothing to gain but much to lose from any conflict. Didn't US sell grain to USSR when it's agriculture finally collapsed?
Didn't our (US) central bank just intervened to help european banks prop euro few days ago?
The reason why americans are ignorant and not interested in foreign affairs is deeply rooted in their history, geography and way of life. Unlike europeans, americans are not exposed to many neigbouring countries and languages. We see more national/cultural variety in our cities then around our borders. Americans do not have history other then 200+ years of US history.
Americans are sure that US is already the best country in the world and has everything we can wish for. There is nothing we can grab from anyone.
In order to believe that you have to talk to a few americans or better yet, live among them for a while.
There are plenty of people in the world who are eager to blame US for their people's problems. I know that firsthand. It is quite catchy - always easy to believe that somebody else is to blame for your problem.
What I just said I cannot think how to prove. At least most can come and see for yourself. Many people came here, saw our life and concerns and radically changed their mind.
There were some personal statements about my own lack of interest in the problems of others. I can reassure you it is not true.
I am deeply interested and sympathetic. I have some knowlege and I study still to further my education. I have always put my money where my mouse was and managed to accumulate many first-person experiences. I did serve in the Soviet Army in 84-86 though I could have avoided it. I was a patriot of my contry (until) then. I have close friends in many corners of the world and first-hand information from them.
So my perceived passivity is actually a pessimism.
I strongly believe that most problems facing the world now are not solvable. They persisted for generations and will be there. There are many theoretical ways to solve them but few will work in practice. It would be arrogant to think we can easily come up with the solutions. I had all the solutions 20 years ago. Now I know how presumptious it was.
So now I think that US should intervene only where problems can be solved, not where wishfull thinking and pity urges us to do so.
You will always have fanatics on both sides of many conflicts which points ov view cannot be reconciled.
You will alwasy have religious people who because of their faith will not accept seemingly rational solutions offered by people with different religions or atheists - plenty of that in the US.
You will have well-wishers who do not want to think what side effects their actions will cause and those who do not use mathematics to verify their solutions.
I would love to get into details but not today.
I am sure that over time I will have a chance to voice my opinion on many of the particular problems and have a chance to listen to yours.
miko
-
Originally posted by jmccaul:
Ok Toad you have simply pulled me up on definitions and not answered the meat of what i wrote.
No, I didn't. What you posted was simply WRONG. Now, if you don't know how to express yourself using the correct terminology, don't complain when you are "misunderstood".
Please don't claim that this is minor quibbling over definitions, either.
This is like the NASA scientists that blew that last space mission. "Feet? Did I say Feet? Well, I MEANT to say Meters!"
OK i repeat my main points.
=============================================
1) Does the US give a greater proportion of it's military budget/personnel to the UN than other nations?
What justification does the US have over any other country to not contribute to the UN or would this be a purely selfish act?
I think my posted information clearly covers this point. The US DOES spend more than anyone else. If you have information to the contrary, let's see it. I gave you 2 sources that back my statement. All we have from you is unsupported speculation; lets see some data that supports it.
It's easy to just sling sh*t around and see if it sticks, though, isn't it?
The difference between the 2 was the serbs attempted genocide and the outside world did little to stop it. With iraq the west launched a massive campgien to force iraq out of kuwait.
Well, I will allow that the "World" probably did not meet your standards for timely and effective action. However, to postulate that they "did little" is a subjective value judgement.
Allow me to suggest:
http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/isafp/95/0472.html (http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/isafp/95/0472.html)
for a Bosnia Chronology 1991-1993. I think it lists most EC, UN, US and NATO proposals, actions and attempts to resolve the situation.
The World may not meet your high standards but "it" did act.
-
Originally posted by jmccaul:
Are people from the US proud they didn't join the war untill directly attacked?
This message has been edited by jmccaul (edited 09-28-2000).][/B]
Yes, I am.
Britain engaged Germany when Germany invaded Poland. Britain had a defense treaty with Poland, didn't it? That is why they "joined the war". It is an absolutely KEY factor. Then and only then could Britain "legally" act.
Of course, NONE of the "Allied" Countries did anything when the Germans went back into the Rhineland, annexed the Sudetenland, etc., etc., etc., Poland was simply the final act that left countries with mutual aid pacts nowhere else to hide.
The US, at that time, had no mutual defense pacts in Europe...not even with England.
Had we jumped in right away it would have been a purely aggressive act against Germany. We would have been declaring war on Germany without provocation. It would have been illegal by both International and our own National law.
