posted 11-23-98 03:07 PM ET            

Can you say that about Iraq and other similar nations?

posted 11-23-98 05:40 PM ET            

Instances where the US got involved without immediate economic concerns:
Grenada
Somalia(I suppose an argument could be made for a desire of stability at the mouth of the Red Sea)
Yugoslavia(more an overall European stability thing, I think. Poorly handled.)
Korea/Vietnam: Neither were major trading partners with the US, or at the time economic powers of much size. More a response against agression coupled with the Domino theory

Nuclear weapons:
Yes, we try to control the spread of these along with other weapons of mass destruction. So do most of the other declared nuclear states, with one or two exceptions. Of the WMDs, I think nuclear weapons are the least offensive, in moral terms. I won't go into why Japan was bombed, other than to say it was a logical progression from the firebombing of cities.
I'd also ask you to think how easy it would have been for us to take Korea into the nuclear arena. We didn't(and it must have been tempting when the PLA came across the border. And at the time we were effectively the only nuclear power(yes, I know, the USSR had the bomb by then, but look at [1]). We showed a good deal of restraint, then(aside from MacArthur). Also remember that this was when a nuclear war was still considered winnable.

So, is the US perfect? No. I do think we're better than average(and actually pretty good). We have strong isolationist tendencies in our history, so it usually takes a bit of self-interest to wake the country up. I can only hope this changes. I trust I dodn't come across as rabidly pro-American; my intent was to show that we are like most other countries, just with a bit more weight to throw around.

posted 11-24-98 06:08 AM ET            

One question: Why is the US trying to get Italy to extradite �calan to Turkey ? How would the US like Italy to tell them to extradite exile cubans to Castro ?

posted 11-24-98 04:28 PM ET            

Second, since the subject was brought up, I'd like to say that the Palestinians wouldn't have had this problem if Netanyahu wasn't elected in the first place. But who got him elected? The Hamas, with a series of bombings which turned the largely pro-Peres polls in Netanyahu's favor. He won by a small margin.

I would like to add, a Palestinian state *was* created: Jordan. But Jordan decided to throw the Palestinians out, and so they turned to the "Ultimate Evil", Israel. Note that I support a Palestinian state, but I don't agree on blaming Israel for the "cold".

Just remember that one of the first acts in the PLO's statement of cause (and it's still there) is the destruction of Israel. Now let's look at something else which created problems: the annexation of some territories by Israel. Who started? Not Israel...

1948: UN proposal (a very very small Israel) accepted by Israel, dismissed by all surrounding Arab countries. War. Israel comes out much bigger. Palestinian state=smaller.

1956: Nationalisation by Egypt of the Suez Canal. Israel attacks with France and GB. Israel takes Sinai, but gives it back.

1967: Blocus of the Aqaba Gulf. Israel attacks, but all Arabs are allies, and that results in 1 against 14. Israel takes Golan, West Bank, Sinai...etc.

1973: Israel attacked, severe casualties in the first days, but the territory is taken back, and the war is stopped by the UN (I think). Israel returns the Sinai a few years later to Egypt in exchange for peace.

BTW I don't think Israel would have attacked the Osiris nuclear power plant if it hadn't considered it an imminent threat. I don't even think they would have done it without America's support.

posted 11-24-98 05:42 PM ET            

I don't trust the U.S. government very far... but I have exactly zero trust for an animal like Hussein. The weapons have been invented, so we can't uninvent them... however, we can do our best to make sure that the weapons remain in the hands of someone that we have some margin of trust in. Actually, I have more faith in our military than I do in our politicians... for at least the military boys understand the consequences of using the weapons they possess. Too often politicians see weapons as a tool towards the ends of their own power dreams.

Crackgenius: there is a difference between war and genocide.

Far many more Japanese would have died if the bombs had not been dropped... for theirs was (and somewhat still is) an honor-bound culture where the loss of honor before your enemy is worse than death. As such, they would have fought on, despite the fact that they could not win... and they would have died by the hundreds of thousands, in the process taking many of our men with them. If you really knew the history you would know that the bombs were dropped to prevent bloodshed... however ironic the idea may seem, it worked. Unfortunately, we still live in the shadow of the atomic spectre... as well as the threat of biological weapons that make nukes seem like child's toys.

Tell me, do you ever wonder why Tokyo wasn't bombed instead of Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Think about it.

While you are at it, go pick up a copy of Robert heinlein's "Starship Troopers." DO NOT SEE THE MOVIE... it's worthless. The book does a really good job of explaining some of the issues which you seem confused about. Of course, it may be that you won't understand them even when they are explained... but at least you'd be exposed to something resembling reason. As it is now all you have is half-baked ideas fed to you by popular press and mass media.

I do not fear for the future of America because we are not smart enough... I fear because the american populace is so sheeplike that they won't think for themselves. Everyone seems to be preaching love and happiness here while the rest of the world is experiencing various forms of social and economic disintegration. Of course, people never understand the danger until it strikes close to home... and then it is usually too late.

There are differences between Eisenhower and Hussein, wouldn't you say? If you are going to couch your questions in such a manner, without benefit of motive or background history, then you are displaying your incredible ignorance in the true dangers involved.

posted 11-24-98 07:28 PM ET            

Also, under the terms of resolution 687, any bombing could be seen to fall under the aegis of the UN. 687 calls for the "the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision" of chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles with range greater than 150 km[1].
It also calls for similar treatment of nuclear facilities[2]. It also notes "use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq", Iraqi threats to "use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons", that the Security Council was "Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968" and "threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq".

Granted, the US is often uneven in its treatment of other nations in these matters(e.g. alleged PRC transfers of nuclear technologies to Iran and Pakistan, or the Israeli nuclear program), but I think this is one case where we are generally trying to do the right thing.

posted 11-25-98 01:24 PM ET            

And what about the second one? That one was dropped because the russians weren't watching the first time?

Where did you read this crackhead theory?

posted 11-26-98 01:32 PM ET            

On other topics:
Yeh the US fights to protect it own interest more than to do the right thing, However I do say that the US did the Right thing by being in Korea, Viatam (If the War was done in a stupid way, to many restriction, does not change the fact that it was right to be there) and the Gulf War.

posted 11-26-98 02:18 PM ET            

----

posted 11-27-98 10:45 AM ET            

never forgive, never forget (cept in your personal life of course)

DCA,
I wish you humans would leave me alone.

posted 11-29-98 09:55 PM ET            

There's a whole area of international relations study that deals with this. I don't have any of the sources on me, but there are actualy Cabinet meetings and National Security Council meetings at which various military advisors discuss the Soviet threat in Asia and Eastern Europe and that ending the war quickly with Japan with atomic technology would be best.

Now, concerning the whole America bashing thing:

To all you Europeans who are bashing the U.S. (particularly CrackGenius. Hell, if any country on the planet has absolutely no right to attack U.S. policy, it's the U.K. All their policy makers seem to do is follow the U.S. policy around without deviation. . .In addition, the UK is also a leading member of the P5 and has numerous thermonuclear weapons on ICBMs and other SLBMs. So does France, the People's Republic of China (PRC), and the Russian Federation).

As most of you know, I personally greatly disaprove of American policy decisions over much of the past 50 years (as I have repeated continously on these boards) in many instances (and I'm an AMERICAN).

However, I will point out (as probably the only person here who is actually at a university institution studying international relations) that the various European states have deplorable records themselves.

In addition, in response to CrackGenius' questions, I have a few:

What is the only country in the world, that despite its often ignorant and foolish legislative branch, actually signed the START I, START II, and other agreements? (Answer= U.S.A., the Russians haven't signed it yet and the European nuclear powers are not involved)

What country in Europe has violate the Test-Ban Treaty Repeatedly and pissed off the whole world for doing it? (answer = FRANCE)

What country has not reduced its' nuclear arsenal other than France and China?
(answer = U.K.)

Now, answers to CrackGenius' (who is definately not too bright given how some of his questions are asked and the incorrect responses he gave to some) questions:

1. Nuclear Weapons were first developed in the United States. They were developed by scientists from various countries, but this is not terribly unusual considering that most of the U.S. population is a collection of people that left the hideous conditions in various European states. We're mostly European, African, and Asian imigrants anyways, so what's your point?

2. No country has ever used nuclear weapons against civilians. 2 atomic weapons were used against civilians at the close of WWII, thermonuclear weapons were invented after the war and are many times more powerful than the tiny atomic bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

3. All the members of the P5 (the U.S., the U.K., France, the Russian Federation, and the PRC) have decided that they should be the only nations with nuclear weapons and have each actively deterred other nations from receiving such weapons.

4. Concerning killed people in countries where such weapons would be developed: all the members of the P5, PARTICULARLY the U.K., have also made such threats throughout and after the Cold War.

OVERALL ANSWER: The P5 is at the head of a nuclear hierarchy that does not wish for the rest of the world to have nuclear weapons. It's dangerous enough that we have a bi-polar nuclear standoff. Thankfully, bi-polar systems tend to be much more stable than multi-polar systems. The current initiative is to reduce and perhaps eliminate the direct threat of nuclear weapons within the P5 while keeping the weapons from spreading to greatly beyond the P5 (what small amounnts of nuclear technology that Pakistan and India have developed are not very dangerous to the global civilization like the P5's arsenals).

In addition, it is interesting that while the United States and the Russian Federation are heavily reducing their arnsenals (each of several tens of thousands of warheads), France continues to endeavor to increase its arsenal and could care less what the rest of the world thinks about it.

posted 11-29-98 10:03 PM ET            

Another thing is that the US will probably not use nukes. Iraq and Pakistan and India will not hesitate. Hussain (Iraq's) has shown he's a madman, and will drop nukes if he gets them, of course the US would probably annialate Iraq, as they should. Pakistan and India are very dangerous to have nukes around. A simple disagreement and boom! They're hatred for each other is greater than US hatred for USSR and vice-versa.

posted 11-29-98 10:12 PM ET            

Why is it that the various European states find completely out of their capablity to handle regional security and peace dilemnas like Bosnia and Kosovo?

Why do these rich and powerful European states have to beg to have the U.S. come in and help them clean up the mess? There were French, Belgian, British, and Italian, and other European troops in Bosnia for almost 2 years to try and stop the conflict. The Serbs just ignored them and the European troops were left mostly unarmed. The European politicians BEGGED the U.S. to send in troops. When IFOR went in with American troops making up the bulk of the force, the fightibg stopped. There hasn't been any open warfare there since. Why can't such rich and powerful countries do that on their own? Why do they need the U.S.? Or is this just a severe inferiority complex?

It would be great if the the various European states and the United States could take joint action effectively. However, it would also be interesting for the European states to be able to handle regional security problems without coming to beg the U.S. for military involvement. I will remind you that the U.S. policy makers had absolutely no interest in going to Bosnia. It took the begging and pleading of various European diplomats to bring that about. As an American, I recognize that it would be better if my government had some sense of direction in foreign policy (which it deplorably does not). Of course, I think what little direction my government has had in foreign policy has been mostly unfortunate anyways, so the U.S. isn't too much better than anyone else.

Now, rather than saying "all Americans" or whatever, it would be great if we referred to policies pursued by one state or another as policy pursued by the policy-makers in power. You see, President Clinton may be in power and he may have absolutely no direction in foreign policy beyond "don't rock the boat," but that doesn't necessarily mean that all American citizens are that way. In addition, I'm willing to recognize that just because most French politicians are real lousy people who should probably go back to college and take at least an introductory course in economics, (not to mention take an interest in not just French national interest) doesn't necessarily mean that Calculus is that way.

posted 11-29-98 10:21 PM ET            

I find it highly unlikely that the Republic of India will use nuclear weapons unless either China or Pakistan uses them on India first.

I happen to be doing research study on the Republic of India. My concentration of research in my field (my field is Comparative Politics) is the Republic of India for my current work. I've spent most of this semester reading Indian newspapers, keeping up on India politics, and doing research into Indian political systems and behavior, ESPECIALLY when it considers their nuclear weapons program (for my international relations study).

India is a federalist democracy, not too much unlike the United States (its probably the most similar system in the world to the U.S. system). In addition, given the stictures of the Gujral Doctrine, the platform of the various Indian parties (including the BJP), and India's declared "no first use" policy (which, BTW, the United States does not have. However, this is because we are obligated by our NATO agreement to use nuclear weapons to defend Europe).

posted 11-30-98 12:01 AM ET            

This is even more so after the implementation of the Gujral Doctrine, which calls for peaceful relations with all neighbors. India, it must be recalled, is a democracy. The BJP, which everyone seems to be so worried about (PM Vajpayee of the BJP is responsible for authorizing the nuclear tests) isn't all that harsh towards actually fighting India's neighbors and the BJP may loose control of the Lok Sabha (the parliament) next year to Congress (the more liberal party, but committed to capitalistic economic reforms unlike its socialistic policies back during the days of Indira Ghandi). I really don't think India is that much of a threat to international peace and security. The only outstanding problems are with Jammu and Kashmir, parts of which are currently occupied by Pakistan, India, and China. The whole area is claimed by India and the section owned by India is claimed by Pakistan. The incidents of violence have mostly been minor and short. If war breaks out, I doubt nuclear weapons would be used in the region.

posted 11-30-98 12:16 AM ET            

And what if the country can't afford the taxes? You don't save it?

posted 11-30-98 06:59 AM ET            

A card carrying Libertarian Party member, eh?

Well as long as you don't have any plans for ever having an official in office, I guess that's fine.

posted 11-30-98 07:55 AM ET            

"Why is it that the various European states find completely out of their capablity to handle regional security and peace dilemnas like Bosnia and Kosovo?"

First, lack of leadership. The EU has started a common foreign policy just in 1993, and it is developing, not really working at the moment. Such a policy was, however, not really needed during the cold war as the common threat made for common directions, at least in most areas.
Second, military capability. European nations within NATO have designed their military to be part of the NATO force; while the US would bring up the backbone (satellites, communication, intelligence, transport etc), european armies are mostly conventional forces to be integrated into that NATO structure. Therefore, without the US, they cannot operate effeciently - or at least, the US involvement helps a lot. It will take some time and a european defense policy to get over that.

"There were French, Belgian, British, and Italian, and other European troops in Bosnia for almost 2 years to try and stop the conflict. The Serbs just ignored them and the European troops were left mostly unarmed."

Their mandate was to keep an established peace, not to force peace. If the fighting parties did not want peace, this attempt would not work.

"When IFOR went in with American troops making up the bulk of the force, the fightibg stopped. There hasn't been any open warfare there since. Why can't such rich and powerful countries do that on their own? Why do they need the U.S.? Or is this just a severe inferiority complex?"

Maybe, and the problem of military design I mentioned above. BTW, IIRC IFOR and SFOR only entail 1/3 american troops. The bulk of that force is european, it's just that they need that american backbone. SFOR is now 35.000 strong; with EU or european NATO armies at 1,5 to 2 million in strength, it would be no problem to do it for the europeans on their own. The problem is with leadership, military structure and probably an inferiority complex.

"However, it would also be interesting for the European states to be able to handle regional security problems without coming to beg the U.S."

Yeah, that should be the case. Just that in other areas, the US also depends upon its european allies, mainly the european bases for operations in the middle east. Or tornado fighter planes for some specific missions in the gulf war. The US and Europe are very entangled as a result of the cold war, just that the european dependency is much bigger than the other way round.

"In addition, I'm willing to recognize that just because most French politicians are real lousy people who should probably go back to college and take at least an introductory course in economics, (not to mention take an interest in not just French national interest) doesn't necessarily mean that Calculus is that way."

posted 11-30-98 09:00 AM ET            

They want to eliminate taxation altogether and fine people on a case-by-case basis for government service. This includes things like roads and other public services. This, of course, can't really work because transportation, the military, research and development, environmental protection, student loans, welfare programs and stuff like that can't just come fully out of thin air and how would you determine when someone "uses" such a service. I think it's all just much more simple (and cuts down on bureaucracy a great deal more than having "monitors", or are we so naive as to believe in the honor system for fines?, for everything) to have taxation and a structure that pays for stuff like that on a wholistic scale.

Even Adam Smith, John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson, upon which the libertarian ideology is based each said that the government should be responsible for taxing the public to collect revenues to upkeep the public works (you know, all the types of things that everyone wants but no-one wants to pay for like education and road construction).

If you don't think I'm telling the truth, just take a visit to their website. I honestly thought I was one of them until I saw just how extreme the "L"ibertarian (with a big L) party really is. So while I am a moderate "l"ibertarian (little L), I find that the moderate wing of the Republican Party better serves such views. This is, afterall, a peculiarity of the American political system. Our "parties" are really only parties in name only. They're really more like coalitions. That's why there's only two of them. The various "factions" as we call them decide between the two major "parties," in a similar manner that individual parties allign themselves through compromise to form coalitions in many European parliamentary democracies.

posted 11-30-98 09:12 AM ET            

The difference exists where the shifting of a faction from party to another is very rare, so infighting becomes more virulent when ideological shifts take place in society. When a faction within a party finally decides it can't put up with the party its in and switches sides (or starts its own party), it really changes the political landscape in this country (and that doesn't happen often). We call such events "realignments" and they are quite rare. Some of the more notable realignments in U.S. history occured in 1860 (the slavery issue which split the two parties into several factional parties and formed the Republican Party), the progressive era (development of New Nationalism in Republican Party and New Liberty in Democratic Party), the 1930s (shift of Democratic Party from Libertarianism to Mild Socialism, although the title "liberal" was maintained, causing the corruption of the term in American politics. The Republican Party remained "conservative", but absorbed the capitalist faction), the 1980s and 1990s (shift of religious right in the South to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party).

posted 12-01-98 04:31 AM ET            

I didn't say it was. I attempted to point out that the two "parties" in the U.S. behave much like the two party unions/coalitions in Germany, the two party system in Britian, France, etc.