Someone's Been Reading This Board Too Long
POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 06:18
VIEWED: 7792
PAGE 7 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Is France, Germany and Russia actively trying to “kill off” Americans?
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
To begin, I ask again... what was your answer to that question ?
This question is important because it points out the absurdity of your argument. France, Germany and Russia do what they do because they have agendas and interests that are separate from the US, and this sometimes puts them at odds with the US. But to say they are trying to “kill off” Americans is simply ridiculous. Much like the argument that you make that the US is trying to “kill off” other countries is ridiculous. But the real problem is that while you are willing to use this kind of absurd language to describe the US, you are unwilling to use it to describe countries other then the US which are doing to same thing.
Now you want to claim that the US “provid[ed] arms and instructors to Iraq during its war of aggression against Iran.” Which is true, but it suffers from the same kind of distortion, because less then 0.5% of the Hussein’s arsenal came for the US, which is basically nil. Most of Hussein’s arsenal was purchased from Russia/USSR and China. In fact, the top three arms dealers to Hussein’s Iraq were Russia/USSR, China and France. Now one can argue that that 0.5% of Hussein’s arsenal that came from the US is 0.5% too much, but one cannot make absurd statements about the US “trying to kill off” certain countries because of these arms deals and not make those same comments about other countries that have sold as much as ~200 times more weapons to Iraq.
If you like conspiracies so much, here’s one for you:
The top three biggest arms dealers to Iraq are also permanent UN Security Council member-states who adamantly opposed the coalition invasion of Iraq: Russia, China and France. Coincidence? I won’t even mention that these countries also had the largest oil vouchers in the Oil-for-Food program, and billions of dollars of oil-capital in Iraq.Quote:Are you sure about that?
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
There must be some reason be all the crappy things your country does, I'm no conspiracy nut but. . .
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
One, as I have mentioned... yeah other countrys do it, but does that make it right ? They deserve scorn as well, and if they get attacked as a result of interference in the internal matters of other... thats fair
Two, Lets see some links about the statements you are making on arms shipments as I don't think you have your facts straight ?
http://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/aidindex.htm
My point being, you start supplying arms ( often on your own dime ) to one side of a conflict, then you are an enemy of the otherside of that conflict... if they choose to attack you, thats fair.
Three You don't want to talk about my very specific Iran example? The training and support of the SAVVAK security forces ?
Four http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=pri
nter
Here is a link from your Washington Post linking the US through Rumsfeld to supporting Iraqi use of chemical weapons...... So if you are going to charge Saddam for his part, how many Americans should be charged as accessories ?
Five You brought this question up, I have answered it to length and detail, how many times now ? What is your answer to this question of yours ?
BTW, The food for oil program was more of a failure of the UN. If their was no vetoes on the security council, I feel comfortable is saying that Iraq would had much of the sanctions lifted, as they had been co-operating with UN inspections. If the US had'nt been trying to force a war with a witch hunt for weapons that still haven't been proven to exist, there would have been no problem. As a matter of fact, I think dropping the veto in the council and adding a few members would solve many problems.
Besides, you must have gotten your cut of the loo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you sure about that?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There must be some reason be all the crappy things your country does, I'm no conspiracy nut but. . .
I don't know about Gino, but you know MY stand on conspiracies
.He makes points, he's just using inaccurate and inflamatory language to make them.
There IS an end result in mind for those mean men in control, and it can't be good for most of us.
Mediator Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you may be referring to these statistics: www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.html
Now you want to claim that the US “provid[ed] arms and instructors to Iraq during its war of aggression against Iran.” Which is true, but it suffers from the same kind of distortion, because less then 0.5% of the Hussein’s arsenal came for the US, which is basically nil. Most of Hussein’s arsenal was purchased from Russia/USSR and China. In fact, the top three arms dealers to Hussein’s Iraq were Russia/USSR, China and France. Now one can argue that that 0.5% of Hussein’s arsenal that came from the US is 0.5% too much, but one cannot make absurd statements about the US “trying to kill off” certain countries because of these arms deals and not make those same comments about other countries that have sold as much as ~200 times more weapons to Iraq.
