America, Bully or Policeman?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Corben Dallas

Policeman

cause lets face it ppl,when the sh1t hits whos the one they all run to? who provides the largest Military manpower to UN peacekeeping duties....u guessed it..the US.

The US administration (when Dubya) came to power,he complained that Europe wasnt putting the proper manpower and resourses in place to even out the total requirement of UN Peacekeeping duties.(the US was providing more than Half)

The US is the last gr8 superpower, and yeap this is a good thing cause if we were waiting for France, Germany and Russia to get off their collective asses we would be still debating what we should do about Saddam Son's Jr. in Iraq.

Not doing anything is actually keeping Saddam in power. He is responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of his own ppl, he is reported to have personally murdered members of his own family, their payment for 'treason'. Do not underestimate Saddam, he convinced them to come back to IRaq only to murder them. I have to laugh when i hear ppl saying that they should abolish the US backed No-fly zones.....why so Saddam would be free to bomb his own ppl again?

He needs to be taken care off, every week that goes by and every 'we need to give the inspectors more time' just gives Saddam the result hes hoped for....all he has to do is ride it out for a couple more months and ....Result!!!! another 30years of Saddam in power to bucther his own ppl while the west does nothing.

Sand

The Balkans was supposed to be the EUs first big chance to show how it could take care of bussiness in its own backyard without adult supervision. In went their monitors and observers and the diplomacy began. And we all know what a mess that turned into. And we all know who stopped the serbs and their campaign for a pure, Greater Serbia dont we? - twice too. And we all know how they did it dont we? Quite simply without the worlds policeman youd be looking at Greater Serbia ruled over by Milosevic still and a hell of a lot *more* dead/dispossessed non-serbs. It was all for the oil though. And the massive market opportunity. Or something.

therecklessone

Originally posted by TomF
I think the Iraqi infrastructure will be safe from attack by United States forces if (that's a very big "if") there is actually an invasion of Iraq. Why would the United States want to ruin a country that will be occupied under military rule and then handed over to a democratically-elected government?

They will target infrastructure for the same reasons they bombed the bridges, water facilities, energy supplies, roads, tv stations, radio stations, administration centres, and everything else that made Serbian society run day-to-day during the Kosovo crisis. They also did the same during the first Gulf War. It is sound military doctrine. Hit your enemy hard and fast, destroy his transport system, destabalise his regime, demoralise his people. Most importantly, all of the above reduce the ability of the Iraqi armed forces to fight...food supplies are scarce, power is intermittent, communications are patchy.

Does it surprise you to know that in the event of conventional warfare in Europe during the Cold War, US special forces doctrine envisaged troops operating behind enemy lines, mainly in Poland, in a quasi-terrorist role, targeting utilities (water, gas, electrity, phones), conducting assassination of civilian administrators, and spreading fear throughout the general population. I am not condemning this (if there had been a war, I'd have been first in line to volunterr), just showing that military doctrine very often involves less than comfortable means to the required end.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sand
The Balkans was supposed to be the EUs first big chance to show how it could take care of bussiness in its own backyard without adult supervision. In went their monitors and observers and the diplomacy began. And we all know what a mess that turned into. And we all know who stopped the serbs and their campaign for a pure, Greater Serbia dont we? - twice too. And we all know how they did it dont we? Quite simply without the worlds policeman youd be looking at Greater Serbia ruled over by Milosevic still and a hell of a lot *more* dead/dispossessed non-serbs. It was all for the oil though. And the massive market opportunity. Or something.

Couldn't agree with you more Sand. The thought of Dutch peacekeepers handing their weapons over to Serbian thugs in Srebrenica (spell that right?) before the horrific events there chilled me to the bone. Europe does need to face its responsibilities, learn to provide the transport capability and infrastructure to enable it to respond to a major crisis around the world, and without the political bickering. The situation in the Balkans was exacerbated by the French, who were traditionally Serbia's allies, and are believed to have enabled a number of war criminals to escape capture by the mandated forces in that region.

American military might did do for Sloba. But also remember that the conflict in the Balkan's was a multi-faceted mess. Remember that ex-US military officers, on contract from the US government, helped train the KLA, who then used that training to try a little ethnic cleansing of their own, and have also tried to destabalise Macedonia. Just because the US helped force the right outcome, does not mean that they necessarily followed the right path in doing so. That is a lesson they must learn, both for today and the future...

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The Balkans was supposed to be the EUs first big chance to show how it could take care of bussiness in its own backyard without adult supervision.

Bit like Korea and Vietnam would have been the US' first two big chances to show the world how it could take care of business where it felt like it without adult supervision.

