NATO Rift Widens over IRAQ

[etech]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I really do believe that other countries will re-evaluate their outlook on the military. When there was a common enemy in the form of the Soviet Union, our interests were the same. Now that appears to be changing. Europe is going one way, we another. To be sure, we have some support from lesser nations there, but eventually, Europe will become unified. Japan may not be content to allow themselves to be at the mercy of NK. Be a big investment for them, but perhaps the ability to respond when and as they see fit will outweigh that.

It doesn't bother you that the world will be rearming. The Europe of WWI and WWII will have to rearm. The Japan of WWII will have to rearm. Russia and the other former Soviet states will rearm. China will have even more to worry about and will step up it's arms purchases.

The world will not be a safer place when that happens.

May you be happy with what you have sown.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Stalingrad and Pearl Harbor

Did you mean to say Stalingrad and the Battle of Midway?

Actually I would say the beginning of the end was Pearl Harbor. This is when the sleeping giant woke up.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: justint
If this continues what international organizations will be relevant??

If we continue to tell the world to fvck off, it's not going to matter

So us against the world, and screw everyone else??

Well it appears the UN is actively working against the security of the US. So screw them.

Haha....sure. Screw the world. USA right, the rest of the world is wrong. 😉

It is unfortunate, but true. It seems the world would rather protect a dictator.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
:::YAWN::: We fought them several times before and kicked thier ass, nothing new.

After the Russians and British had worn them down and continued to sustain the bulk of the casualties. Don't discredit other nations contributions to the 2 World Wars, and be gratefull for how luck we were to have gotten off as easy as we did.

And we supplied the russians and brits with food, raw materials, weapons, designs, and everything else they asked for. Dont underestimate what the US put into WWII.

Oh believe me I am not. The mobilization of resources and production capacity was key to winning the war and was our single largest contribution to the war, but too many Americans think that we the brave Americans rode in on our horses and saved the day with no help from those cowardly inept Europeans or godless Russians. Just remember who did most of the dying and fighting in that war.

WWII was won at Stalingrad. Period. End of story.

Funny, I remember it lasting a bit longer than that.

It was at Stalingrad that Hitlers Blitzkrieg failed. At that point all was lost for the Germans one way or the other. It kept on going, but it was only a matter of time before the Axis fell.

The Reich was spent after Stalingrad, mortally wounded at Kursk. Of course afterwards everyone joined in to beat it to death.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: justint
If this continues what international organizations will be relevant??

If we continue to tell the world to fvck off, it's not going to matter

So us against the world, and screw everyone else??

Well it appears the UN is actively working against the security of the US. So screw them.

Haha....sure. Screw the world. USA right, the rest of the world is wrong. 😉

It is unfortunate, but true. It seems the world would rather protect a dictator.

They are not protecting a dictator. They are protecting 50+ years of a developing international order and trying to prevent more chaos and terrorism from arising from the middle east.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider I think we will see the Europeans and perhaps the Russians forming an alliance and perhaps a common military. The existance of the EU, with a common currency and constitution could make this happen. Be interesting to see what the balance of power is in 20 years or so.

Same as it is right now. Nothing the French do can ever be successful.

<sets alarm for 20 years>

I'll get back to ya on that. 😛

I'll place my bet on China as a major force in 20 years, if not sooner.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
:::YAWN::: We fought them several times before and kicked thier ass, nothing new.

After the Russians and British had worn them down and continued to sustain the bulk of the casualties. Don't discredit other nations contributions to the 2 World Wars, and be gratefull for how luck we were to have gotten off as easy as we did.

And we supplied the russians and brits with food, raw materials, weapons, designs, and everything else they asked for. Dont underestimate what the US put into WWII.

Oh believe me I am not. The mobilization of resources and production capacity was key to winning the war and was our single largest contribution to the war, but too many Americans think that we the brave Americans rode in on our horses and saved the day with no help from those cowardly inept Europeans or godless Russians. Just remember who did most of the dying and fighting in that war.

WWII was won at Stalingrad. Period. End of story.

Funny, I remember it lasting a bit longer than that.

It was at Stalingrad that Hitlers Blitzkrieg failed. At that point all was lost for the Germans one way or the other. It kept on going, but it was only a matter of time before the Axis fell.

The Reich was spent after Stalingrad, mortally wounded at Kursk. Of course afterwards everyone joined in to beat it to death.

