USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Sgt. Jones 0]

IMHO European "peace at any price" way of doing things comes from intimate knowledge of war, and its effects.

War is something we know from a long time, on our own soil and against our people. We (civilians, and mind you, not the modern civilians) faced first hand many wars.

For example, here in France, I don't think there is a single cemetary, even in the most lost village in countryside, where there is not this commemorative stele listing the young soldiers this very village lost during WWI. In every place. Hundreds of thousands of forgotten soldiers, listed all around the country.

This kind of things forges the conviction that we don't want to see this anymore. I don't know if US has the same kind of permanent remembrance of war everywhere, but it has an impact, no doubt about it.

+ the very vivid memory that our own people can become ugly under the wrong circonstances (ie war, or threat of...).Things that must be avoided.

Yes, U.S. cemetaries are full of monuments to the service men and women who have died. War should be avoided where it can be, but not at ANY cost! If that were the case then the world would be a very different place and not for the better....

[denoir 0]

I read the essay by Mr. Kagan. It is alright, but I'm not sure that I can agree with his assertion that the European philosophy of wait, talk, wait, turn a blind eye to the fact that the current problem has shown no progress, talk, wait some more, and then poll the world to get their opinion is a more "sophisticated" method of diplomacy.

Well, compared to the "Me have big club; You do what I want." it is more sophisticated.

Quote[/b] ]It's more of a "peace at any price" way of doing business. Peace is great, but hardly an expected state of events whenever humans are involved.

That couldn't be further from the truth. Most of Europe refused to go to war with Iraq because it was not necessary and the risks were too great. Take a look however just two years back when Europe had no problem joining the Afghanistan war. Rigth now a majority of the military personel in Afghanistan is European.

Not to mention all the hellholes around the world where the EU has a significant presence. We're talking about tens of thousnads of troops in say Congo and the Ivory Coast.

Quote[/b] ]I agree that the best approach is probably somewhere in between. Unfortunately, there isn't alot of confidence in the abilities, or motives, of the U.N.; here in the United States. I personally don't know if I think that the U.S. should continue membership of the U.N.  I definately think that we should never again send U.S. troops into harms way under the command of the U.N.

That's an interesting conclusion. This is the first time in a long while you've gone without major international miltary, ecomic and political support - and you failed badly. It stands to reason - and that's actually what Bush is doing now - that the natural decision would be to come crawling back to the international community, begging for help. Of course, given how much you dissed the rest of the world in the prelude to war, at least for now the world doesn't want to have anything to do with your military project in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe we could work together in the future, but I think the U.S. should relegate itself to a role in which they send a little cash instead of military forces. It would be a nice change instead of being the military arm of the U.N. whenever they need a large force. Let's have the other members step up to the plate with more than 100-1500 soldiers next time there is a major meltdown somewhere.

You couldn't be more wrong on that one. For the past decade or more just Europe alone has contributed far greater number of military personel to UN operations than the US. Per capita the US is an insignificant military contributor and economically - well, not only do you not pay your share but your debt to the UN is constantly growing.

When the US gets involved, it's the bombing it takes a major part in. The rest Europe et al take care of. Actually, what you are doing in Iraq is for the first time since a very long time that you're involved in something that isn't a country vs country war. In the normal case, after Baghdad fell, Europe would have taken over the show.

Now compare how much energy it took to overthrow Saddam and how much energy it now takes to get the country in order. It should give you an idea of what Europe otherwise takes care of.

[BoweryBaker 0]

I tink being liberal means allowing gay marriage. My thoughts on that are, let the church say that the marriage is official or not. Then all the laws that apply to marriage are recognized by all, because that church said so. The chuch might lose members, but hey thats an effect of supporting something God goes against in the first place.

[Sgt. Jones 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, compared to the "Me have big club; You do what I want." it is more sophisticated.

Ah, so it's more like "we'll wreck you former colonial provinces economically while still allowing numerous atrocities to continue." I knew I'd learn some serious sophistication from the old world if I'd just pay attention    You're just using a different club. One that ensures the suffering is more long term. Military solutions can be more of a quick cut. I guess it's really more of a difference in philosphies.

Quote[/b] ]You couldn't be more wrong on that one. For the past decade or more just Europe alone has contributed far greater number of military personel to UN operations than the US.

Hmm, apparently the U.N. has the *big* club. The only reason that this could even possibly occur, is that the various european nation participate in more operations than the U.S. does. As far as deployment goes:

World military troop deployment: 561,721

Rest of World (all but U.S.A.): 161,752

U.S. military troop deployment: 399,969

It would be difficult to call europe's troop deployments, and uses, a "big club" by any definition.

Quote[/b] ]Not to mention all the hellholes around the world where the EU has a significant presence. We're talking about tens of thousnads of troops in say Congo and the Ivory Coast.

Well, there are 10,000 U.N. troops in the congo. Of course that mission has been going on since 1999 and I doubt that you would call that a failure, but you still have troops there five year later.... and the situation appears to be, as of yet, unresolved. How long have we been in Iraq now? Has it been five years already? Let's give it a chance before we declare it a failure.

6200 in the Ivory Coast.

I realize the U.S. usually handles the bombing and air power on almost every mission more than a token air presence. Frankly, you can have that part too. I'm sure you'll develop a better way to deploy your carriers and air assets for any upcoming catastrophes. We do utilyze our troop strengths for larger engagements than most U.N. missions, as a rule. Why do you think that is?

[denoir 0]

As far as deployment goes:

World military troop deployment: 561,721

Rest of World (all but U.S.A.): 161,752

U.S. military troop deployment: 399,969

It would be difficult to call europe's troop deployments, and uses, a "big club" by any definition.

I realize the U.S. usually handles the bombing and air power on almost every mission more than a token air presence. Frankly, you can have that part too. I'm sure you'll develop a better way to deploy your carriers and air assets for any upcoming catastrophes. We do utilyze our troop strengths for larger engagements than most U.N. missions, as a rule. Why do you think that is?

I assume that this is the source you used:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/deploy.htm

I'm a bit confused about it as I can see a number of things that are completely wrong.

A couple of examples - Kosovo. There are about 17,000 troops there right now and a majority of those are European (http://www.nato.int/kfor/kfor/kfor_hq.htm). There are in addition 7,000 troops in Bosnia (http://www.nato.int/sfor/organisation/sfororg.htm). Right now it's a NATO operation, but after christmas, the EU will take command.

Another example, it lists that the UK has 1,100 troops deployed in Iraq. The correct number is somewhere around 8,700 soldiers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3628959.stm). Others like Ukraine (>1,000) troops are not even listed.

A third example, Sweden has around 2,000 troops deployed around the world. (http://www.foi.se/raw/documents/30544_ci-mi-samverkan-int-insatser.pdf). It's not even mentioned in that list.

And what about Afghanistan? It's the European countries that provide the bulk of the security force (some 7,000 troops now, 10,000 troops by the end of the year) while the US is running around Tora-Bora and other places with some 20k troops (and being withdrawn as we speak.) (http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2764329 )

Those are just the ones I spotted directly, so there are bound to be many more errors in it.

There is one thing that's interesting with that list - the US deployments. Assuming that they got at least that right, you can see that beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, the US is basically not involved in any conflict zones around the world.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Not to mention all the hellholes around the world where the EU has a significant presence. We're talking about tens of thousnads of troops in say Congo and the Ivory Coast.

Well, there are 10,000 U.N. troops in the congo. Of course that mission has been going on since 1999 and I doubt that you would call that a failure, but you still have troops there five year later.... and the situation appears to be, as of yet, unresolved. How long have we been in Iraq now? Has it been five years already? Let's give it a chance before we declare it a failure.

6200 in the Ivory Coast.

First of all, those the numbers of blue-helmets - UN peace keepers. The bulk of the military force in the Ivory Coast are directly under French military command and not UN troops (although they have a mandate from the UN). In Congo the force is under a joint EU command - those are also not included in the UN count as they're not UN peace keepers.

As for declaring Iraq a 'failure', it's relative your own goals. You know, "mission accomplished" and all that.

Quote[/b] ]I realize the U.S. usually handles the bombing and air power on almost every mission more than a token air presence. Frankly, you can have that part too. I'm sure you'll develop a better way to deploy your carriers and air assets for any upcoming catastrophes.

Not likely. European military spending is constantly declining. While people talk about the possibility of the EU as a military superpower, they're not willing to pay for it or see the need for it. We are basically convinced that our society has evolved beyond the need for waging wars on a regular basis.

Quote[/b] ]We do utilyze our troop strengths for larger engagements than most U.N. missions, as a rule. Why do you think that is?