By your "inability to learn and improve" theory, Sand, the US is just about the last nation in the world who should have been allowed on its interventionist ways, based on a success/failure criteria.

But, as usual, that will be different. The US was capable of learning, and can now get it right (and how is that not-yet-finished-war in Afghanistan that you said would be over in three months by the way). Europe, on the other hand, shouldnt be allowed near blunt paper scissors.

jc

Clintons Cat

American military might did do for Sloba. But also remember that the conflict in the Balkan's was a multi-faceted mess. Remember that ex-US military officers, on contract from the US government, helped train the KLA, who then used that training to try a little ethnic cleansing of their own, and have also tried to destabalise Macedonia. Just because the US helped force the right outcome, does not mean that they necessarily followed the right path in doing so. That is a lesson they must learn, both for today and the future...

An excellent point,and that would not be the first time the stategy has failed to deliver a disciplined or democratic western friendly force...Thinking of Mujahadean in afganistan,Khemir Rogue in Cambodia,or Ho Chi Minhs Viet Cong in French Indochina,what a great idea that turned out to be.

Éomer of Rohan

A recurrent theme amongst pro americans is that 'we all run to them when we need help.' Since when have we gone running to the US? It was always the US that interfered. This type of ridiculous attitude stems right to the first world war. If the US hadn't intervened, Germany still would have been defeated, the Hindenburg Offensive being the last push for a country brought to the brink of starvation by the Royal Navy. In WWII, if the US hadn't intervened, the Soviets would still have annihilated the Wehrmacht because the Brits would have kept up the pressure (lets not forget the war in the atlantic that starved Grmany was fought by British crews on newly purchased US ships) thus dividing German forces and allowing the Eastern Front to progress as it always did. In Dien Bien Phu, it was the US who proposed that the French use nukes, the French DID NOT ASK for them. In Egypt 1953, the US pushed it's nose into British affairs without being asked - in fact the Brits were furious. Vietnam, again who asked for half a million troops to be sent to Vietnam? It wasn't us!! Same with Korea - the US sent in an invasion force (and technically without the support of the UN since Russia was prevented from exercising her veto in the security council by her own withdrawal in indignation at US tactics against the new People's Republic of China (the US was freezing all PRC assets and preventing imports and exports from and to China). In Afghanistan, they were not asked, they decided to invade to find Bin Laden (though leaked pentagon papers suggest that they were planning an invasion to remove the taliban, ostensibly on human rights grounds, but in reality so US companies could get the finger in the Caspian oil pipeline pie. In the Balkans, they invaded NOT because the EU needed help - the EU was never properly involved - Britain refused to help without the US and Germany couldn't move forces in for Historical reasons which left Italy and France, neither of whom were mobilised for the eventuality of war. Look at the small conflicts - Iran, Panama, Nicaragua, most of the Australasian archipelago, most of third world africa - the US intervened not because we went running to it - it intervened because it's own interests were best served by intervening. Make no mistake, an invasion of Iraq will result in thousands of casualties despite one of the imbecilic comments made earlier. It is in the interests of securing oil - the US have publicly announced their disregard for the Kurdish right to self determination (ie setting up Kurdistan) and thus we will see, in any 'democratic' regime, a large part of the population coerced into a state, possibly like Northern Ireland in the 1920's. Face it people the US doesn't care - they are in it for themselves. Bully all the way.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Make no mistake, an invasion of Iraq will result in thousands of casualties despite one of the imbecilic comments made earlier.

And not invading Iraq will also result in thousands of casualties. Unless you think Saddam is suddenly going to reform his brutal ways.

Vietnam, again who asked for half a million troops to be sent to Vietnam? It wasn't us!!

I believe it was the South Vietnamese government.

Also, funny that your little tirade didn't mention the US defeat of Japan in WWII.

Éomer of Rohan

In reply to the last - neither of those was related to Europe. South Vietnam was looking for any ally at all - it was just their luck to find the US to send military aid. Who then killed over 2 million people in a pointless war. As to Japan, since when did Japan concern Europe? - it was the US who caused Japan to bomb Pearl Harbour due to oil and other vital sanctions. The colonies of Europe were to be given independence as free states. The only thing that Japan can be blamed for starting was the war in China (which every nation, US, Britain, Germany France and Russia at one stage had a claim in) to which the US took offence and began looking to her own colonies based around Manila and Davao.
As for the case made that Iraqi casualties in a war would be no less than what Saddam Hussein has caused; I hate to be the one to say this but the Ba'ath Regime is in fact quite progressive with regard to it's neighbours and other nations in the Middle East. Saddam stands accused of using chemical/biological weapons against the Kurds in Northern Iraq and of oppressing his people (denying them things like the right to form trade unions et cetera). The US have little grounds to attack Iraq if we look very closely - in fact the US should be withdrawing support from the tyrannical and unquestionably undemocratic regimes of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey. Furthermore, if they really were going to be even handed, they should withdraw support from Israel which uses concentration camp methods on Palestinians. Pakistan, India, the 'new' Afghanistan, the list goes on and lets not forget August Pinochet whom the US installed in Chile. If we look at historical precedent, we see overwhelmingly that the US may not even install a democratic regime - they may install the Iraqi equivalent of the Northern Alliance.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As to Japan, since when did Japan concern Europe? - it was the US who caused Japan to bomb Pearl Harbour due to oil and other vital sanctions.

