The United States Vs. The World

[Micah Foehammer]

Barry,

What would you have the US do? Sit idly by while Al-Qaeda hides away in Afghanistan and attacks us with impunity? Sit idly by until Hussein develops a nuclear weapon and ships it off in an Oil tanker to a US port or drops it on the Saudis, Iranians or more likely the Israelis? No one else appears willing to, let alone capable of, stepping up and dealing with these mad-men. Don't forget that there have been citizens of Australia, England, Canada and several other countries who have also lost their lives in these mindless attacks. Don't forget that the governments of several of these countries have ALSO sent troops to aid us. And in both cases, we have done so with a UN mandate.

I'm not advocating that we leave the UN however. Historically, the course of Isolationism has proven that it will only delay the inevitable.

[Suzaku]

I would like to point out that isolationism by the US did lead to the eventual collapse of international security after WW1. If you want detailed analysis of why, I'll post it, but otherwise I shall presume that you can all understand why.

[Barry the Sprout]

What you seem to be saying Micah, is based on some assumptions I agree with and some I don't. First off you say there are problems in the world - I agree. Secondly you say those problems have to be dealt with - I again agree with you on all of the problems you mentioned. They all have to get sorted one way or another. However you next seem to assume that because these problems need to be sorted out the only way to do them is the US way. Well, you may think that, and I don;t want to deprive you of the right to think that, but I most strongly disagree and threqads througout IW over the years will attest that many other people think the same as me.

I cannot equate thinking terrorists need to be caught with bombing Afghanistan. And because of that people often assume, as you appear to have done, that I actually don't want them caught at all. Or that if I do want them caught then I haven't realised that the US is the only one to do this. I have realised that if we are going to go in with troops then we need the US's help - but I don't think going in with troops is the right answer so I don't think the US is being very helpful. Thats a personal opinion, but this is politics and therefore everyone has a personal opinion. And the Americans out there making foreign policy can't decide to do what they like one minute and condemn countries for doing what they like the next.

I'm just saying that the UN is an admirable idea and criticism comes with it I'm afraid. Just picking up the ball and walking off the field once you've been declared offside is a little bit hypocritical I think.

[Timber Loftis]

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with BTS in theory here. If MD doesn't like the way CA is acting on an issue, they take it up in Congress - they don't secede.

The UN is the forum for presenting these problems and obtaining international approval and justification regarding your actions. Which is, BTW, the reason the US will be sure to have its lawyers lock in an approval before acting. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

But, the problem here with the withdrawing, etc. - this is the problem with international relations generally. It's basically contract law and non-binding. Plus, it's FOREIGN contract law to Brits and Americans. Ever write a contract with a Russian? It's not nearly so clear - lots of "it is our intent to" and "we aspire to" BS-type language with little enforceability. This is even more true when dealing with middle eastern and african nations.

The UN simply has no teeth. Signing on should put you in a situation where you can't withdraw without being in breach of the UN Charter. Too bad it's not that strong.

[WillowIX]

A strong UN might be the first step to a united Earth. Will that ever happen? I doubt it. Different countries want different things, and most of them are not willing to back down. France has been considered a thorn in the eye by the US (and several other countries) on several occasions because they won´t follow the rest of the west. China isn´t willing to support action against Iraq. I have no idea why, but my guess would be to spite the US.

Isn´t it mainly Seoul citizens that want the US military forces out of their country? The most common reason I´ve heard is the huge area the base in Seoul occupies, which could be converted to much needed housing. And of course the thousands of women sold into prostitution targetting US soldiers. Why the US should be blamed for that I have no idea. As for Germany I didn´t even know there was an opposition against the US military. But the Germans are sizing down their own army aren´t they? Why are US troops still stationed in Germany? Military training? Keeping a friendly military relationship? Tell me please (No I have no idea so, yes, please tell me )

[Timber Loftis]

WillowIX - the answer is simple: because the US *can.* You don't ever give up a military base on foreign soil unless you have to.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: WillowIX - the answer is simple: because the US *can.* You don't ever give up a military base on foreign soil unless you have to.

Even one in Germany? Even if they left they would still be allowed to use it right? Bah, I have no knowledge of military customs or international relations. But doesn´t the US "rent" their bases? Or is that only in the Middle East? I remember hearing something about a contract expiring which wouldn´t be renewed... Tell me more please TL! Enlighten me.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: What you seem to be saying Micah, is based on some assumptions I agree with and some I don't. First off you say there are problems in the world - I agree. Secondly you say those problems have to be dealt with - I again agree with you on all of the problems you mentioned. They all have to get sorted one way or another. However you next seem to assume that because these problems need to be sorted out the only way to do them is the US way. Well, you may think that, and I don;t want to deprive you of the right to think that, but I most strongly disagree and threqads througout IW over the years will attest that many other people think the same as me. I cannot equate thinking terrorists need to be caught with bombing Afghanistan. And because of that people often assume, as you appear to have done, that I actually don't want them caught at all. Or that if I do want them caught then I haven't realised that the US is the only one to do this. I have realised that if we are going to go in with troops then we need the US's help - but I don't think going in with troops is the right answer so I don't think the US is being very helpful. Thats a personal opinion, but this is politics and therefore everyone has a personal opinion. And the Americans out there making foreign policy can't decide to do what they like one minute and condemn countries for doing what they like the next. I'm just saying that the UN is an admirable idea and criticism comes with it I'm afraid. Just picking up the ball and walking off the field once you've been declared offside is a little bit hypocritical I think.

Barry,

I never once assumed that just because it's OUR way that it has to be right.

How would you propose that we catch the Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Politely ask them to pretty please come out of their holes? Be realistic. IMO, going in with ground troops is the only way they are going to be caught. You may not like that solution but offer me a workable alternative. Had the Taliban government NOT been avid supporters of the Al-Qaeda in the first place, I would have been content had the Afghan people / government themselves decided to oust the Al-Qaeda from their country. Unfortunately, the Afghan people were in no postion to have forced the removal of the Taliban. We're not the only country who felt that ground troops were the only solution - remember that it's a multi-national force, predominantly American to be sure, but multi-national nonetheless and supported by the UN.

As for Iraq, Hussein has been given opportunity after opportunity to dismantle his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and weapon programs. These were United Nations mandates, not just US requests. He shows no sign of even attempting to comply with the wishes of the international community. His every step has been designed to mislead, to confuse, to delay. Again, if US troops go back to IRAQ it will be with a UN mandate, perhaps, no PROBABLY a US engineered mandate - but a UN mandate nonetheless. If the troops aren't the right way to solve this problem, then the UN has the option to not grant the mandate for military force - but I'm betting that they do. Again, offer me at least ONE viable alternative to using ground troops to force Iraq's compliance.

I know these may not be an entirely popular position, and i can even be accused of just a little over-ardent patriotism or militarism. Offer me some workable alternatives in these cases.

[AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe]

why do you think America really sends money overseas, to help other countries? Absolutely not!! They send money over there strictly to protect their financial, political, or economic prosperity. Don't be deluded into thinking that America really cares about other countries' welfare. America cares about America and America will do whatever it think neccesary to protect American intersts, plain and simple.

[Mirac Honorguard]

America gets 24% oil from the middle east, 16% oil from Canada, 14% from Afrika, 14% from Venezuela and 12% from Mexico. They are quite dependend from the middle east.

No offense ment btw.

I dont think Europe would let US down. Not after what the US did for europe in WWII.