I would counter that by saying that seeking UN approval to defend ourselves and our sovereign right as a nation state to live reasonably free of terror is not weak, it's just plain pointless and stupid. The UN is a decison-making committee, and anyone who's done anything through a committee knows that comittees stink. We have loads of committees in Washington to address things like poverty, homelesness, the sorry state of rural and inner-city school, pollution, and drug abuse...and we all know how well those committees work. Hell, technically, going out on a date is a committee-- a committee of two people. Yet this committee can spend hours in tortured debate over whether to go out for Italian or Chinese and whether to see an action movie or a chick flick afterwards...usually was both parties winding up unhappy.

World terrorism is, of course, a world-wide problem. And most certainly, spirited cooperation between nations would make the task easier and strengthen diplomatic ties (shared hardship is the best way to build a friendship). But I do not think the US should try and make everyone happy at the expense of our security-- Bill Clinton did that for 8 years, and the same people that are supposed to be pissed at us for acting unilaterally (the Arabs, the Chinese, the French, and the Russians) were pissed at us when we were kissing major butt.

Quote:

Originally posted by Morgeruat: about asking the UN for help with Iraq specifically, that's good politics

No, it's yet another colossally bad idea. HOw are they gonna help? THe last time a Bush was in office he asked for their help with Iraq and wound up doing all the work himself anyway. Hell, if it was up to the UN, the Kuwaitis would be speaking Arabic...okay, bad example, but I think you know what I mean. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

Then they passed a resolution that was supposed to fix Saddam's wagon and make sure he couldn't terrorize the region...and we all know how well that worked. After months of political wire-pulling and gamesmanship, the only damn thing the UN has done of note is pass yet another resolution stating that enforcing the first resolution would be a good idea.

And I won't even spend the time cataloguing the way the UN has made a goat-screw out of most of the other problems they were supposed to "fix."

Quote:

Originally posted by Morgeruat: it's much better to ask for approval (something the US tends not to do more than we should) than to go off and do our thing (something the international arena screams at us unceasingly for

Actually, it's much easier to get forgiveness than approval. ;) And the rest of the world can, as far as I'm concerned, pipe down about what we're supposed to do. "THe rest of the world" does not want us aggresively defending ourselves from terrorist...oh, by they're all too happy to pontificate to America about its solemn duty as a world power to "be a leader" and solve everyone ELSES problems. Such as browbeating us into fiascos like the relief mission in Somalia or dragging us kicking and screaming into Kosovo. Some in the global leaderhsip community have been making noise about how it's the job of the US to solve the Arab/Isreali problem up to and including deploying troops to keep them apart...and we all know how much Arabs love it when US troops deploy on their turf. Almost as much as the fiercely proud and protective Isrealis would enjoy US troops barging in, setting up camp, and telling them their business.

ALong this same line, I've really just about had it hearing about how "the Arab world" is going to rise up in unison and clobber the US if we invade Iraq. You may remember how the Arab world rose up and clobbered us the LAST time we invaded Iraq (which many said would happen). It was almost as bad as when they rose up in unison and clobbered up for invading Afghanistan and bombing Libya like many "experts" swore would happen...the same "experts" who said that the war with Iraq in '91 and the invasion of Afghanistan in '01 would surely result in long, bloody, protracted military and political quagmires (the "Another Vietname" Syndrome). I think it's safe to say that the experts are full of it.</font>[/QUOTE]I agree wholeheartedly, and yet how many US bashing threads have there been because we ignored the UN and it's bloated-basically useless system, the League of Nations (after WW1) had many of the same problems, members would ignore dictates, and not take it seriously, the only (main) diference with the UN is that the United States IS a member this time, and we are used as the worlds police force, I think things should be more evenly spread, UN troops are trained in the US, many of the weapons are developed for UN compatibility (the M16 A2 uses standard UN rounds(could be NATO, I'm not sure and don't feel like looking it up) almost anywhere there's UN action involving ground soldiers you find US troops in with everyone else.

the easiest way to avoid getting things thrown in our faces, like keeping the rest of the arab world from jumping on us like rabid dogs, is to get the UN's rubber stamp, will the Iraq inspections work, i doubt it but I'm (perhaps foolishly) optimistic.