True. The Japanese military dictatorship wanted oil to fuel their war of aggression in China, and the US didn't want to give it to them. Sounds like a reasonable enough policy from the Americans to me.

The colonies of Europe were to be given independence as free states. The only thing that Japan can be blamed for starting was the war in China

If you knew anything about WWII in the Pacific, you'd know that the Japanese military occupation was far more brutal than anything the Americans ever dreamed of. Heard of a city called Nanking? The "comfort women" in Korea?

As for the case made that Iraqi casualties in a war would be no less than what Saddam Hussein has caused; I hate to be the one to say this but the Ba'ath Regime is in fact quite progressive with regard to it's neighbours and other nations in the Middle East.

Ridiculous. Even by the standards of the Middle East, Saddam is a particularly brutal thug. How many other Middle Eastern countries have gassed their own people and started two wars of aggression within the past two decades?

Saddam stands accused of using chemical/biological weapons against the Kurds in Northern Iraq and of oppressing his people (denying them things like the right to form trade unions et cetera).

Also of torturing them, raping them, gassing them and executing them without trial.

in fact the US should be withdrawing support from the tyrannical and unquestionably undemocratic regimes of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait

I agree completely. But US opposition to even one brutal dictator is better than them doing nothing at all.

If we look at historical precedent, we see overwhelmingly that the US may not even install a democratic regime - they may install the Iraqi equivalent of the Northern Alliance.

Historical precedent? What about Italy, Germany and Japan? All of which have had democratic governments "imposed" on them by the USA. Also, Afghanistan isn't governed by the Northern Alliance. The US set up a compromise government, consisting of all the factions in Afghanistan as well as the Northern Alliance, even ex-Taliban commanders.

DiscoStu

Éomer already got ahead of me with the pearl harbour conspiracy

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000pacificwar.htm

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
I agree completely. But US opposition to even one brutal dictator is better than them doing nothing at all.

Absolutely. However, it would be incorrect to argue that the US actions are being carried out just because Saddam is a brutal dictator.

Hussein's regime lends legitimacy to the US action, but their "pick and choose" approach to which brutal dictators they wish to oppose indicates that there are most definitely other factors at play here.

As I have said before - while I welcome the concept of improving the lot of an oppressed people, I have misgivings about simply giving any nation (or coalition of nations) a carte blanche to do this without examining their reasons for doing so..

Similarly, while I accept that war is sometimes necessary, I disagree that it is necessary now. However, the US clearly feels that it is.


So - getting back to the question in hand : Are the US policemen or bullies?

Well - if they are policemen, then they are policemen who feel that they are judge, jury and executioner - a Judge Dredd kinda policeman I guess. The US is simply not willing to be constrained by anyone else's legal system - anything which doesnt do things their way is not right.

So - I guess in one sense that makes them bullies. After all - without the legitimacy of acting with international agreement, they are effectively a nation saying "its our way, and tough luck cause you aint tough enough to stop us".

So I guess I see them as both policemen and bullies. Over time, I think we will see the US pushing more and more to follow its chosen destiny - to act as it sees fit rather than having to worry about whatever sub-paragraph some paltry other nation is complaining about. However, as that happens, it is only to be expected that the rest of the world will push back. We are not US minions, and when we disagree with them, we should have both the right and the freedom to express that disagreement.

Instead, as we see in the current situation, our freedom to express disagreement somehow doesnt apply. We are pariahs. We are wrong. We are cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys, an axis of Weasels, and whatever else you like.

Why? Because we dared to use our freedom of expression and to make our own choices.

jc

therecklessone

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
A recurrent theme amongst pro americans is that 'we all run to them when we need help.' Since when have we gone running to the US? It was always the US that interfered. This type of ridiculous attitude stems right to the first world war. If the US hadn't intervened, Germany still would have been defeated, the Hindenburg Offensive being the last push for a country brought to the brink of starvation by the Royal Navy. In WWII, if the US hadn't intervened, the Soviets would still have annihilated the Wehrmacht because the Brits would have kept up the pressure (lets not forget the war in the atlantic that starved Grmany was fought by British crews on newly purchased US ships) thus dividing German forces and allowing the Eastern Front to progress as it always did. In Dien Bien Phu, it was the US who proposed that the French use nukes, the French DID NOT ASK for them. In Egypt 1953, the US pushed it's nose into British affairs without being asked - in fact the Brits were furious. Vietnam, again who asked for half a million troops to be sent to Vietnam? It wasn't us!! Same with Korea - the US sent in an invasion force (and technically without the support of the UN since Russia was prevented from exercising her veto in the security council by her own withdrawal in indignation at US tactics against the new People's Republic of China (the US was freezing all PRC assets and preventing imports and exports from and to China). In Afghanistan, they were not asked, they decided to invade to find Bin Laden (though leaked pentagon papers suggest that they were planning an invasion to remove the taliban, ostensibly on human rights grounds, but in reality so US companies could get the finger in the Caspian oil pipeline pie. In the Balkans, they invaded NOT because the EU needed help - the EU was never properly involved - Britain refused to help without the US and Germany couldn't move forces in for Historical reasons which left Italy and France, neither of whom were mobilised for the eventuality of war. Look at the small conflicts - Iran, Panama, Nicaragua, most of the Australasian archipelago, most of third world africa - the US intervened not because we went running to it - it intervened because it's own interests were best served by intervening. Make no mistake, an invasion of Iraq will result in thousands of casualties despite one of the imbecilic comments made earlier. It is in the interests of securing oil - the US have publicly announced their disregard for the Kurdish right to self determination (ie setting up Kurdistan) and thus we will see, in any 'democratic' regime, a large part of the population coerced into a state, possibly like Northern Ireland in the 1920's. Face it people the US doesn't care - they are in it for themselves. Bully all the way.

Éomer, there's a hell of a lot in here, so forgive me if I rove from point to point on it.

WW1. The US were welcomed with open arms by the Allies. Remember, the Russians had pulled out at that stage (a little thing called a Revolution going on), and had ceded huge tracts of land to the Germans as part of the peace deal. Germany would have not only have been able to bring more troops and equipment to the Western Front, but also been ablt to address food shortages with supplies coming from the East. US involvement meant (a) more men, (b) more equipment, and (c)if the more men bit didn't work, even more men! Lets face it, they helped end the war when it did. More importantly, Germany was defeated, which had a huge impact on Europe national developments. And I know it contributed to WW2, so don't point out the obvious.

WW2. Yes, Russian manpower played a huge part during the war. But tell me please, without the US, where would the UK have found the resources to provide the landing craft, troop transports, aircraft, tanks, trucks, and every other piece of equipment needed for the liberation of Europe? The War In The Atlantic? Which history lesson did you attend? Was that not the conflict between the highly successful German U-Boats and the beleagured UK and US convoys which operated on the Atlantic without air-support to help bring food and other essentials to an embattled Britain. Germany fed itself from the seized lands to the East. It was not until 1943 and onwards that the Allies had any success against the German u-boat fleet and managed to finally lift the blockade of Britain.

Egypt in 1953. The US poked its nose in? I'd have thought you would have appreciated any attempt by another power to stop the neo-colonial invasion of the Suez canal by the UK and France, with Israeli help. FFS, the crisis could have led to world war, since the Soviets were more than a little peeved at what had transpired. Why the invasion? Because the Egyptians had nationalised the Suez Canal, which did not suit the two major European powers. Imagine the US doing it now, and think then would you support it?

Just a few points...

Éomer of Rohan

I would actually like to thank meh for his points and for being the first truly constructive critic of what I have thus far written but I do have counter arguments.

As for Japanese promises a treatment vis á vis Europen colonies, none of China nor of Kores were EVER under actual European control thus I am sorry but your point with regard to Nanking and Korea are irrelevent however I will fill in a gap in your own knowledge and concede that maybe Changi etc are reprehensible. All of this however is not the point - the point is that it was not the European powers that went crying to the US, nor was it China. The US intervened in the pacific in order to secure it's own interests.

With regard to the imposition of democratic regimes you mention Japan, Germany and Italy. Italy is quite simply wrong since on several occassions the US interfered in Italian election right up until 1973 to prevent the Italian Communists establishing a government. As for Germany, the Bundesrepublik was a puppet for many years and no one can refute that. Japan was under the control of General MacArthur as you would know if you knew YOUR history of the war - even now the government has restrictions on the armed forces it maintains and it is big business who run the country, not the government. This has been proved on countless occassions where the government was toppled by cartelso of US/native corporations.

With regard to your point that opposition to one dictator is better than not at all - if it was any other country than the US, or if the US had a better record at foreign affairs then I may agree but the fact is the US is the most selfish nation on earth and has killed in the course of its wars more people than any nation save Nazi Germany.

Finally, with regard to your refutal of my comparison between Hussein and his fellow dictators. You say you agree that the US should withdraw support from the nations I mentioned including Kuwait; How then can you cite the Iraq/Kuwait war as an example of Saddam's, for want of a better word, evil? Niether regime was better than the other. With regard to the Iran/Iraq war which I can only assume was the other war you made reference to, the US practically paid and supplied the Iraqi army against the armies of what the Americans believed to be a theist socialist state - again, hardly a good example of Saddam's bellicose nature. As to the other wars, Syria, Israel, Jordan and Egypt have been involved in more wars than Iraq over the course of the last 20 odd years. Yes, Saddam stands alone in 'gassing' Kurds but look closely, what is the difference between killing them outright and holding them in conditions judged worse than the Nazi camps as Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Iran have each done - the foremost being a member of NATO - an avowed US ally??!!

I have a new point to make now. The alternatives to Saddam, as presented by the Pentagon hawks are; 1) a military goverment under the control of an American appointee. 2) the so called 'government in exile' which even the Americans have admitted is a sham. 3) The dismemberment of Iraq - some being returned to Iran, some forming a Kurdistan (which the US have vetoed decisively) and the rest distributed amongst the remaining nations of Kuwait, Syria, Jordan and KSA. 4) A democratically elected government.

The only real alternative is the democractically elected government, correct? However on several occasions, senior US officials including Colin Powell have made reference to Iraqi oil, the nations main income, being held in trust indefinitely. Also in the minds of US officials, there is no question of Iraqi oil remaining nationalised, removing this main source of income. Hence the new Iraqi government will go to the IMF and World Bank to ask for loans and will be required/blackmailed into passing 'neo liberal' economic reforms to secure aid (and you may ask how I can state this - it is written in the charter of said institutions and wholeheartedly endorsed by the US). These 'neo liberal reforms' involve deregulating a partially planned (and hitherto successful) economy run by the Ba'ath party on what might be known as Social Democratic principles meaning US firms get access to trade and out trade native companies, driving proper employment down and cheap employment up. This is a recurring cycle everywhere from the supposed Communist (it is not communist, trust me I know what I am talking about) regime of China to the now poverty stricken Argentina, once one of the richest countries in the world. Looking at these stark alternatives, can we really allow the US to intervene? Saddam may be bad but until the world changes drastically (ie the IMF, world bank and other Bretton Woods structures are shut down and neo liberalism is abandoned), there is no real alternative since the only alternative (a mass labour movement) is kept in check by the extraordinary western paranoia regarding Left wing, popular movements which represent the people and ultimately are the hope to replace all regimes such as Saddam.

How will people here feel when maybe 10 years from Now an Iraqi made nuclear weapon goes of in the middle of London.

Terrible. But what abt a nuke being planted by American citizens, or a nuke that was sold by America to an ally? I don't see anyone invading america on the premise that America has weapons of mass destruction. Hell we don't even know if Iraq has em, but we sure know the US has em.

Germany would have not only have been able to bring more troops and equipment to the Western Front, but also been ablt to address food shortages with supplies coming from the East

Good point. But also consider that after the years of war, Germany didn't have that many troops left. Two generations dead thru the war has an impact on the number of civilians left to conscript.

WW2 - America only entered the war when Hitler was foolish enough to declare war on them. Theres no guarantee that if he hadn't, the US wouldn't have stayed on the borders of a war, especially since they already had their own war with Japan. America join the war for its own motives.

1941:
Dec 8 . U.S. declares a state of war to exist with the Empire of Japan.
Dec 8 . Imperial Rescript declares a state of war between the Japanese Empire and the United States.
Dec 9 . Japanese planes sink Repulse and Prince of Wales off Malaya.
Dec 11. German/Italian axis declares war on US.
Dec 11. US, others respond with war on Germany and Italy.
(source: http://www.ww2pacific.com/prewar.html)

It was not until 1943 and onwards that the Allies had any success against the German u-boat fleet and managed to finally lift the blockade of Britain.

True, but it was the inventions of ASDIC, and the capture of an Enigma machine, both by the british that turned the war. The US, provided materials, and shipping, but up until the acquisition of the above, the Naval war was being lost.

In both World Wars it took some event external to their own decision to have them enter the wars. In WW1 it was the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, which brought the US into the War, and in WW2, it was Hitlers Declaration.. In both cases, it was only because their own interests clashed with Germany did, they join the Allies. So please don't tell me that the US, did anything during those wars, to save Europe, or the suffering of people.

Face it people the US doesn't care - they are in it for themselves

I agree totally. I do on the other hand believe that the US has helped europe in recent years, but i do think thats more of a side-effect than any conscious reason by them to do so. I don't trust Bush's motives for this war, just as i didn't totally trust the US's motives in Afghanistan.

I'd prefer that it was the UN that performed the actions, the US has decided to do all alone. At least then, anything that is done, is tempered by the approval of the member states. This way, with America/Britain going alone, gives them free-rein to conduct a war in any way they see fit. Whether that be bombing of pure military targets, or hitting civilian centres.

Éomer of Rohan

To the reckless one, yes I will concede the point with regards Egypt - I do not like the US but the protection of a nationalised Suez was vital for Egypt and benefitted the working class.

With regard to the points made about WWI, logistically the Germans HAD NO SUPPLIES FROM THE EAST. The Kaisers army was superior in man power but no reinforcements were forth coming other than those that had arrived already due to the collapse of the Russian front in 1917 (and being a communist I am well aware of the revolution). Also, you do not consider political developments in Germany and her allies; the German High Seas Fleet was in revolt. Many soldiers were also clamouring for the end of the war - some violently so. The Ottoman Empire had collapsed and Austro - Hungary was on the point of civil war (a war avoided ultimately by the loss of the war ironically). Germany would have been defeated simply due to Britains maritime Empire and the supplies this entailed. France also had access via the British controlled Mediterranean to supplies and together ultimately they would have defeated Germany, US or not. That is not to say they didn't welcome another ally, they just didn't go hunting for one (or crying, the word used by someone else).

With regard to World War II, as has been shown countless times, by the time of Stalingrad in late 1942, early 1943, the Soviet Union was outproducing Germany by a factor of nearly three to one and if we consider qualitatively, Soviet armour, the new IS-2, the T-34 and the Kv-1 and -2 were alll able to withstand even the 88mm Tiger Tank ammunition whereas the same could not be said in reverse, especially for the much overrated Panzer Mark IV. The Russians would have pushed to Berlin as they did and without Patton to halt them, they would have pushed to the Rhine. They did not need D-Day, thus your point about where would the Russians have been without Britain who was in turn supplied by America is irrelevent. As to the Atlantic War, no impact was made until the introduction of convoys which first began after 52 destroyers were given to the UK under the lend lease agreement (which was a sale, nothing more) hence the Brits could have held out without American intervention - look at the offensive (albeit an unsuccessful one) that they even launched at Dieppe using Anzac and Royal Canadian troops.

In conclusion, in neither war was the US required.

Éomer of Rohan

PS please excuse me for not inserting quotes like you each seem to do - I have not yet worked out how and would be much obliged if someone could explain it. Thanks.

PPS - You didn't have to insert my entire article reckless one lol!!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
but the fact is the US is the most selfish nation on earth and has killed in the course of its wars more people than any nation save Nazi Germany.

Two words:

Soviet. Union.

Just to add one more point abt the US and countries they defeat.

Germany still has american troop bases within its borders. Japan, too has american bases still remaining. Do you really expect that America will leave Iraq, even if they hold elections?

Below is a list of American bases worldwide:

http://www.pilotshack.com/MilitaryBases_Overseas.html
http://www.naveur.navy.mil/Bases.htm

Interesting to see how many bases the US have abroad.

As regards to Nukes:

http://pro-resources.net/nuclear-weapon.html
(Note: The US is the only country with nuclear weapons deployed outside its borders)
http://www.greatdreams.com/weapons.htm
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nnews.asp

therecklessone

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan


PPS - You didn't have to insert my entire article reckless one lol!!

Yeah, sorry about that, but I originally thought I'd be responding to a lot more from your post than I did, so for some reason posted it all. I'll be beck to you in a wee while re. the Atlantic War, because I do know a fair bit about it, and I can't agree with you on your conclusions. Hell, thats freedom of speech for you...;)

therecklessone

I'm back, and having consulted my big book of facts, I accept I'm wrong on the Atlantic War. In fact, US entry to the war led to an increase in U-Boat kills, nearly exclusively on the east coast of the US, because (a) they refused to enforce a blackout making it a wee bit too easy for the U-Boats to see a t night, and (b)they failed to organise a convoy structure close to shore which meant unaccompanied merchant at the mercy of U-Boat captains. Fair enough?

However, the role of the US was still immense in the war. Did the US not play an important part in removing the Germans from North Africa? I know El Alemain had been fought and won, but the German's were far from beaten at that stage. They simply could not conduct a two-front war in North Africa, and so their vision of control of Middle Eastern oil supplies vanished.