Click on the link to the .pdf file showing the TIV of arms transfers to Iraq.
According to these stats, the USA was NOT a major conventional arms supplier to Iraq. However, our leaders (Reagan, HW Bush, Weinberger, Carlucci, Baldridge, Shultz, Baker) supplied the equipment and ingredients of both chemical and biological weapons to Hussein (note that the .pdf file only refers to conventional weapons) and provided strategic and tactical intel on their use (Iranian troop positions, weather, drop rates, kill rates etc.)
The point that you're missing is that while China, France and Russia (and Sweden, UK, USA, Germany, Brazil etc.) sell conventional weapons and systems around the world, there is only ONE nation that has troops and over 800 military installations scattered around the globe. Any group- Romans, Turks, Spanish, French, and British- who decide to set up an empire will naturally be hated. If our fearless leaders decide to set up an empire, well then, we should get used to the idea of being hated and resented.
And I think you're missing another point. We often treat "nations", including our own, as a blob of undifferentiated interests. In fact, selling arms around the world is not really in the interest of the common person of ANY nation. The common person is usually the one to be killed or maimed in hostilities (Do you think the rich are on the front lines?) and arms sales don't have a real positive effect on "stimulating" the economy. Arms sales, extensive military outlays, wars, etc. really only benefit a very very very small group of people.
Instead of defending or castigating arms sales, invasions, occupation, and military spending as if WE pushed for them (we didn't) why don't we recognize those actions for what they are: products of an out-of-control group of wealthy people who are so totally divorced from real life that they are willing to threaten the world with utter destruction for money.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I have more confidence than you that European and Asian nations are not going to turn on the US anytime soon. So many unappreciated things that the US does now that if left undone would force it to stop and those nations know it. For example, if the US decided to stop enforcing sea lanes how long would Japan or Taiwan last? Or China's economy? Not long. They would have to enthusiastically remilitarize and the entire region would destabilize like it did in the 1920's and 1930's.
If the US did not protect shipping and international trade then Europe would have to militarize as well rather than relying on soft power diplomacy. Their economies are weak enough without an additional 5%-10% GDP premium for an effective military not counting the rebuilding costs to fix the dilapitated shape most European and Asian militaries are actually in. How many aircraft carriers does the European continent actually have? I count only one (the very poorly performing French carrier the Charles De Gaul) which is more a menace to itself and her crew than a real threat to anyone.
Mind you, I am not talking about the US actually attacking international shipping, rather that if the US Navy were no longer a presence you would see a wholesale return to shipping lane piracy and/or regional blocking of sea lanes.
An intersting point, and one I must admit I know little about. One thing I think is clear is that nobody really wants the US to attack as a " world police " not even the US. It would be better if every country managed it's own affairs ( and sea lanes ). Doing a little research it these leads me to believe that the major sealanes in the North Atlantic, and North Pacific are ( and will ) be completely uneffected by piracy leaving the worlds oceans with four major troublespots...
1. The Strait of Malacca
2. India costal waters
3. East Africa
4. West Africa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2148444.stm
The first area mentioned, the Strait of Malacca has the problem of being both a chokepoint for maritime traffic, and being costal waters belonging to some of the worlds poorest nations. But looking further I dug up a memo from the US Office of Naval Intellegence detailing action in the area.
http://pollux.nss.nima.mil/MISC/wwtts/wwtts_20050615000000.txt
Basically negotiations are underway for Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia to co-operate as well as pool resources in order to more effectively police their sealanes. In addition Japan ( whose ships consist of much of the traffic ) has provided a ship to support surveillance operations so that the local forces ( who are at present under-equipped for the task ) can operate with each other better.
Of course, one way the US could help is to tranfer or sell it obsolete equipment to some of these countrys. If done equally and without a political agenda, it would'nt change the regional balance of power... and the use of any Frigate or Destroyer class ship would be ideal. Mind you I did read somewhere the US just decommissioned an entire class of ocean going minesweeper type vessel, I am sure these would also do the trick nicely. The regional powers could ( and would ) look after their own concerns as well as international shipping.
