What happens with the next Axis Of Evil target?
-
Christian Graus wrote: America has always been about money, stop giving them ours. Then explain why the US gives billions to aid disaster victims. Then explain why the US pays 25% of the UN budget. Explain why the US gave away billions in goods to the allies in WW2? I do not have figures for Lend Lease to the UK, but to the Soviet Union alone it was over 20 billion (in 1945 US dollars.) What would you call the US if we stopped? "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I do not have figures for Lend Lease to the UK, but to the Soviet Union alone it was over 20 billion (in 1945 US dollars.) Do you mean US gave the money, and USSR gave the men (10 millions KIA/MIA + 10 millions of civilians) ?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the US likes a UN it can control, not one that actually represents the will of the other 95% of the world. I would like a UN with the balls to ignore 95% of the world in order to do the right thing, such as kicking Saddam Hussein's ass. And not one which exists almost exclusively to subvert the national soveriegnty of the US everytime 95% of the world starts whining about something. Chris Losinger wrote: the US should have no obligation to do what the UN says; in fact, it's best if we ignore the UN and do what we want. and what we want is to invade Iraq because Saddam is a dangerous man, as proved by his refusal to live up to a deal he signed with the UN. so, the UN is a good excuse for GWB to do what he wants to do anyway. and this is good. If Bush wishes to use UN sanctions as an excuse to defeat what he percieves as a threat to the US, than,yes, I am comfortable with that. I would prefer that he just openly tell the UN to go to hell, but I can understand his delimma. I am not opposed to the UN in concept, I am only opposed to what it has actually become. If the UN is to be a means of "balancing" off American power, and engendering an international climit hostile to our security, than it should openly admit to it. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: If the UN is to be a means of "balancing" off American power, and engendering an international climit hostile to our security, than it should openly admit to it. Do you really think SH is the biggest threat nowadays that have to face the US? Do you realize the cost of the damage made to the public image of the US in the Rest-of-World (R-o-W) opinion, whatever the R-o-W opinion?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I do not have figures for Lend Lease to the UK, but to the Soviet Union alone it was over 20 billion (in 1945 US dollars.) Do you mean US gave the money, and USSR gave the men (10 millions KIA/MIA + 10 millions of civilians) ?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
I do not think I implied any priority or disrespect to the people who died. I was only answering Christians comment that money is the only thing that matters for anyone in the US. From your response I do feel an implied disrespect for the men who died in the merchant marine getting those supplies to the USSR. When a ship went down in the Arctic Ocean you died in a few munites. Few were rescued. I also ask you to consider how many USSR lives would have been lost when they ran out of supplies (or only had a fraction of what they had) and were fighting with only sticks and stones. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
American CPians seem less and less confident in Bush strategy, am I wrong ?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
Too many American CPians believe the garbage they get from CNN, Washington Post, and other "reliable sources". This is not a good reflection of the general sentiment here IMO, nor is the Washington Post - ABC poll of a selected 1000 people or so. Any good polster can create whatever results his client wants, either by skewing the supposedly random sample, or by the wording of the questions/choices. It's anybody's guess what the real situation is, just depends on who you talk to. Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
I do not think I implied any priority or disrespect to the people who died. I was only answering Christians comment that money is the only thing that matters for anyone in the US. From your response I do feel an implied disrespect for the men who died in the merchant marine getting those supplies to the USSR. When a ship went down in the Arctic Ocean you died in a few munites. Few were rescued. I also ask you to consider how many USSR lives would have been lost when they ran out of supplies (or only had a fraction of what they had) and were fighting with only sticks and stones. "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: From your response I do feel an implied disrespect It wasn't. If you understood it this way, I apologize. I was much more thinking about what I've read in a book (La Seconde Guerre Mondiale, Pierre Micquel). During WWII, the US were still indignant because of the lack of consideration from USSR regarding the efforts they made (I agree with you than the episodes of the convoys to Murmansk were sometimes tragic). The common way of thinking in USSR was at the same period this one: "they give us corned beef and they want to be praised for that when we are the ones who fight and dies". Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I also ask you to consider how many USSR lives would have been lost when they ran out of supplies (or only had a fraction of what they had) and were fighting with only sticks and stones About the russian loss, they were mostly caused by the soviet strategy and tactics. About the civilians, a proportion were killed by Soviets as retaliation My opinion is that without each others, UK, US and USSR would have lost WW2. All is connected. The Soviets broke the Wermacht, the Americans furnished their technology and their capacities of production, and UK a platform to create a western battlefield, (Anglo-saxons also weaping out the Kriegsmarine, and with the Soviets defeating the Luftwaffe). There are also thousand of others parameters, but it will be too long :) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: were fighting with only sticks and stones The weapons were not the main factors, IMHO. Soviet ones were much more efficient, you can't compare a Mathilda with a T34, or a P39 with a Yak9. However, the anglo-saxons gave hundred of thousands of trucks and jeeps (the Red Army would never have been so mobile without them), hundred kilometers of automatic railroads, radars, high-technology alloys, communication materials, all this making the difference.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: From your response I do feel an implied disrespect It wasn't. If you understood it this way, I apologize. I was much more thinking about what I've read in a book (La Seconde Guerre Mondiale, Pierre Micquel). During WWII, the US were still indignant because of the lack of consideration from USSR regarding the efforts they made (I agree with you than the episodes of the convoys to Murmansk were sometimes tragic). The common way of thinking in USSR was at the same period this one: "they give us corned beef and they want to be praised for that when we are the ones who fight and dies". Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I also ask you to consider how many USSR lives would have been lost when they ran out of supplies (or only had a fraction of what they had) and were fighting with only sticks and stones About the russian loss, they were mostly caused by the soviet strategy and tactics. About the civilians, a proportion were killed by Soviets as retaliation My opinion is that without each others, UK, US and USSR would have lost WW2. All is connected. The Soviets broke the Wermacht, the Americans furnished their technology and their capacities of production, and UK a platform to create a western battlefield, (Anglo-saxons also weaping out the Kriegsmarine, and with the Soviets defeating the Luftwaffe). There are also thousand of others parameters, but it will be too long :) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: were fighting with only sticks and stones The weapons were not the main factors, IMHO. Soviet ones were much more efficient, you can't compare a Mathilda with a T34, or a P39 with a Yak9. However, the anglo-saxons gave hundred of thousands of trucks and jeeps (the Red Army would never have been so mobile without them), hundred kilometers of automatic railroads, radars, high-technology alloys, communication materials, all this making the difference.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: It wasn't. If you understood it this way, I apologize. Thank you for your polite reply. KaЯl wrote: About the russian loss, they were mostly caused by the soviet strategy and tactics. Understood, I almost made a comment about Stalin's respect for life. KaЯl wrote: There are also thousand of others parameters, but it will be too long Agreed, Many items contributed to the whole. Take Care:rose: "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Ok sorry, more war and terrorist talk. At least I put it in the Soapbox :) Very simple question: Everyone agrees that something must be done about Iraq. The what and how though is a bit more contentious. But still the target and the need for war can be argued for. My question though is what happens when the US turns to someone that no other country agrees is a threat? Hypothetically, what if the US just decides and starts invading some country without any support from anyone else, not even Blair? What can the rest of us do? Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Just curious.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaI was going to say something but then I decided not to stick my foot into it. I got sort of worn out with that tax thing in the lounge. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka -
American CPians seem less and less confident in Bush strategy, am I wrong ?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
I'm fully confident in Bush. Bush is not a foolhardy man, and he would never commit so much to see it end in disaster. Bush is attempting to repeat his success in Afghanistan. Kick out the bad guys and liberate the country. Then the TV audience will gawk as Iraqis dance in the street. There's a possibility that there will be no weapons to be found, but I find that very unlikely. Saddam is not a reformable man. He says he has no weapons of mass destruction, but why should one believe a Saddam who has a history of telling lies? I'm convinced that he's buried his weapons in the sand dunes until he can find a way to convince the inspectors to leave. Bush's strategy does entail some risk, but if it works, Saddam will be gone and Bush will be vindicated.
-
I'm fully confident in Bush. Bush is not a foolhardy man, and he would never commit so much to see it end in disaster. Bush is attempting to repeat his success in Afghanistan. Kick out the bad guys and liberate the country. Then the TV audience will gawk as Iraqis dance in the street. There's a possibility that there will be no weapons to be found, but I find that very unlikely. Saddam is not a reformable man. He says he has no weapons of mass destruction, but why should one believe a Saddam who has a history of telling lies? I'm convinced that he's buried his weapons in the sand dunes until he can find a way to convince the inspectors to leave. Bush's strategy does entail some risk, but if it works, Saddam will be gone and Bush will be vindicated.