It has primarily to do with the role of your military (used more or less exclusively to defend specific American interests rather than helping out in the dozens of hellhoals around the world) and the fact that you go to war on a regular basis. America wouldn't be America if it wasn't bombing some country every now and then. This requires a big military organization that is trained for active warfare. It wasn't a surprise for anybody that you could overthrow Saddam with such ease and do the peace keeping with such difficulties.

[Sgt. Jones 0]

Quote[/b] ]There is one thing that's interesting with that list - the US deployments. Assuming that they got at least that right, you can see that beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, the US is basically not involved in any conflict zones around the world.

True, those are the major events we are concerned with at the moment.

Quote[/b] ]First of all, those the numbers of blue-helmets - UN peace keepers. The bulk of the military force in the Ivory Coast are directly under French military command and not UN troops (although they have a mandate from the UN). In Congo the force is under a joint EU command - those are also not included in the UN count as they're not UN peace keepers.

As for declaring Iraq a 'failure', it's relative your own goals. You know, "mission accomplished" and all that.

So they are not just using the economic and diplomatic club against the errant former colony? Hmmm, not very sophisticated.

Last I saw, no one was running around saying mission accomplished in Iraq, but you have classified it as a failure. Like I said, let's let it run it's course.

Quote[/b] ]Not likely. European military spending is constantly declining. While people talk about the possibility of the EU as a military superpower, they're not willing to pay for it or see the need for it. We are basically convinced that our society has evolved beyond the need for waging wars on a regular basis.

So...... you are saying that you (as in europe... you know the highly sophisticated and super-evloved race of supermen) would need us unsophisticated, unevolved american barbarians to provide something you've evolved past the need for? One wonders how some of the great monsters of history ever managed to convince europeans of their superiority? It certainly couldn't be an inherrant attitude.... could it?

Europe Uber Alles!!

[EiZei 0]

Last I saw, no one was running around saying mission accomplished in Iraq, but you have classified it as a failure. Like I said, let's let it run it's course.

Err?

[Sgt. Jones 0]

Err?

True, Saddam Hussein was removed from power. That portion has been accomplished....

[denoir 0]

So...... you are saying that you (as in europe... you know the highly sophisticated and super-evloved race of supermen) would need us unsophisticated, unevolved american barbarians to provide something you've evolved past the need for? One wonders how some of the great monsters of history ever managed to convince europeans of their superiority? It certainly couldn't be an inherrant attitude.... could it?

Europe Uber Alles!!

Not at all. You have to remember the differences in our past. In a previous post you mentioned that:

"Yes, U.S. cemetaries are full of monuments to the service men and women who have died. "

I can assure you that there is a big difference between soldiers dying and a continent being completely devastated. Look at 9/11 and how it got you whining about "the world will never be the same" etc

That was 3,000 people and three buildings. In WW2 some 40 million European civilians died. City after city was leveled to the ground. That kind of thing tends to leave a mark.

And this was just the grand finale of a process that had been going on in Europe since the fall of the Roman empire. Europe realised that it could not go on further.

America is a young nation and doesn't have that experience. I hope that you never will. Unfortunately, you're going down the same path on which we were. Now you've killed some ~100,000 Iraqi civilians, but that doesn't seem to discourage you. Where next? Yes, I'm worried.

[denoir 0]

Err?

True, Saddam Hussein was removed from power. That portion has been accomplished....

The speech that went along with the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended  [state.gov]

Quote[/b] ]

President George W. Bush

USS Abraham Lincoln

At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California

May 1, 2003

Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

.....

[EiZei 0]

Err?

True, Saddam Hussein was removed from power. That portion has been accomplished....

I think that would equal to surgeon removing your 2nd kidney yet not closing your wound and declaring the operation a success while desperately trying to stop the bleeding.

[Sgt. Jones 0]

The speech that went along with the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended  [state.gov]

Quote[/b] ]

President George W. Bush

USS Abraham Lincoln

At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California

May 1, 2003

Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

.....

As I said before, Saddam Hussein was removed from power. The Iraqi army was defeated. Those would seem to be the major combat operations...

[Sgt. Jones 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think that would equal to surgeon removing your 2nd kidney yet not closing your wound and declaring the operation a success while desperately trying to stop the bleeding.

No Eizei, he was merely declaring the major combat operations over with the victories acheived.