There was a very real and credible threat to most of the Middle East in Desert Storm, if Saddam had kept his troops moving he would have swept away the US infantry on the ground at the time and taken much of Saudi Arabia before we could have gotten our heavy weapons in place (I work at the army war college and have access to lectures, and briefings about such things, and have put several of them on CD's for use by the students), now there is no obvious "I'm going to take your country by force" attitude from Saddam which makes the attitude trickier, much of the middle east dislikes our presence, it's only a matter of time before Saudi ejects us from the airbases we have there, as much of the country dislikes us.

will the arabs unite and destroy american military in the region if we had just attacked, not likely, but they could hurt us in diferent ways, remember OPEC, the only country there that has a real reason to like us is Kuwait (an interesting aside, George Bush is the only western name parents are allowed to name their children in Kuwait)

in short, does the United Nations work, no. i agree with that statement.

do we need their backing... i'll have to say yes, it looks better on paper and gives our critics less to complain about if we ask for their permission, again it's only a rubber stamp

should the US stay out of everything that isn't in the Western Hemisphere, (my personal exception being Israel, I think we should continue to support them as long as it takes) personally I'd say yes, as has previously been said many times before, we have enough problems with drugs, homelessness, unemployment, crime, and a hundred other things that we could be spending the billions that go into foreign aid on(for countries that hate us) but again our critics on the worldwide front would tear into us for abandoning our commitments, the same ones who tear into us for making those commitments.

Well my friend, I think this is where we venture into the thorny problem of all blind people the world over grabbing different parts of the same elephant and arriving at different conclusions about what we're grabbing ahold of.

I'll look yet again, but I don't really see where I was employing quite so much bluster. I think the problem is that it is indeed a forgone conclusion that all else notwithstanding, we're the undisputed heavyweight champ in terms of our ability to project military power. And I can understand how this scares the crap out people, or at least makes them uneasy, when we get riled up start throwing punches.

However, I think it is likewise true that there is such a great expectation that we'll temper out use of force with judicious wisdom that we'll negate it entirely. I heard others complain time and time again about how big bully-boy America is beating up on smaller. weaker militaries like those fielded by the Taliban or the Hussein regime in Iraq. Well, the whole purpose of having a gargantuan, well-funded, well-trained, and highly effective (read: lethal) military is to KEEP THE PEACE by providing a strong disincentive for other countries to resort to violently aggressive diplomacy. At any rate, if Saddam or Al Queda or OBL are fanatical enough to adopt a "victory or death" attitude and dumb enough to adopt it against a military force against which they are hopelessly outclassed, that's their fault.

Once again, I agree that doing things in an agreeable way is nice...but at what cost? I for one do not expect our President to allow out country to be threatened, terrorized, and ultimately weakened by violent thugs, fanatics, and paranoid dictators for the sake of appealing to the fickle whims and fancies of the world community.

To Gregster,

Well debated good sir - top marks - always nice to see someone considering what was said, and constructing arguments in antipathy without simply being dismissive of the other (in this case, my) point of view.

On your final point I can follow your logic, but we will have to agree to disagree - I still support America and the War on Terror, but I believe that most American's I have talked to would prefer to be part of a broad coalition led by the US under UN auspices than to push things even further toward the "US v the world" scenario.

Well thanks, bud. I do what I can to make it clear that I'm not saying I'm right-- just that I think I am. ;)

Once again, I agree it would be nice if the right-thinking leaders of the world set aside their petty differences and worked together to quash the mutual threat to us all. BUt as always, there's the way it oughta be and then there's the way it is. If the UN sits on its hands because it's quarrelsome and inefficient, or the Arabs do because of pan-Arabic fool's pride and reflexive distrust of the West, or the Russians do to keep their oil contracts safe, or the EU does because they don't want to feel inconsequential within the New World Order, and the US if forced to act on its own, so be.