The Second area, being India. India has an naval expansion program, and looks to be well equipped to monitor its own waters
http://indiannavy.nic.in/
And in this article, it appears they will soon be patrolling not only their own waters, but will also be assisting Indonessian / Malaysia
" THROUGH a prudent concentration of force and its judicious dispersal, the Navy plans to play a proactive role that is operationally capable of countering effectively distant, emerging threats, protecting sea lanes of communication (SLOC) and combating piracy. It also wants to control the strategically located IOR, the world’s busiest waterways, by dominating "choke points, important islands and vital trade routes". Over the past decade, the IOR had been the largest recipient of
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just a minor addition, from reading your post I got the feeling that you were trying to say that any naval power requires an aircraft carrier to operate effectively. Here is a quote:
"A Royal Malaysian Navy Chief Admiral explained
pirates usually operate using small boats and often do not travel
far from their hideouts since their vessels lack the sophistication
to stay at sea for long periods of time. "
From this observation of the capability of these pirates, in I might add the area which priracy is most active, you do not need ( or really want )such a expensive asset to work against this. Helicopter equiped Frigates with a surface scan radar, teamed with fast patrol boats ( WW2 PT boats would be perfect, or something commercially available
http://shipexpo.com/sales/list_vessels.asp?C=12
Throw in search and tracking support from shore based aircraft, you have a very effective force without bankrupting the defence budget. Likely a fraction of the cost of send one US carrier group as well...
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s not what I was referring to, but those are good statistics.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you may be referring to these statistics: www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.html
Click on the link to the .pdf file showing the TIV of arms transfers to Iraq.
US leaders did not supply Hussein with Chemical or biological weapons. This is a myth. Some US companies, Dow Chemical for instance, did sell Iraq chemicals that could have been used as precursors to the Iraqi manufacture of certain chemical weapons. This myth started in 1988 when Hussein gassed a Kurdish town with VX. Concern rose with the US that it was possible that this VX could have been manufactured from some products that were commercially sold to Iraq. As is typical with the Left the ridiculous hyperbole started to amass.
There is plenty of room here for criticizing US foreign policy which may have unwittingly and some might say negligently assisted, albeit indirectly, in the proliferation of some chemical and biological weapons, but your argument, like gino’s is a distortion of reality. To my knowledge, the US never sold Saddam Hussein either chemical or biological weapons, and although some US companies did commercially sell Iraq so called “dual use” chemicals that could have been used as precursors to certain chemical compounds use in chemical weapons, the reality is that Iraq was buying real chemical weapon systems and munitions from the USSR and any impact that the commercial selling of US dual use products was likely minor.
The US was not a major distributor of arms either conventional or nonconventional to Saddam Hussein’s regime. And while intelligent minds can criticize US foreign policy in this area, to claim that the US armed Saddam Hussein is maliciously inaccurate and to claim that the US is trying to kill off certain countries or that the US was worse then the USSR is just so absurd as to be comical.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LynchAJ
I see the discussion has gone far past the point where I left it. But I said I would reply, so even if this is redundant or irrelevant:
Quote:At first I didn't know if I agreed or disagreed, because I did not know at all to what you were referring. So, to reply, I learned some things, disagreed with much (as either not historically supported or no longer historically supported), left a few things decidedly undecided, and agreed with some.
... In short, the US has done incredible things although you rarely hear about it. Most of which is the US provides a infrastructure where less powerful democratic nations can thrive. "Soft Powers" like diplomacy only work with they can be backed up with military means. The US acts as a guarantor of diplomatic efforts through the implicit use of force as necessary. The US does thankless tasks like keep the sea lanes clear, suppress rogue regimes, and acts as the bulwark defense against aggressive wars in Europe and Asia.
The US also endlessly promotes international law and diplomatic solutions such as the UN even when they are contrary the to US objectives -- for example President Bush spent at least six months trying to get more UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein when apparently his advisors had written them off. President Clinton didn't even bother getting one for Desert Fox because I think he knew it was futile.