Was it also not a stated aim of the Axis to drive east from Egypt (German troops obviously), and west from Burma to meet somewhere in the vicibity of modern day Syria, again to capture the much needed oil supplies?

Do you not consider the role played by the US/UK and Commonwealth forces in their advance through Italy as important, since it helped tie down German forces which were much needed on the Western Front. I may be mistaken, but I believe the remnants of Rommels famous Afrika Korps played a part in the defence of the Southern Flank of Hitler's European empire. Experienced soldiers, who were of far greater quality than the rabble provided by the Romanians and Bulgarians on the Eastern Front. I've already said that it was US industry that provided the vast majority of the equipment used by the western Allies, that which was used in the amphibious assaults on Sicily and Italy.

The UK simply could not provide the machinery of war, the manpower, nor the supplies necessary to open the real second front, in France. the US was essential for that. You can buy guns, and you can buy food, but can you buy infantry, tankers, sailors, airmen? The UK could not have achieved that on its own, particularly if they had relied on that ego-driven maniac Montgomery. You say that the Russians did not need D-Day? Maybe so, but western Europe did. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who would have welcomed the Soviet forces advancing beyond Germany, into France and further, but then that is in hindsight.

I won't comment on the Pacific, simply because I know nothing of the pre-war economic and political make-up of the region. Pearl Harbour on I know, and thats about all I'm prepared to know right now.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The Russians would have pushed to Berlin as they did and without Patton to halt them, they would have pushed to the Rhine.

And Western Europe would have fallen under Stalin's not-exactly-benevolent rule. Seems we do have something to thank America for after all.

How then can you cite the Iraq/Kuwait war as an example of Saddam's, for want of a better word, evil? Niether regime was better than the other.

A peaceful dictatorship is preferable to an aggressive dictatorship. Therefore Kuwait is better than Saddam's Iraq.

Hence the new Iraqi government will go to the IMF and World Bank to ask for loans and will be required/blackmailed into passing 'neo liberal' economic reforms to secure aid (and you may ask how I can state this - it is written in the charter of said institutions and wholeheartedly endorsed by the US). These 'neo liberal reforms' involve deregulating a partially planned (and hitherto successful) economy run by the Ba'ath party on what might be known as Social Democratic principles

I'm sorry, you've lost me here. How can you possibly describe Saddam's management of the Iraqi economy as "successful" is beyond me. His rule has been a complete and unmitigated disaster for Iraq, in every single area.

A peaceful dictatorship is preferable to an aggressive dictatorship

Huh? Haven't all of you said that dictators MUST go? also consider, that in the last decade, Saddam has been peaceful, so IS he preferable, to African Dictators?

How can you possibly describe Saddam's management of the Iraqi economy as "successful" is beyond me. His rule has been a complete and unmitigated disaster for Iraq, in every single area

I'd say its hard to build up an economy under economic sanctions, or when the majority of a country's infrastructure is in ruins. Lets face it, despite that fact that Saddam, is one of the worst dictators in the region, the situation in Iraq, economically is a result of US responses. The Oil for Food programme, takes Iraqs one resource, and prevents them from making any serious money from it (not including smuggling). So how do you expect Saddam to build Iraq's economy? Be realistic. Irelands economy only started flowering, when we received help from the EU, and the business investments from the US. What help has Iraq received?

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
I'd say its hard to build up an economy under economic sanctions, or when the majority of a country's infrastructure is in ruins.

And whose fault is that? (Hint: Saddam's). Saddam refused to cooperate with the arms inspectors, so the UN had no option but to impose sanctions. If Saddam wants them lifted, then he just has to cooperate with the inspectors.

Lets face it, despite that fact that Saddam, is one of the worst dictators in the region, the situation in Iraq, economically is a result of US responses. The Oil for Food programme, takes Iraqs one resource, and prevents them from making any serious money from it (not including smuggling).

Saddam appears to have plenty of money to spend on buiding and testing rockets...

Saddam appears to have plenty of money to spend on buiding and testing rockets...

To be honest, i can understand, Saddam's desire to create these rockets, since for the last decade they've been at an unofficial war with the US, except for the fact that they can't hit back. However think of it along these lines. Every country has the right to protect its borders, and within the bounderies of the Middle East, there is the need to have a standing army/ranged weapons. Saddam, does provide security for his country from the scavangers from Iran, Kuwait, etc.

And whose fault is that? (Hint: Saddam's). Saddam refused to cooperate with the arms inspectors, so the UN had no option but to impose sanctions. If Saddam wants them lifted, then he just has to cooperate with the inspectors.

You, could probably answer a question i have. When did these inspections begin? I mean, has Iraq been inspected over the last decade or has it been a recent development? Also, if the inspections have been happening over the last decade, then how has Saddam managed to hide such weapons, or avoid co-operating?