The whole ugly affair serves to remind me that America really is the World's Policeman. Lots of people like us and support us. Probably as many say we're bullies, enamored of our power and authority, swaggering around and acting the big shot 'cuz it makes us feel good, and giving preferential treatment to the other guy, and endlessly critical of our lapses in judgement. But the same people who gripe and moan and sue and picket the cops do not waste a single moment grabbing the phone and dialing "911" when some thug in a ski mask carrying a crowbar starts kicking the back door in. And at the end of the day, everyone is safer when the police are on the job.

I read the topic and skipped to the end. My 2c on the "War on terror" is that it is just another straw man propped up by politicians to misguide our attention from the problems at hand.If the "War on drugs" is any indication of how people will proceede with "the war on terror" all I can say is that we are in for a bumpy ,expensive and futile ride to absolutely nowhere.

I dunno about that. Actually, many weapons systems of late design we created with NATO compatibility in mind, not UN. Example: the main gun and fire control system on the M1A1 tank I crewed on in Desert Storm was of West German design and/or manufacture, and the 120mm shells we were issued were German. Armor doctrine up until the end of the Cold War presupposed a coordinated West German/American/NATO defense against a massive Soviet armor and motorized infantry blitz into Western Europe...this sort of compatibility makes sure there's plenty of bullets that everyone can use to fling downrange at the bad guys.

Likewise, most NATO member small-arms use roughly the same ammo-- 7.52x51 ammo in light machineguns and some rifles, .50 heavy machinegun, 9mm pistol and submachinegun rounds, etc (much of the push to do away with the venerable .45 1911 pistol that served the US so well for 75 years was that is was incompatible with the 9mm sidearms just about everyone else had, hence the adoption of the Beretta). The M16A2 uses a 5.56mm round which some countries (i.e. France and the UK) have adopted, but only fairly recently and grudgingly as many still don't trust their lethality and longe-range effectiveness (though the move towards lighter gear for more mobile grunts is changing that thinking).

Of course, NATO has now been bring a lot of former Commie Bloc/Warsaw Pact nations into the fold whose weapons are not even close to compatible. There is a great deal of consistency in the weapons and ammo used by UN member nations, though I believe this has more to do with the fact that a relative few small arms (and ammo) enjoy prominence among the world's armies. It costs enough to go through testing and procurement of any new weapon without adding the cost of lining up procurement of a whole new type of ammo.

It sure seems that way, but I wouldn't bet large sums of money on it. No amount of anti-Western sentiment is going to supplant the Saudis fundamental desire to keep their prosperous kingdom from getting pounded like a slab of cheap minute steak by one of their psycho neighbors.

Yep, those of us who are old enough to remember the gas-rationing and long lines at the pump during the '70s shudder at the thought of the return of those days. BUt oh well. Just like then, basic macroeconomics will set in Americans will resign themselves to doing away with their gas-splurging sedans and trucks and start clearing all the car dealers of their fuel-efficient Jap four-bangers. There will another oil glut just like in the '80s, and we will laugh our asses off will OPEC goes broke and is forced to bring down the price of oil again.

[ 11-27-2002, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Gregster ]

In reality war causes terror as much as terrorism does, only in war you can write of the civilians dead as colateral damage, but in terrorism you aim for civilians. Both are pointless in light of better alternatives. Both are sad, and both shall live while fear dwells in people's hearts.

well said

I dunno about that. Actually, many weapons systems of late design we created with NATO compatibility in mind, not UN. </font>[/QUOTE]ok, I wasn't completely sure about that one, thanx for correcting my info.

[ 11-28-2002, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

conservatives are a political party in england so when im called a conservative i assume thats what is meant, cultural difference there.

and im not condemning all of america for what kiddies say online the majority of americans that i know online honestly believe american almost singlehandedly won the 2nd world war, and what donut said is also something that does get me angry, the bit in pearl harbour (which i havent watched but seen trailers for) it actually does get me properly angry to hear "the 2nd world war has just started" because that is just continuing the whole issue whereby people believe hollywood and take from there, so the next generation of americans will believe the 2nd world war was mainly fought by america and thats sad i find, im trying not to generalise btw.

as for britain being close to collapse, at no point in the 2nd world war was that true, they were in strict rationing just in case which didnt wear off till the early 1950s just to keep the economy safe but it was more a just in case there are problems rather than there actually being problems, the country was self-sufficient still back then, lack of imports were a griveous blow but not a fatal one, nowadays it would be as we dont rely enough on our economy but thats another issue.

oh and it was dover castle probably, i been to the underground works there countless times, very very interesting and lots of fun [img]smile.gif[/img]

tony blair is widely regarded in that opinion that i stated in england that is, most people i know share that opinion (but still vote for the muppet)

and documented proof of things that happened before even symbols were used (ie before cavemen) erm no i cant obviously and neither can u noone can prove it eitherway, the relgious would say text came from god and god was first therefore religion must have come before morals and therefore shaped morals and the non religious would say morals came first and shaped religion as religion is based in humans and NOT in a divine being (thats what i believe religion to be) both arguments are not debatable as theres no way to prove either, maybe in death we'll see who was right and if its me then ill come back as a ghost and roundly laugh at people ;) anyhows its a pointless issue because its not provable for either side so believe what you want to believe.

england is one of the most expensive countries in the world after japan, we get screwed on taxes (vat on almost everything bought and sold to 17.5 percent) (income tax to 40% on income over 27 grand) we get stuffed on prices thats for sure but you cant blame that one on tony blair, blame it on a succession of goverments in the uk both labour and conservative [img]tongue.gif[/img]

and yes the RAF did win the battle of britain without much aid from america and could have continued to defend for a while but eventually would have been overrun more than likely. I am very proud of their acheivements against superior numbers and equipment and i feel it is belittled by the argument that the americans "saved our asses" my final point on that whole issue is this

Britain saved americas asses
America saved britains asses
They worked together as true allies and whupped nazi butts and good triumphed over evil and thats the way it should be.

btw i dont think people are annoyed at america for offering aid which cost money, i mean thats obvious, the reason were annoyed is america offer aid which costs us everyone accepts thats the way of the world and thanks for the aid but DONT turn round and say to us that america stepped in out of the goodness of their hearts to help us out economically, they did it for profit the same as everyone else would, i just want people to be clear on that, thanks for the aid but nuff said, not worth going on about unless you clarify the reasons for that aid. Nowadays countries do offer aid without reward which is great and all power to them, but back in the 1940s that did not happen.

cerek - ya cant plug them trust me or did the dinosaurs all live happily with adam and eve? and how did adam and eve the first and only humans on the planet continue to procreate down to grandchildren with two sons ? we got some serious incest issues going on? anyhows its impossible to convert me even if god did exist and came down and proved it to me my response would be "thats nice, but i didnt ask to worship you, i didnt ask to be created and frankly your not my problem or concern, good job on all the creation and thanks for being a nice guy and all but go find someone else to worship you" just aint happenign with me im afraid [img]tongue.gif[/img]

hehehe

Grungi,

I can't disagree with any of your points. In both Wars, America played the part of the Cavalry as you see in movies. Coming in all flashy and mopping up ......... at the last possilbe moment, after the hard work has been done, and claiming all the glory. Your claims are the same as the US 101st ABN DIV. 3rd AD claims they "rescued" the 101st at the Battle of the Bulge, and the 101st denys they needed rescueing. There is not doubt that the success in Europe was a combined effort, but we arogent Americans tend to forget that. In the Pacific though, that was the US Navy and Marines 100%.