There is one problem. Bush doesn't have the guts to count the bodies of US soldiers as they clear Bhagdad street by street. It was other troops like Syrians that did a lot of it last time in Kuwait except the Iraqis has somewhere to retreat from so expect 1000+ US casualties. The worst thing would be for Bush to start the war and not complete it. Which is what happened last time :suss: The tigress is here :-D
-
Paul Riley wrote: Hmmm... and then she went on to win two more without a war. Makes sense. Actually, before the Falklands invasion, the Tories were way behind in the polls. The changes to the economy that they introduced were at the very difficult early stages and we were in the middle of a severe recession. By 1987, the pain was over, but in 1983, without a victory in the South Atlantic, the election would not of been a clear-cut Tory victory. Both my parents lost their jobs in 1982, and had both changed their vote from Labour to Tory in 1979 - they were VERY disenchanted with the Tories at this time, as were many others. Paul Riley wrote: However, as much as people in the UK are against a war without UN backing, it won't hurt Blair in the next election. Unless it all goes horribly wrong of course, and the price of oil goes through the roof. Without UN backing however, I think he could be in trouble - especially so if casualties are high and the war drags on (though I admit this is unlikely). Paul Riley wrote: Ian Duncan-Smith is doing a great job of securing another Labour landslide How true. We are effectively living in a one-party state. IDS is a joke. I'm no fan of the Tories, but man, do we need an effective opposition! This government is starting to take the piss and they are getting away with it. Paul Riley wrote: However, next term we will probably have a new opposition, one without the stigma still attached to the Tory party. If the Tories gain an effective leader before the next election, then they can still make a big dent in Tonys majority. If IDS is still leader this time next year, then they'll probably LOSE even more seats! Perhaps we'll see the current Tory party splitting into two - creating an anti-European party and a pro-European party - after all, Europe is all they bloody care about (unlike the majority of the electorate who couldn't give a damn). P.S. QOTSA ROCK!
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: but man, do we need an effective opposition Normally I don't bother with party politics, but the Libdems look a much better choice. I wouldn't trust IDS at all. He uses people then stabs them in the back when convenient, if you remember the episode with his campaign manager and the BNP. The tigress is here :-D
-
I'm fully confident in Bush. Bush is not a foolhardy man, and he would never commit so much to see it end in disaster. Bush is attempting to repeat his success in Afghanistan. Kick out the bad guys and liberate the country. Then the TV audience will gawk as Iraqis dance in the street. There's a possibility that there will be no weapons to be found, but I find that very unlikely. Saddam is not a reformable man. He says he has no weapons of mass destruction, but why should one believe a Saddam who has a history of telling lies? I'm convinced that he's buried his weapons in the sand dunes until he can find a way to convince the inspectors to leave. Bush's strategy does entail some risk, but if it works, Saddam will be gone and Bush will be vindicated.
Emcee Lam wrote: Bush is attempting to repeat his success in Afghanistan. Kick out the bad guys and liberate the country. Then the TV audience will gawk as Iraqis dance in the street. Sorry, but you can't really call the operation in Afghanistan a success. The bad bad guy bin Laden, the U.S. biggest enemy and most wanted terrorist of the world, seems to be still alive. And most of the highest members of al Quaida, too. Even if they're out of the country is still not proven. And now Afghanistan's leader Kazai's power spreads only over the capital - most of the country is led by the warlords, not united in any way. It will need much time until Afghanistan can be called a liberate and democratic contry. Hope Bush finds a better way for Iraq, not leaving an unsolved problem like he did in Afghanistan.
-
There is one problem. Bush doesn't have the guts to count the bodies of US soldiers as they clear Bhagdad street by street. It was other troops like Syrians that did a lot of it last time in Kuwait except the Iraqis has somewhere to retreat from so expect 1000+ US casualties. The worst thing would be for Bush to start the war and not complete it. Which is what happened last time :suss: The tigress is here :-D
Perhaps not. Bush is not so foolish. He knows that casualties must be low. Bush has not worked this hard to see his plans upset so easily. I don't see Saddam getting away this time. In the first Gulf War, America relied too much on internal rebellion to unseat Saddam. Bush will not repeat that mistake. When it comes to war, America relies heavily on overwhelming victory to demoralize enemies. Marginal and partial victories are unacceptable. Only by gaining overwhelming victory, can America attain an aura of invincibility. Such an appearance of invincibility will convince many enemies of certain failure if they challenge the US. Nothing less than a repeating pattern of overwhelming victories will satisfy an American president. I don't see Iraq as being an exception. Saddam will be yet another demonstration piece to build the aura of invincibility.
-
Emcee Lam wrote: Bush is attempting to repeat his success in Afghanistan. Kick out the bad guys and liberate the country. Then the TV audience will gawk as Iraqis dance in the street. Sorry, but you can't really call the operation in Afghanistan a success. The bad bad guy bin Laden, the U.S. biggest enemy and most wanted terrorist of the world, seems to be still alive. And most of the highest members of al Quaida, too. Even if they're out of the country is still not proven. And now Afghanistan's leader Kazai's power spreads only over the capital - most of the country is led by the warlords, not united in any way. It will need much time until Afghanistan can be called a liberate and democratic contry. Hope Bush finds a better way for Iraq, not leaving an unsolved problem like he did in Afghanistan.
True enough some things can be better. Nevertheless, it is a victory. Taliban and Al Qaeda have ceded their territories and have been forced to hide in the mountains. The entire Afghanistan campaign has been nothing but losses for them. They lost men, equipment, and morale. Their cause is weakened, and extremist Islam has been humiliated. You are right in saying that a lot of things have not been accomplished. It's far from perfect, but the results are still good. America is the victor. Taliban and Al Qaeda are the losers.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: If the UN is to be a means of "balancing" off American power, and engendering an international climit hostile to our security, than it should openly admit to it. Do you really think SH is the biggest threat nowadays that have to face the US? Do you realize the cost of the damage made to the public image of the US in the Rest-of-World (R-o-W) opinion, whatever the R-o-W opinion?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: Do you really think SH is the biggest threat nowadays that have to face the US? I have no idea. But to the extent he is a threat, and to the extent that the UN appears unable or unwilling to do anything about him and his ilk, begs the question - what the hell does the UN exist for? The only role I see the UN playing is to provide organized resistance to U.S. foreign policy while doing absolutely nothing about SH. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
KaЯl wrote: Do you really think SH is the biggest threat nowadays that have to face the US? I have no idea. But to the extent he is a threat, and to the extent that the UN appears unable or unwilling to do anything about him and his ilk, begs the question - what the hell does the UN exist for? The only role I see the UN playing is to provide organized resistance to U.S. foreign policy while doing absolutely nothing about SH. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
You're IMHO unfair in your comment. It's not because UN don't fit your agenda right now that it's totally useless. Remember the Korea War, the US played well with and used it, didn't they? (no contestation here, it was IMO justified)
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Perhaps China will be in a position to challenge them in a few decades, but even this is unlikely Interesting point: Would the US let China get anywhere near the level to challenge the US militarily? Last time I checked the US still did not like China that much. They could easily spin up a fuss about China and validate an invasion to bring "democracy" to China. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate Would the electorate do this though? How far would the leaders have to push before the electorate rebelled? Already with Iraq there have been massive rallies, but nothing has actually changed.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: Interesting point: Would the US let China get anywhere near the level to challenge the US militarily? Last time I checked the US still did not like China that much. They could easily spin up a fuss about China and validate an invasion to bring "democracy" to China. War with China is the end of the world, including US and everyone knows it. I see US+China dominate together, with EU influence dropping. US is revising relationship with China this year, from early leaks it's encouraging.
-
There is one problem. Bush doesn't have the guts to count the bodies of US soldiers as they clear Bhagdad street by street. It was other troops like Syrians that did a lot of it last time in Kuwait except the Iraqis has somewhere to retreat from so expect 1000+ US casualties. The worst thing would be for Bush to start the war and not complete it. Which is what happened last time :suss: The tigress is here :-D
-
You're IMHO unfair in your comment. It's not because UN don't fit your agenda right now that it's totally useless. Remember the Korea War, the US played well with and used it, didn't they? (no contestation here, it was IMO justified)
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
I think the world at large is increasingly inclined to view the American system of capitalism as a far greater threat than Islamic fundamentalism. The U.N. has bought into that view and is more concerned about containing us than about containing terrorism. Otherwise, I can make no sense of their behavior. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
I think the world at large is increasingly inclined to view the American system of capitalism as a far greater threat than Islamic fundamentalism. The U.N. has bought into that view and is more concerned about containing us than about containing terrorism. Otherwise, I can make no sense of their behavior. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Your analysis may be good. I would rather say the capitalist system as the americans have, 'cause it's IMHO more linked to the system than to anti-americanism. Bush is the target, not America. Anti-globalization movements have changed their name, they are known now as alter-globalization movements :) They aren't against globalization, they are against the one the Market wants. The Riches have the Davos Forum, the Poors have Porto-Alegre[^]
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Your analysis may be good. I would rather say the capitalist system as the americans have, 'cause it's IMHO more linked to the system than to anti-americanism. Bush is the target, not America. Anti-globalization movements have changed their name, they are known now as alter-globalization movements :) They aren't against globalization, they are against the one the Market wants. The Riches have the Davos Forum, the Poors have Porto-Alegre[^]
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: they are known now as alter-globalization movements Which is just another name for Marxism. The Europeans feel that if they just keep giving Marxism a new name, someday it will magically begin to work. We American's are very much aware of this, and feel very much threatened by it. We do not want Socialism. You guys seem to believe that there is some kind of mass of Americans waiting to be liberated from capitalism. I can assure you the truth is guite the contrary. The core of American culture remains committed to our capitalistic system. The free market is the source of our political/social freedom. We will not give it up without a fight. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle