Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Thoran · 01-16-2003, 03:08 PM

GW is certainly rattling the sabre at the N. Koreans these days, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. IMO what we're seeing is that N.K. doesn't like the way they've been treated lately (understandably) and they're posturing to get it to change. GW apparently wants something to change on the Korean peninsula, and he's been shaking their cage. Could be he feels we should be getting more for all the aid we've been sending them, or perhaps he's pushing them so they'll blow even MORE of their GDP on defense... which will eventually be the death of em. I dunno.

These days US actions typically can be attributed to "maintaining a safe environment for Global Commerce". Sure people with agendas can attribute her behavior to all sorts of nefarious purposes, but the one that makes the most sense to me is that the US simply wants a world where she (and others by default) can go out and make money. If you think that's such a horrible thing then there's not much anyone is going to do to change your mind. I personally think that's perfectly reasonable. The US has taken the role of "policeman" or whatever you want to call it, and we've been doing it since the end of the Cold War (with success and failures aplenty).

Historically the entire world benefits greatly when there is a single Hegemonic power, and war is the typical result when no country is willing or able to take this role. The last time this was the case was 1900-1945, when the UK was weakened and the US had not yet stepped up to the plate.

So... my two cents...
do I like the US being the world policeman? - no
do I believe that SOMEONE needs to do this? - absolutely
is the UN CAPABLE of fulfilling this mission? - not as it operates (or doesn't operate) today.
COULD the UN fulfill this mission? - yes, but they'd need much bigger teeth to do it, more Clout, more backing from member nations, more LEADERSHIP at the top, less beaurocracy, less deadlocked immobility.
Do I think the U.S. going solo against "rogue nations" is a good idea? - it's a horrible idea
do I think the US needs to threaten to go solo to get the UN to do a friggin thing? - yup.
In the end... is GW nuts enough to go at Iraq alone? - I don't think so, he's already working hard to get our staunch allies with us... England being the chief among many. I think a lot of the more flagrant posturing is simply trying to ratchet up the pressure against Saddam and push the Int'l community to "make a move". I just wish the guy had a BIT MORE TACT. [img]smile.gif[/img]

01-16-2003, 03:08 PM	#54
Thoran Galvatron Join Date: January 10, 2002 Location: Upstate NY Age: 57 Posts: 2,109	GW is certainly rattling the sabre at the N. Koreans these days, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. IMO what we're seeing is that N.K. doesn't like the way they've been treated lately (understandably) and they're posturing to get it to change. GW apparently wants something to change on the Korean peninsula, and he's been shaking their cage. Could be he feels we should be getting more for all the aid we've been sending them, or perhaps he's pushing them so they'll blow even MORE of their GDP on defense... which will eventually be the death of em. I dunno. These days US actions typically can be attributed to "maintaining a safe environment for Global Commerce". Sure people with agendas can attribute her behavior to all sorts of nefarious purposes, but the one that makes the most sense to me is that the US simply wants a world where she (and others by default) can go out and make money. If you think that's such a horrible thing then there's not much anyone is going to do to change your mind. I personally think that's perfectly reasonable. The US has taken the role of "policeman" or whatever you want to call it, and we've been doing it since the end of the Cold War (with success and failures aplenty). Historically the entire world benefits greatly when there is a single Hegemonic power, and war is the typical result when no country is willing or able to take this role. The last time this was the case was 1900-1945, when the UK was weakened and the US had not yet stepped up to the plate. So... my two cents... do I like the US being the world policeman? - no do I believe that SOMEONE needs to do this? - absolutely is the UN CAPABLE of fulfilling this mission? - not as it operates (or doesn't operate) today. COULD the UN fulfill this mission? - yes, but they'd need much bigger teeth to do it, more Clout, more backing from member nations, more LEADERSHIP at the top, less beaurocracy, less deadlocked immobility. Do I think the U.S. going solo against "rogue nations" is a good idea? - it's a horrible idea do I think the US needs to threaten to go solo to get the UN to do a friggin thing? - yup. In the end... is GW nuts enough to go at Iraq alone? - I don't think so, he's already working hard to get our staunch allies with us... England being the chief among many. I think a lot of the more flagrant posturing is simply trying to ratchet up the pressure against Saddam and push the Int'l community to "make a move". I just wish the guy had a BIT MORE TACT. [img]smile.gif[/img]