However, the original comment was that Saddams rule has been a complete and unmitigated disaster for Iraq, in every single area. Not true. He's managed to be successful in getting one of the worlds superpowers interested in his small country.

As regards to the economy, it still stands that the majority of factors for its lack of success, lies at the feet of the UN & the US. The profits from their oil, could easily pay for food, the repairing of infrastructure, and yes, the development of missiles. But again, this lack of economic progression can hardly be laid at saddams feet.

One other point. Do you really think America would lift its sanctions on Iraq, just because Iraq obliged the weapon inspectors? Be Realistic. They might have agreed to another two weeks, but they're still bringing more troops/equipment into the area.

Sand

Originally posted by bonkey
Bit like Korea and Vietnam would have been the US' first two big chances to show the world how it could take care of business where it felt like it without adult supervision.

South Korea --- This is an example of a mess? The only thing the US failed to do was liberate North Korea and save their people from eating grass to live. They made a go of it but it would have required an incredible war effort that would have rivalled at least WW2s to beat China in Korea so they made the best of a bad situation. Greece was actually the USs first chance to show it could handle troublesome problem spots without adult surpervision when Britain bailed out in the late 40s and asked the US to support the Greek government against communist guerillas, leading to the americans commitment to aiding governments against communism.

Which handily enough led to their support of South Vietnams efforts to fend off the milatary ambitions of its Northern neighbour - they felt if they did not show the world their were determined to the extent of milatary force to prevent communisms exspansionist ambitions theyd encourage further crisises - leading to their haphazard engagement in a war which in hindsight would have again required a total war effort to win ( and the US attempting to expand social spending, whilst also anchoring the Bretton-Woods agreement couldnt afford to do ) which dragged on long after the US decided it wanted out because of the " must be seen to stand strong against communism" philosophy meant they required needed to come out of the peace deal in a good light.

By your "inability to learn and improve" theory, Sand, the US is just about the last nation in the world who should have been allowed on its interventionist ways, based on a success/failure criteria.

But, as usual, that will be different. The US was capable of learning, and can now get it right (and how is that not-yet-finished-war in Afghanistan that you said would be over in three months by the way). Europe, on the other hand, shouldnt be allowed near blunt paper scissors.

jc

Greece was hardly the model of a great place to live but thanks to the US efforts to help it fight off communism its become a democratic member of the EU. South Korea is a bloody success story, not only saved from the clutches of the North but a bit of an economic miracle too. Western Europe protected from a rather forceful Soviet empire. Vietnam was just the result of a regime willing to fight total war to the point of hammering pencils through the ears of schoolchildren who were taught anything american friendly - i.e. not the vietcong line, facing an army that wasnt able or willing to fight a war like that. It was on a scale far beyond the Balkans in terms of the difficulty of actually finding the enemy to begin with. The Balkans problem was solved first by a few US airstrikes, - after all the negotiating and comittees and stuff all it took was a demonstration of force to bring peace to the region. When Milosevic went internal with his pure serbia ideals it was again US bombing that brought him to the table, and in the long run it was a combination of that, and again the US's "bullyboy" tactics that led to his downfall. The EU? When theyre on the case, you can rest easy - theyve got a comittee on it.

Youve missed the most obvious example of US attempts to "fix" crises going badly wrong - Somalia was a bit of disaster, not in its plan to help end the genocide and chaos there through force if necessary, but rather the unwillingness to actually not make it a half arsed attempt and to pull out when the going got rough:|

Éomer of Rohan

No offence Sand but you obviously have utterly no comprehension of what communism really is or you wouldn't use the word in such an all encompassing fashion. The revolutionaries in Greece were Stalinists - MAJOR difference - the same stands for NK and so on.
Also I would like to point out this economic miracle of South Korea - South Korea has been dependent on US aid since it's inception and in fact only emerged as a stable country within the last 17 years - is a farce. The workers there, as you would know if you read any international newspaper, have been fighting a reargaurd action against a government that is eroding trading standards and labour laws and big business, including the US interests which are cutting wages and trying to ban Trade Unions - a benefit of so called democracy I thought? It is no democracy.
And the 'democracy' in Greece - what type of democracy has the near subjugation of a race enshrined in its constitution??? The attacks by government intelligence agencies on the muslim community is outrageous and has been condemned the world over - but you never thought to mention that.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
And the 'democracy' in Greece - what type of democracy has the near subjugation of a race enshrined in its constitution??? The attacks by government intelligence agencies on the muslim community is outrageous and has been condemned the world over - but you never thought to mention that.

Are you referring to this in the present tense? Do you have something to back it up. And most importantly, isn't it a bit off topic?