However, as important as what the US does is what the US *DOES NOT* do and has not done. When given many opportunities for empire building, the US has walked away (ie, Europe and Asia after WWII). When offered the chance to destroy its foes, the US has repeatedly shown mercy and even rebuilt defeated nations frequently turning them into direct competitors(Germany, Japan, etc). If the US were an empire we would see Carthage style "salt the earth" treatment, unrestrained use of WMDs, and a lot more aggressive military actions. The US does not allow military control of the military, rather, it insists on civilian control and has bred a tradition of a nonpolitical military. These traits are very different from previous great powers and superpowers.
When did the US achieve that status? I do not know but I believe it is intrinsic. The US philosophical basis really an outgrowth of the European renaissance in many ways so maybe it started then prior to the actual establishment of the US in 1776.
I believe anti-US sentiment is and has been prevalent in Europe since prior to WWII. It is very strong in Asia, especially the Middle East. I think the basis is many of the nations in those areas suffer or have suffered from despotic regimes and failing economies. It is not too hard to be envious and learn to hate when your own country is struggling. Numerous regimes have uses anti-US as a distraction to their own people to keep them from focusing on their own problems. Specific examples should be fairly obvious -- France and South Korea.
I hope this helps explain and answers your questions. I take it from your question you do not share this viewpoint?
Thanks!
To start back at the beginning, if the US did at one point have civilian control of the military, that is no longer the case. And, I have some doubt as to whether the citizenry originally did control the military or the wealthy landholders did. Also, as other countries evolved from monarchies or federations into democracies, military control slipped from hereditary powers to representative bodies. I see more resemblance between the US and other countries in the past than you see. And to finish on the modern era, when the US developed the 'military industrial complex', the military became a juggernaut of entrenched power, and a political force in its own right (with its political K Street arm etc.)
In terms of 'Empire Building', the US came eagerly but late to the game of formally acquiring and ruling foreign colonies (compared to the Europeans) though it did actually get some of the ones it actively sought. But during that time period the westward expansion, the annexation of territories a
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just one quick point to your last post
" if the US did at one point have civilian control of the military, that is no longer the case. "
With the parts of US foreign policy I find objectionable, I for one don't find that much fault with the armed forces.
Iran in 1953, Afganistan in 1978, and on were misadventures started by politicans. The services, even to the Joint Chiefs only tried to follow policy to the extent they could.
Another example are former Soldiers turned diplomats like Wesley Clark, Colin Powell, or Anthony Zinni.... I think these people will try to do the honorable thing despite policy, and in the case of the latter two retire before serving goals with which they do not agree.
Just my view
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And yet the military is an organization that seems quite beyond the power of the aggregate of US civilians to either stop it or control it, either politically or economically.
PS So perhaps there is a gap. As SignyM cogently argued elsewhere, military build-up is not in the interests of nearly all citizens. If policies re the military don't benefit but a small percentage, then who is in control of those policies? If it is not the citizens, and it is not the military itself, who runs the show? Perhaps the military is more like a bureaucracy. There are the professionals who are paid to do good work, and then there are the elite wonks who run it. These wonks sometimes occupy elected office, but mostly they form a self-reinforcing group of appointees, board members, think-tank members, major stock-holders, policy advisors etc. What do you think?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Washington post quotes several senior officals about your so called " myth "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&conten
tId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true
And my quote was not to claim that the US is trying to kill off certain countries, I believe I said groups of people or words to that effect.
The article also discusses that very same policy towards Iran, the victim of aggression in this particular war that the US decided to support. Could it be because the US had a bit of a black eye after their picked ruler, the Shah fell and the Iranians dared to be openly hostile to the " freedom loving nation " which help to inflict that despot on them for over twenty-five years......
With this track record, and a build up of US troops in a neighboring country no wonder Iran feels they need nukes to maintain the peace.
With Condo Rice shooting her mouth off, I would think a little deterence was quite neccersary too.
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME