Exactly as predicted...

[WriterDom]

So maybe the US should downsize the military. Return the 250,000 troops overseas. Discharge 500,000, and let Europe and the UN send 250,000 over here to protect our country for a fucking change. And have the Japanese rearm to replace the 7th Fleet. Then we'll be a kinder gentler nation, more giving, more green, and we'll get caught up on the dues.

 

[rambling man]

this is typical..we send more money than anyone in real cash not on the gnp sliding scale, but it's not enough ...and it's just over the European union...a collection of sovereign states that you are counting collectively...i wonder how much it would be if we counted canada

i am sure that foreign aid goes out many times on a quid pro quo basis, but we still send out a lot of money to countries that promise no return at all...

And US firms will develop these technologies because they will have to work within the laws of kyoto states because of their operations there...in fact we will develop the technologies despite not having signed the treaty,,,and hopefully more manufacturing will be driven to the United States to help our economy. It's win-win for us, really, if you go alone with the kyoto pact...we get your manufacturing jobs but we still develop the technology for our own use when we have to do things in your countries

 

[rambling man]

the US has paid its dues, Mogadishu, Beiruit, Omaha Beach, South Korea, world war I when we saved France the first time...world war II we saved france and britain as well as their colonial empires. And we keep going, we keep sending our people around the world to face protestors and countries who dont want us there so we can protect them

We should not be isolationist, we should keep ourselves involved in world affairs and help when we can, but lets just pull our troops out. Japan doesn't want us, fine, let them build their own armed forces and pay for them. Europe thinks they can do it themselves? Fine, keep sending money to support NATO and draw down our troop strength to equal the next highest national contingent. However, keep a strong front and involvement diplomatically so as to maintain our world leadership oposition

Then we can invest the divident in our nation, maintain our highways, invest in our railroads, upgrade communications, put people to work maintaining our country instead of sending so much abroad. We spent a lot of money defending the free world while Germany and Japan rebuilt and became strong...

What will happen is that we can return to the pre world war I days of dollar diplomacy and keep our troops at home so as not to annoy th epeople of other countries

But I do not believe we should stop being a leader, just stop doing so much for everyone else

 

[Closet Desire]

This is typical?

I might point out that techically the US is nothing more than a collection of "sovereign states". You might ask Lavender or check the founding documents...they are full of limits on federal power intended not to usurp the sovereignty of the individual states.

The EU is headed toward a very similar system. Already, travel and trade is being freed up in steps that are nothing short of supersonic in relation to how governments and businesses normally proceed. In military and aid operations they do often operate jointly and cooperatively. It is a fair comparison as is using a GNP scale. You didn't comment on the fact that Japan's contributions are greater than the US without the GNP scale in place.

As for Japan not defending itself or developing the military power necessary to defend itself against Korea or Japan...the US explicitly barred Japan from developing its own military...wrote the documents itself as part of the new Japanese constitution. Same for Germany I'm afraid.

Did the US "win" the war in Europe? Not quite. Definitely swung the scales and certainly did so out of self-interest (no reason to be ashamed about that). Many historians would also argue that the US played a major role in fueling the disputes that started the wars in the first place.

But going back to arguing about who did what in a war over fifty years ago really isn't germane is it?

I like to think of the US as a forward thinking, forward acting country. Perhaps as it gets older it too starts to think like the empires and nations before it that were once powerful too. Maybe that's what's meant by those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

 

[rambling man]

the United States was a collection of sovereign states between 1776 and 1787 in the way you see them...the Constitution bound them tighter and the Civil War cemented the bonds...European states are free to come and go as they please...yes our states have specific powers reserved to them, but not the right to come and go as they please, a defining characteristic of truly sovereign states....would europe fight to keep in Italy?

ah yes the theory that economic sanctions on japan after the rape of nanking "forced" them to conquer areas for resources and thus initiate war on the US....the reasons are there but the logic fails...not sure what we did that started world war I, hell the only person in our state departmnent that knew a general war was coming during the july days was a consul in Budapest


The missile shield is a forward thinking policy..it reflects the new realities of the post cold war...rogue and dangerous states with a martyr complex...After Kruschev, sane men bent on self-preservation ran our enemy's government. We could count on their desire to stay alive to ensure cool heads prevailed.

Europe is still thinking in the old ways, that M.A.D. will keep us all safe. Countries and groups bent on Jihad do not care about M.A.D. Seems teh US is the country with the imagination to conceive of this needed protection and the will to make it happen while Europe wrings its hands

 

[Closet Desire]

Any argument...

...to come and go as you please is a bit academic. The states enjoy a great deal of sovreignty even though they can't really secede. However, the real glue for both the states and nations of Europe is economic.

In the US, most of the things that affect day-to-day life are actually decided on a state, county, and municipal level, not on a federal level.

I'm not sure that a defense against missles is really that forward thinking. I mean, it is really intended to defend against a technology that is essentially equal to that of most developed nations. Building a nuclear weapon that works is still a pretty formidable task...lobbing it up into space so that it can re-enter and decimate a target is, ironically enough, an even bigger challenge. Somehow I can't picture any terrorist group, no matter how well funded, being capable of launching a ballistic missile attack against the US. An attack using conventional SS missile like those already in the arsenals of some nations would not be subject to the defense system in consideration (not enough time to target).

If such a group did manage to gain nuclear capability I think they will be more likely to deliver it with reliable, off-the-shelf technology like UPS (United Parcel Service) or in a rental car. In fact, several years ago the Office of Technology Assessment issued a report suggesting this was a far more likely scenario given the challenges of developing a launch system.

The argument I've heard has been about "rogue" nations like North Korea or the splintered remnants of the Soviet Republic. Regardless of ideology I do think the reality of certain destruction works as well with them as it did when the USSR was better known as a "rogue" nation or "evil empire".

The US may feel it has justifiable cause to develop a defense against ICBMs. At the same time I think China, Russia, and the rest of the world is justifed in pointing out the destabilizing effect it might have. The argument that nations might compensate by increasing their nuclear arsenals is a valid one. No matter how good the defense system is it would be completely overwhelmed by a massive launch.

Another report by the Office of Technology Assessment and issued in the late 80's analysed the effects of 10 ICBMs launched by the Soviets against energy resources in the US and a similar attack by the US against the USSR. To cut to the chase both countries were essentially destroyed for decades to come. To put it into perspective I think the total warhead count in each country's arsenal exceeded 10,000.

No way to win. Not then. Not now. And it doesn't matter who the players are. That's why other nations are very cautious about this.

I worry because such a shield isn't going to defend against the poor man's weapon of mass destruction...biological and chemical weapons. Much easier to make. Much easier to transport. Much more difficult to counter. It's already been done by amateurs with terrifying results. What's going to happen when they do it for real?

 

[Stonedagger]

hehehe

Screw all this politics - come live in Canada - where we make fun of the US and the UK and don't have a damn bit of defense if either of them decides to take offense to us making fun of them!!!

Well except maybe the outer space arm - we could maybe get off old GWB with it - also we could probably drown you in our huge ridiculously high debt!!!

Sorry guys a little Canuck humour (since I don't know shit about politics!)

 

[Guest]

So, let me just make sure I understand this. Their are some pseudo-conservatives on this board who are saying that the U.S. should not have to pay dues to the U.N. that it was understood that the U.S. would pay. You fake conservatives are willing to allow the U.S. to weasel out of paying money that they agreed to pay simply because they have paid some money or some services to causes that are related to the dues that they owe. You are basically saying that the U.S. does not have to live up to their agreements or to the same standards as other countries. That is wrong and you know it.

What if you told your homeowners association that you weren't going to pay their monthly dues because you already helped your neighbor clean up his yard? What if you told the IRS that you weren't going to pay any taxes because you aready donated money to the Goodwill? What if you told the electric company you weren't going to pay your bill because you own stock in the company? Do you think that would be acceptable? Do you think that would be morally right? No, it would not.

I'm not sure where you people get off calling yourselves conservatives, but where I come from you sound like a bunch of whining, lying, cheating, excuse making liberal babies. When a man makes a deal, he sticks to it. You are only as good as your word and America needs to keep its word, always. I find it sad that some people on this board would claim to be true conservatives and then they would argue for breaking promises and being immoral. Either you believe in honesty and truth or you believe in lying and cheating and not living up to your obligations. There are no excuses for not paying your bills. If you think their are, then maybe you better joing the Green party and leave the conservatism to honest people.

 

[Closet Desire]

Don't you think...

...some things, like honesty and keeping one's word, transcend politics?

If you're caught breaking the speed limit and get hauled before the judge does it really matter if you're democrat, republican, socialist, communist, buddist, or baptist? If you say "I wasn't speeding your honor" you're still a liar.

Point well taken.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

You know, I just wrote a big long reply about what Europe would look like without the Marshall Plan, NATO, and American led efforts in the United Nations, the cold war with the Soviet Union and, yes, even Desert Storm, but I scrapped it because this is such a silly old debate.

Look, America good, America bad. Europe good, Europe bad. What the fuck are we arguing here? Who hit more home runs in 1963? Why does nationalism always have to come down to a pissing contest?

This "America sucks! Europe sucks!" thing is so cloddish. Anything that reduces the complexity of U.S. and European differences on things like Kyoto and Defense Shields to the level of "Who's stronger, Superman or the Green Lantern?" just makes me roll my eyes.

 

[Ask For More]

I was just about to write a long reply too.
Until DCL blew that down in flames

Well said mate

 

[Closet Desire]

DCL...

...couldn't agree with you more. One old-fashioned idea that I don't think is ever out of fashion is the concept of the "citizen of the world" where one's beliefs no longer come from one's nation, religion, culture, or mother.

I left my home at 18 a racist to find myself in boot camp with men of all races. Fortunately for me, it was a fast cure. Now I find myself, yet again, an American in a strange land (Europe).

It always raises questions and doubt in my mind about what I believe is right or wrong and if it is ever really that simple.

 

[rambling man]

The United Nations dues are not a mortgage, like "Unregistered" believes. UN dues are charity, part of the the United States' donation to the rest of the world. If you agree to give to a charity, then you have questions about how that charity uses its funds, you don't keep giving to them, you get your questions answered.
I think my example earlier of how some people here may re-examine their giving to the Salvation Army after it was revealed they do not hire gays is the best example.

I do not think Europe sucks. Britain especially has a proud tradition that it earned. It tried to eliminate slavery, perpetuate peace, and extend free trade. As the premiere global power it made mistakes and could not satisfy anyone, least of all Americans.

CD, it is now true that Iraq has missiles that can reach the northern United States...and if those missiles fall short guess where they hit, Stonedagger, the Canadian heartland...those warheads could contain nuclear, biological, chemical, anything you want. It would be easier for Saddam to push a button and see what happens.
Even scarier, what if Pakistan falls to a coup and emerges with a fundamentalist, blow the west to hell kind of government. They also have these kinds of capabilities. This is a relistic scenario because that country destabilizes more eahc day

I don't think that Europe understands because it is not the target. The United States would be the target. As a person living in the bulls eye, I would really feel more comfortable with some protection.

 

[Stonedagger]

hehehehe

Stonedagger, the Canadian heartland...those warheads could contain nuclear, biological, chemical, anything you want.

Hey I have been looking for a new source of drugs - inexpensive and wow - nuclear dude!!!! Can I ask for a little marijiuana??
I promise I would share!!!

 

[Closet Desire]

America...

...isn't the target. Israel and other Arab states are the targets.

I've not heard about Iraqi missiles that can reach the US, but I will share what my most recent sources said as of Jan 2001.

Iraq has at least two atomic (not thermonuclear) bombs which were manufactured in Hemirn on the northeast border near Iran.

Current missile development includes:

Ababil-100 with a 150 km range and 300 kg capacity.

al-Samoud with a 140 km range and 300 kg capacity.

Interestingly it is Iran which has tested a missle with more range at 250 km. I don't know the payload on it.

Unless my geography is really, really bad Iraq can barely hit Israel at the moment and that's been their biggest goal.

Launching an ICBM to the US from Iraq would be an interesting trick since both the US and USSR admitted they couldn't be sure they could hit each other as neither side had ever attempted to launch missiles over the north pole to verify that guidance and control systems would work. I'm not really versed on this, but as I understand it there are some peculiar things about that flight path. Probably not an issue now with all the new navigational stuff.

You might find this web site interesting:

http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm

 

[delite]

ok pissed of Britisher here so here we go;

1,The US was not the only country to send troops into Yugoslavia,
Europe, India and Asia also sent troops.And had bodies come back.

2, Kyoto, Your president has at last agreed that green house gases are causing harm to the enviroment but tears up the Kyoto agreement, then says the US will find other ways of dealing with this problem but so far has not come forward with what other ways, If hes got some good ideas then hey lets hear them.
I'm not sure about the statistic's but I'm sure some one in here is,
What I do know is that the US is pumping shit loads of pollution out, and refusing to do anything to stop.

3, This missile defense thingy, well lets see rogue countries oh like North Korea? would that be the same place that Clinton had almost got to come to terms with South Korea, but Bush dropped as soon as he got in?
errr what a good way to get a defense system through, I mean whats the point in a defense system if you aint got any real enemies?
the other point on this is that the real threat from these so called rogue countries is more likely to be from suicide bombers and Bushes defense system is fuck all use against them.

4, Money to the UN , come on you know you owe it, just pay up and stop winging.
Just congratulate yourselves that unlike Europe you aren't being run by a load of imbeciles in Brussels.

ok have finished ranting now.

 

[p_p_man]

Quoted from rambling man's post

Europe thinks they can do it themselves? Fine, keep sending money to support NATO

edited by p_p_man


You're still a bit out of touch rambling man. NATO is on its last legs. Europe now has the Rapid Reaction Force, or as its more commonly known, the Euro Army.

As the ex-Eastern bloc countries join the Union they will also become members of the RRF.

But look on the bright side, NATO won't be needing American money...

 

[Closet Desire]

In all fairness...

...to Rambling Man.

I wondered where the idea that Iraq could hit the US might have come from so I dug a bit deeper and came up with Project 395 (BADR-2000) which was a high-technology, two-stage missile system with a range of 1,000 km and payload of 350kg. It was a joint project with Egypt and Argentina (Condor II).

You reap what you sow. Started in 1984 or 85, the project was not only supported by a consortium of mostly European firms but also over a dozen US firms. Specifically, the equipment and technology supplied by the US included the infrastructure to mss produce the Condor-II missile.

In the end, when Iraq discovered it was not going to end up with any operational missiles it tried to go it alone. In 1988, Abdel Kader Helmy was arrested in Califorina for illegally transferring technology for the Condor II. By 1990 the project was dead. It is believed by the UN Special Commission that Iraq did not acquire the technology or equipment to produce any of the technology for guidance, control, and launchers.

Who needs the UN? Apparently the US relies very heavily on the UN for intelligence information it doesn't stand a chance of getting on its own without a full-scale invasion. Only the UN actually has the clout to walk into a country unarmed and acquire this kind of data (UNSCOM - Report to the Security Council - 25 January 1999). It also seems to be much more successful at collecting the information worldwide from organisations that might have supplied technology and equipment.

Iraq certainly had/has plans for long-range missiles including the now defunct Project 144 and Project 1728 which used SCUD technology to produce something with a range of 1200-2000km with a warhead. When and if these will actually come to fruition is questionable.

I do believe that one of the biggest benefits from a global community, including the UN, is the ability to speak as one voice to "rogue" nations and make it less of an "us" versus "them" argument and more of a one voice against the whole world situation. If communication and cooperation is open then it makes it much more difficult for a nation like Iraq to acquire what it needs to be a major belligerant power.

I didn't think RM had pulled the missile capabilities out of a hat so I apologise that it took so long to find what he was referring to.

Here's a map of Iraq's current capability.

 

[rambling man]

Israel is, no doubt, a big target.

But just ask the captain of the USS Cole if he thinks America is a target, or perhaps an FSO stationed in TAnzania a few years back if he thinks America is a target. We are "the Great Satan" in their eyes. I'm not sure what Israel's title is, but great satan has to be high up on their "want to kill" list.