Quote[/b] ]I can assure you that there is a big difference between soldiers dying and a continent being completely devastated. Look at 9/11 and how it got you whining about "the world will never be the same" etc

That was 3,000 people and three buildings. In WW2 some 40 million European civilians died. City after city was leveled to the ground. That kind of thing tends to leave a mark.

We'll try to keep our whining to a minimum. WW2 was especially devastating to Europe. Many people died and many cities were destroyed. There are some who say that the war was lengthened by as much as two years due to Sweden's decision to continue to export iron and ball bearings to Hitler. The nazis were heavily dependent on imported iron to keep their war machine going. The nazis were also allowed to move troops through your country after you had denied the same request from Britain and France (when they wanted to send troops to help Finland). So let's not get too superior about how the atrocities of WW2 taught us all a lesson. Your people were only somewhat neutral.

Quote[/b] ]America is a young nation and doesn't have that experience. I hope that you never will. Unfortunately, you're going down the same path on which we were. Now you've killed some ~100,000 Iraqi civilians, but that doesn't seem to discourage you. Where next? Yes, I'm worried.

I definately hope we never have to experience devastation on the same scale. And I definately hope we never travel down the same path as europe.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think that would equal to surgeon removing your 2nd kidney yet not closing your wound and declaring the operation a success while desperately trying to stop the bleeding.

No Eizei, he was merely declaring the major combat operations over with the victories acheived

.. yet more people have died after the "major combat operations" ended.

And I dont think that would even make my analogy look bad, the kidney is gone, just like Saddam.

[Sgt. Jones 0]

.. yet more people have died after the "major combat operations" ended.

And I dont think that would even make my analogy look bad, the kidney is gone, just like Saddam.

This is true. We went into a country and deposed a terrible government. Instability breeds those looking for advantage. Especially among radical groups engaged in a demented form of jihad. Are you trying to say that the war is still going on in Afganistan as well? Bosnia? Kosovo? People still died there after major combat operations ceased.

[EiZei 0]

.. yet more people have died after the "major combat operations" ended.

And I dont think that would even make my analogy look bad, the kidney is gone, just like Saddam.

This is true. We went into a country and deposed a terrible government. Instability breeds those looking for advantage. Especially among radical groups engaged in a demented form of jihad. Are you trying to say that the war is still going on in Afganistan as well? Bosnia? Kosovo? People still died there after major combat operations ceased.

How many people got killed after the operation was declared successful in Kosovo? Were there M1 Abramses on the streets of Belgrade? Were american soldiers ambushed daily? Were there beheadings of both civilians and coalition members shown weekly?

[Sgt. Jones 0]

How many people got killed after the operation was declared successful in Kosovo? Were there M1 Abramses on the streets of Belgrade? Were american soldiers ambushed daily? Were there beheadings of both civilians and coalition members shown weekly?

Definately not U.S. M1 Abrams. You all handled the ground portion for most of those messes. So I'd imagine the armor was probably European. Also those countries weren't in the middle east. Maybe you all should should send some troops in to do something major and see if you don't face the myriad of hate filled extremists that infest that whole area.

[denoir 0]

We'll try to keep our whining to a minimum. WW2 was especially devastating to Europe. Many people died and many cities were destroyed. There are some who say that the war was lengthened by as much as two years due to Sweden's decision to continue to export iron and ball bearings to Hitler. The nazis were heavily dependent on imported iron to keep their war machine going. The nazis were also allowed to move troops through your country after you had denied the same request from Britain and France (when they wanted to send troops to help Finland). So let's not get too superior about how the atrocities of WW2 taught us all a lesson. Your people were only somewhat neutral.  

Sweden got the choice of either cooperating or be invaded. Given the circumstances they didn't have much choice.

It is true however that early in the war Sweden was on the side, observing and hedging its bets. When it was going well for the Germans, we were friendly to them. It was first in 1942 when the persecution of Jews in Norway could not be ignored that Sweden took up active cooperation with the allies.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up Sweden though. I have been talking about what WW2 taught Europe, which includes Sweden, France, Germany etc

If you think that WW2 was just a problem with the Germans, think again. It was the culmination of the nation state realpolitk that Europe was practicing.

And that's where you should pay attention. I hope that you can learn something from our failures indirectly, rather than having to experience them all for yourself. Unfortunately that's where you are heading.

And it's more than that - you risk dragging the world with you.

The European Union is primarily a peace project. It can't however exist in a vacuum. This project started in the 50's, but it is only since the Soviet Union collapsed and the cold war ended that it actually became something concrete. It's not a coincidence.

[BoweryBaker 0]

The economics chain I see here in Peoria, Arizona has a self advocate stance on poverty.  Kinda like, "who cares".  They should have a team that focuses on solutions to things like these all day and could come up with one within a week or a month at least for one poor person, but they don't.  There is an economics team but what are their interests?  It certainly isn't poverty.  If we could nail the solution to poverty here in America then we can nail it everywhere and I believe that solution lies within affordable living as far as needs go, with extra money for wants.  Thats the goal but the American economics team isn't working on it right now.  The focus is on war so the economics team can kick back and get paid.  If I were in charge of that sector....  I'd take surveys, do interviews, find out who isn't working, what kinda money they need, and why they can't get it.  If you're an adult and you can work, you should have the right to more needs than eating. Oh and I'll have you all know, the day that I started taking my role in society more seriously, is the day that I noticed that weed was hurting my life.

[Sgt. Jones 0]

I hope we can learn from your mistakes without repeating them as well. I don't know that we are heading down that same path however.

I guess one of the things that has bothered me about this discussion has been certain terms that have bandied about rather freely..... superiority.... evolved.... They tend to imply a certain level of arrogance, that flows rather casually, of a feeling of superiority. It makes for a very dangerous climate when people act and feel that way. It leaves room for certain troubling aspects of history to arise again and flourish. This threatens to allow us all to re-live lessons history has supposedly taught us. And the last time that raised it's ugly head, in europe, you took the world with you for the ride.

[BoweryBaker 0]

Explain, Jones. Lets point it out. I know it could lead to flaming but at least pm me with it or the person whom you feel is hurting the flow. That would make the flow keep flowing rather than stop it questioning what it is you are implying. Lets continue, and if it has anything to do with me making points as i feel them it certainly wasn't said so nothing wrong with that. I know thats a fact. Lets carry on while jones gets his act together. .

[denoir 0]

I'm not claiming that it's necessarily a good evolution, just that it is an evolution. We've been where you are now and had the same view of the world and how it should be managed as you do. We've abandoned that for something different, something newer - i.e the society evolved.

All social evolution isn't necessarily good. For instance in Russia a corrupt monarcy was replaced by the at least as corrupt communist system. So the "superiority" claim is I'm afraid your interpretation.

Bottom line is that the European experience is that nation states and realpolitk together lead to bad things. Our current idea is that multilateralism, removal of national boundaries and free trade equal peace. We'll see how it works out. Personally, I strongly believe in it, but again, only time will tell.

[Sgt. Jones 0]

I'm not claiming that it's necessarily a good evolution, just that it is an evolution. We've been where you are now and had the same view of the world and how it should be managed as you do. We've abandoned that for something different, something newer - i.e the society evolved.

All social evolution isn't necessarily good. For instance in Russia a corrupt monarcy was replaced by the at least as corrupt communist system. So the "superiority" claim is I'm afraid your interpretation.

Bottom line is that the European experience is that nation states and realpolitk together lead to bad things. Our current idea is that multilateralism, removal of national boundaries and free trade equal peace. We'll see how it works out. Personally, I strongly believe in it, but again, only time will tell.

Perhaps it has merely been my interpretation. It is easy to misinterpret a purely textual discussion. If so, I apologise. It was the use of those terms that struck my as condescending and superior. Hopefully, that is not the european view of the world.

[denoir 0]

It was the use of those terms that struck my as condescending and superior. Hopefully, that is not the european view of the world.

It's difficult to answer. Let me ask you two counter-questions:

Do you think that the American system is better than the North Korean one? Do you think that democracy is a superior form of government to dictatorship?

[Sgt. Jones 0]

Well, I believe in my way of government. I believe it is a good system that is representative of the people )for the most part). One of the greatest advantages of democracy (as it is practiced in the U.S.) is the ability for the populace to change the government. I feel that this is a form of government that is better for the populace provided that it is what the populace desires. So if the North Koreans prefer their current situation, more power to them. If not, they should have an alternative.

I don't know that democracy is more "evolved" than any other form of government, it just decentralises power in a relatively manner. So my answer would be, for me democracy is better than a dictatorship.