So, therefore, yes, I'm glad they obeyed the law.
Now, do I wish we had had mutual defense treaties? That's an ENTIRELY different question.
I suppose we should have. Trying to stay out of European Nightmares has never worked for us anyway. We always end up holding the tar-baby for you guys.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
...subjective value judgement.
What's wrong with that? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Before Germany's declaration of war, the US was involved in Britain's conduct of the war. American troops had replaced British forces in Iceland, for instance, and plans had already been drawn up within the ABC-1 agreement on the conduct of an offensive conflict against Germany. With the Lend-Lease program, American materiel was being used by British forces against the Axis powers. For point of argument, could this not be construed as an act of aggression?
As for America rescuing Europe - Hitler was a global problem, regardless of the circumstances that brought him to power. The mistakes of Versailles aside (which is another argument entirely), like Britain, the US took no firm action against Hitler's drive for 'lebensraum'.
The 'blame' for Hitler's rise cannot be levelled entirely at the Versailles treaty. Before 1929, the Nazi party had grown slowly; the Wall Street crash hit the middle classes, who, until that point, had been reluctant to support Hitler. The severe hardship suffered by the middle classes, led to a massive increase in support for the Nazis (who promised to end the economic problems). This paved the way for the Nazis stunning success in the 1930 elections (a campaign run by the propaganda genius, Goebbels).
There was almost 10 years of Nazi rule in Germany before Hitler began his campaign of annexation. Many people in the developed nations (including the US) thought Hitler had been good for Germany - Europeans turned a blind eye to Hitler's disregard for the Versailles treaty (which now had very few supporters - many were now embarrassed by their predescessors actions in 1918). Hitler had given to Germany what the democratic government had could not - economic stability and growth. The reports of oppression of minorities and other political groups were at best disregarded, at worst completely ignored. Hitler was also seen as the antidote to the Red Menace of Stalin, who was viewed as a much more dangerous prospect.
So this was the background to the 'appeasement' of the late 30s - something which all nations were guilty of doing. They simply didn't want to believe that Hitler had any dubious objectives outside of Germany.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-02-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
What's wrong with that? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Before Germany's declaration of war, the US was involved in Britain's conduct of the war.... For point of argument, could this not be construed as an act of aggression?
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-02-2000).]
Teh problem with a subjective value judgement by one person or one small group of people is that it can't be used to determine when armed intervention is justified, necessary or will be supported by a majority of the world national community.
That's why we have the UN for all its faults and problems.
"For point of argument" is fine if you want to debate around a coffee table. For point of fact, the US was always a wisker away from doing anything that could be construed in an International Court as an act of agression. Not one of those things you mentioned is "causus belli". Roosevelt was pretty sharp about that.
You know the Uncle Remus reference then? The tar baby reference highlights that once you touch these problems, you are stuck with them. Once we got involved in WWI...we ended up with troops in Bosnia. It isn't so much "World Problem" as "Inability of World to Do What is Necessary to End World Problems". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-02-2000).]
-
I've been wanting to get back to this for some time; I've been really busy. I've been doing a bit more research in the odd moments as well.
As I said, to me the importance of these discussions is the free exchange of ideas without bloodshed. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Beyond that, I think we all learn things if we approach it in an open-minded fashion. I've learned some things I didn't know....and they really make me angry...
Originally posted by StSanta:
Gotta agree with Toad here.
<Toad faints dead away...is revived with shot of MacAllan> (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
But, toad, ya gotta admit; NATO and the UN are pretty much run by the US. It's not a democracy there, for sure.
Guys, check this site. I found it extremely interesting.:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/interviews/short.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/interviews/short.html)
"During the 78-day war in Kosovo, Lt. Gen. Short directed NATO's air operations against Serbia as NATO's Joint Air Force Component Commander. After the war, Short emerged as a sharp critic of two key aspects of NATO's conduct of the war: the political requirements which influenced targets selection and NATO's focus on attacking Serbian forces fielded in Kosovo. Referring to the latter dismissively as "tank plinking," Short instead argued for the need to "go after the head of the snake" and to attack major strategic targets in Serbia itself."
Now you don't have to agree with Short. I don't entirely. However, he says some things that are very illuminating.
Here's one for you, Santa, that deals with your premise:
"Within a coalition, I can understand and work around an individual nation . . . saying its forces can't strike a particular target, but the rest of us could go ahead.
And we were faced with those instances. What I believe is unacceptable is for one nation to veto a target set that other nations believe to be important, and then to say that no one can strike it. That is unacceptable. It allows the interests of one nation to outweigh the interests of the alliance. The interests of the other 18 nations placed the air crews at unacceptable risk, and, I believe, prolonged the war by keeping key target sets off the table. . . .
What were you advising at the time? What did you want to happen?
I wanted the United States to exercise the leverage that I believed we had. We bring to the table in the air war environment those things that are absolutely necessary for NATO to fight. I am not a ground soldier. But my valuation is that NATO can conduct war on the ground without US participation. We all like to be part of the effort. But there are NATO nations, in addition to my country, with marvelous ground armies, great leaderships, great staffs and ground forces as well equipped and as well trained and in clearly sufficient numbers to fight a ground war. That is not the case in the air. The NATO air forces are extraordinarily well led, with great courage, and great people, but in small numbers, and not all are technologically capable of fighting the way you'd like them to fight. They can't all fight at night. They cannot all drop precision munitions, and they are not all able to identify an enemy aircraft beyond visual range--they have to come in and make a visual ID, which is very dangerous.
I'm going to sound a bit arrogant, but it's my evaluation that NATO cannot go to war in the air against a competent enemy without the United States of America. If that's the case, and we're going to provide 70% of the effort, and we're going to provide the leadership, the command and control, and the enabling force, then we need to have more than one of 19 votes.
Let me shoot very straight with you. I believe that before the first bomb was dropped, the door should have been closed, with all those inside who wished to go to war. The United States should have said very clearly, "It appears that NATO wants to go to war in the air, and in the air only. If that is the case, the sentiment of the nations here, we will lead you to war. We, the United States, will provide the leadership, the enabling force, the majority of the striking power, and the technology required. We will take the alliance to war, and we will win this thing for you. But the price to be paid is we call the tune. We are not just one of nineteen nations. We will pick the targets. Certainly we'll ask for your approval, but we will design the grand strategy to get this done. Those of you who do not approve of what we've designed, pull your forces from the effort on that night or for a series of nights. We understand that. But you don't get to stop the effort. You don't have the ability to change the thrust. We're going to send our young men and women to war. We're going to fly in the teeth of the threat, and we'll bear the brunt of the cost and the risk. In exchange for that, we are going to call the tune. And what that means, ladies and gentlemen from the other 18 nations, is that we are going to conduct a classic air campaign from the very first night. The lights are going out, the bridges are coming down, and the military headquarters are going to be blown up. And we're going to go after that target set until it's destroyed. We think that'll bring Milosevic to the table, but if it doesn't, that's the best we can do. We believe that's the best we can do. That's the problem with conducting strictly an air war. You're not going to invade from the ground, so you can't occupy the adversary country."
As I said, you don't have to agree with him, but I think this interview makes it clear that the US had only one vote of the 19. This is the NATO Air Commander complaining about that.
So while the US has influence, it doesn't seem to matter too much in the actual event.
Anyway, it's a great read into the philosophy and actual events of Allied Force. There's other interviews with key players as well.
The three biggies make the decisions, and the US will use its influence and sometimes strike even when there is no UN resolution.
This is the area where I did a little more research. I was definitely under the impression that the UN had passed resolutions authorizing NATO to act in Allied Force.
However, digging a little deeper, I think I've been "Slick Willied" once again.
The Clinton Administration, (along with Blair of Britain and of Jospin of France) without getting real specific in any press release indicated that they were acting in accordance with UN Resolution Resolution 1203 and/or two previous Resolutions, 1160 and 1199. You can put these in a search engine and read the actual text yourself. I have done so.
No where in those resolutions do I see any sort of authorization for the kind of airstrikes used in Allied Force.
In fact, what I see is what Boroda pointed out.
"It was a pure act of agression, intervention into the internal affairs of a souverign country and an outright violation of Helsinki agreements.
More to say: it was a violation of NATO regulations."
At this stage in my research, I believe Boroda is right on both counts.
It is absolutely DISGUSTING. IMO, they needed a specific UN resolution for that type of action. If you are not going to obey the rule of law, you are nothing but a terrorist yourself.
A weak defense of their action is provided here:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/acad-com.htm#Rogers (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/acad-com.htm#Rogers)
This guy is John M. Rogers, University of Kentucky College of Law.
If you don't want to read the brief text, the basics of his argument are:
"Resolution 1203 “endorses and supports” and orders “full and prompt implementation” of last October’s agreement between NATO and the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) government, an agreement that Belgrade has clearly broken. But it is hard to read Resolution 1203 or its two antecedents (1160 and 1199) as authorizing NATO military enforcement. The bottom line is this: FRY has clearly violated UN-imposed international legal obligations and its continuing violation is resulting in a humanitarian catastrophe. The Security Council will not authorize the necessary military response because of the opposition of Russia and China, each of which has a Security Council veto.
The morally and politically right thing to do in the present situation is clearly to use force to stop the onslaught in Kosovo. If a precise reading of international law precludes this, then the extraordinary circumstances outweigh international law compliance in this case. Such a decision should certainly not taken lightly. International law is an extremely important element of international relations. Any violation of international law obligations weakens the fabric of international rights and duties that significantly benefits countries like the United States and Europe. Any violation also creates a precedent that changes the overall content of the law. We should never maintain the “right” to violate international law. Instead we should strive to keep our actions as close as possible to our international obligations."
Sorry, I don't buy this. If a precise reading of the law prevents action then you just re-read it in a loose fashion? Nah.
If the UN itself cannot see the need to authorize the action, then individual nations, singly or in small groups cannot take the law into their own hands.
I hate what happened in Yugoslavia..the ethnic cleansing and needless slaughter...but I hate ignoring the "rule of law" even more. Because it will never stop and next time it will be even easier to justify.
Clinton mislead the US here and once again put us in the role of nothing more than a terrorist. NATO did not have a legitimate authorization to act in Allied Force.
...and before you jump all over the US as the instigator, check one more site.
http://www.senate.gov/~roth/press/crs.html (http://www.senate.gov/~roth/press/crs.html)
"Among governments strongly supportive of Allied Force, the perception is common that British Prime Minister Blair's government, and not the Clinton Administration, provided the key political leadership. As the air campaign wore on without clear results, the Blair government pressed for an introduction of NATO ground forces. While most allied governments may not have supported the use of ground forces, they gave high marks to Blair and his foreign and defense ministers for forceful articulation of European interests at stake in the Balkans.....
France strongly supported pursuit of Allied Force's objectives, but Socialist Prime Minister Jospin's government reportedly considered introduction of ground forces as an option. The conflict evoked a candid assessment in France of the country's relationship to NATO. France, not a member of NATO's integrated command structure and long critical of aspects of U.S. leadership of the alliance, nonetheless placed its forces under SACEUR. ....
While some governments were quietly critical of the Administration for not providing more public, forceful leadership of Allied Force, there remains a clear consensus that the campaign could not have been carried out without the United States formulating a strategy and leading allied militaries. The United States remains, alone among the allies, both capable and willing to undertake large-scale military conflicts. Nonetheless, U.S. hesitancy to use ground forces has left some allied governments -- most clearly Britain, France, and Italy -- with the sentiment that the United States does not share equally European concerns about such destabilizing developments as the flow of refugees and ethnic nationalism. A clear impetus for ESDI is the recognition among European governments that there is a gap in capability between their militaries and that of the United States, and that they must improve their capability in the event that U.S. forces may not join them in a future conflict. Several countries are building multinational units and more mobile forces both for NATO and for possible use by the European Union."
The whole thing stinks....and this time EVERYONE has the smell all over them.
-
Like I said earlier, let's get the c_______ers who did this out of office pronto.
-
I've said before that our goverments will hide behind international law to 'get their way'. Your info is v. interesting. But I've always thought that the NATO Kosovo action was without a UN mandate - I'm sure I saw news reports over here to that effect, at the time of the conflict.
The West (specifically NATO) will use the moral authority of UN when it suits them, and if it doesn't... I think you are idealistic ( (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) to think that they will always work within the framework of the UN (rightly or wrongly).
Let's hope that the United Nations doesn't go the way of the League of Nations - it does often seem to be a purely bureacratic organisation. I hope that the United Nations does not become as big a misnomer as the LoN, with the more powerful states paying no heed of UN decrees, or even bypassing the organisation completely.
How does the 'law' go so far as defending national interests? Take the Falkland Islands for instance - we thieved that from the argies, and they tried to take it back. We attacked and liberated it. Is this allowed under UN law?
The thing about the UN, is that there are many different forces at work politically. The security council comprises of nations, so at odds with each other, I don't think some situations can be resolved quickly. The Gulf War was clear-cut, compared to Kosovo. Could they get a resolution over Kosovo before the show was over, so to speak? One that Russia agreed with? I'm not convinced.