I cant recall where I read that fact about Iraqi missiles but it came from one of the newsmagazines, probably Time

The US has to rely on the UN for intelliugence it wants to make public...if it made public what information it received from clandestine measures, it would compromise the activities of its agent systems in the middle east and could get some people disembowelled prematurely

Unfortunately US firms do not always serve the purposes of our government, true for business worldwide. During World War II, Standard Oil had to be forced to produce certain materials for our war effort because it did not want to violate patent agreements made with German firms. We did support Iraq for a time, because they seemed the lesser of two evils compared to the Ayatollah, unfortunately that policy did not work too well.

coming to agreements with rogue countries does not always mean those agreements were based on sound thinking...just ask Neville Chamberlain about that

Check CD's post for confirmation about missile problem. If it is not done and a missile comes through and destroys seattle, minneapolis, or the Sioux Indian reservation(if the missile misses), it won't hurt those Europeans all in a fuss over the system now, will it? No it will not.
However, a missile attack will increase the amount of radioactive polutants in the air and piss off the European environmentalists who will then bitch at us for allowing such a thing to happen

On the BBC online site a couple of months back, it looked like behind the scenes there are some problems in the EU, namely France's fear of a German controlled EU. This is an old fear and one that has repeatedly led to conflict. It is evidence that the EU is not so solid as some folks might believe.

And finally, delite, we do pollute a lot but we also produce more goods more efficiently than anywhere else, we also have an extremely spacious country to move things and people around in and we have a population approaching 300 million, Obviously an extremely large and productive country will pollute more

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt, CD.

 

[delite]

And finally, delite, we do pollute a lot but we also produce more goods more efficiently than anywhere else, we also have an extremely spacious country to move things and people around in and we have a population approaching 300 million, Obviously an extremely large and productive country will pollute more

Yes especially if the said country refuses do do any thing about its emissions.
The only way forward is for all countries to find a way to lower the out put of destructive pollutants, ie the Kyoto agreement.

How can you be producing goods efficently if this efficency is slowly poisoning the world? Thats not efficent its short sighted.

 

[Closet Desire]

I'll will try to explain this...

The US does have some grounds for resenting being told to "clean up" or suggesting that it refused to do anything about emissions.

When I first moved to England and looked under the bonnet of my wife's 1986 model car I was appalled to find that it had no pollution controls, still had a carb, still had points and condensor, and no catalytic converter. Leaded petrol was only discontinued a short while ago. Even my new Mercedes lags far behind the 1987 Honda I had in the states as far as clean air and technology goes.

Those of you old enough will remember what a fiasco it was in the early 70's when American cars had to conform to tougher and tougher emission standards. They wouldn't start, they wouldn't run, and when they did run they ran horribly. I woudn't be surprised if these standards are still among the highest in the world.

But who can forget how, over the next decades, cities like LA, NY, and more literally cleared up?

In all fairness the US was very aggressive in dealing with what were the identified causes of pollution--NO2, CO, SO, soot, and particulate. Cars were cleaned up. Generating stations were cleaned up and fitted with Electrostatic filters. At the time CO2 and H2O were the purest things you could emit from a heat engine. Now we find that CO2 may be an even bigger demon. Shit happens.

The truth is that the world which, in general, lags well behind the US in cleaning up its act is asking the US to match their progress with new criteria without taking into account what has already been accomplished by the US but is yet to be accomplished by other nations. It's easy to make a 5% reduction when you first start, but that 5% is much more difficult if you've already cut it by 25%. At the same time, the US enjoys prosperity and productivity without really paying the full cost (externalities) for that prosperity...meaning you have to take out the garbage at the end of the day.

Kyoto isn't really about cleaning up the world...it's a first time effort at global cooperation and a recognition that everyone is responsible to some degree for the problem. It is worrisome to me that the US has decided to throw a patty and walk off by itself. The message many receive is that the US doesn't want to be part of the world...it wants to be THE world. Sadly, I can only shrug my shoulders and appreciate the impression it makes.