True. Once the Germans and the Japanse could no longer advance they were finished. It was the Russians who stopped the Germans, and that can not be argued.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
:::YAWN::: We fought them several times before and kicked thier ass, nothing new.

After the Russians and British had worn them down and continued to sustain the bulk of the casualties. Don't discredit other nations contributions to the 2 World Wars, and be gratefull for how luck we were to have gotten off as easy as we did.

Had the US stayed out of WWI, there wouldn't have been a WWII. Nor might there have been a Soviet Union, PRC, Korean war, Vietnam war, etc. But who knows. Its seems to have been a defining moment.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: justint
If this continues what international organizations will be relevant??

If we continue to tell the world to fvck off, it's not going to matter

So us against the world, and screw everyone else??

Well it appears the UN is actively working against the security of the US. So screw them.

Haha....sure. Screw the world. USA right, the rest of the world is wrong. 😉

It is unfortunate, but true. It seems the world would rather protect a dictator.

They are not protecting a dictator. They are protecting 50+ years of a developing international order and trying to prevent more chaos and terrorism from arising from the middle east.

Yes and keeping this madman in power is great step for protecting world stability. I very much think security council not standing together against Saddam will cost far more lives than trying to keep the inspections going. IF the Security Council stood together, I think Saddam would much more easily fade away quietly, than having the US do a forced removal.

Continued inspections only give Saddam more time, nothing else.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider I really do believe that other countries will re-evaluate their outlook on the military. When there was a common enemy in the form of the Soviet Union, our interests were the same. Now that appears to be changing. Europe is going one way, we another. To be sure, we have some support from lesser nations there, but eventually, Europe will become unified. Japan may not be content to allow themselves to be at the mercy of NK. Be a big investment for them, but perhaps the ability to respond when and as they see fit will outweigh that.

That is quite possible. But at the same time I can a few European countries aligning them more along with the US than the EU.

Not for long and this is why. Economics. Say that these countries supporting us now keep being a thorn in the EUs side. These countries are looking for economic aid. Unless the US subsidizes them perpetually, they are going to have to deal with France, Germany and the like. Unless they want to be in the backwater forever, they will align themselves. Gradually the government will become more centralized. Happening right now. Not saying in 3 or 5 years, but certainly by time the next generation takes over. There will not be another WWxxx in Europe simply because of a common currency and trade. That was always more powerful than any treaty. Britian will be the only hold out, but even they will come around if ostracised by what I will call for sake of this discussion the US of E. Either they do that or they become a third world nation. Certainly, it would be too great an economic burden for us to put them on some kind of national welfare program.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
:::YAWN::: We fought them several times before and kicked thier ass, nothing new.

After the Russians and British had worn them down and continued to sustain the bulk of the casualties. Don't discredit other nations contributions to the 2 World Wars, and be gratefull for how luck we were to have gotten off as easy as we did.

Had the US stayed out of WWI, there wouldn't have been a WWII. Nor might there have been a Soviet Union, PRC, Korean war, Vietnam war, etc. But who knows. Its seems to have been a defining moment.

Yeah, and if pigs had wings they could fly. Just imagine how nice the world would have been if WWI did not start at all.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: justint
If this continues what international organizations will be relevant??

If we continue to tell the world to fvck off, it's not going to matter

So us against the world, and screw everyone else??

Well it appears the UN is actively working against the security of the US. So screw them.

Haha....sure. Screw the world. USA right, the rest of the world is wrong. 😉

It is unfortunate, but true. It seems the world would rather protect a dictator.

They are not protecting a dictator. They are protecting 50+ years of a developing international order and trying to prevent more chaos and terrorism from arising from the middle east.

Yes and keeping this madman in power is great step for protecting world stability. I very much think security council not standing together against Saddam will cost far more lives than trying to keep the inspections going. IF the Security Council stood together, I think Saddam would much more easily fade away quietly, than having the US do a forced removal.

Continued inspections only give Saddam more time, nothing else.

But will forcing the removal of this madman by unilateral military action and in the process wrecking the United Nations, the NATO alliance, and longstanding alliances between the most powerful Western Democracies as well as angering the Arab and Muslim world to no end contribute to world stability??? Will it do more harm than good.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider I really do believe that other countries will re-evaluate their outlook on the military. When there was a common enemy in the form of the Soviet Union, our interests were the same. Now that appears to be changing. Europe is going one way, we another. To be sure, we have some support from lesser nations there, but eventually, Europe will become unified. Japan may not be content to allow themselves to be at the mercy of NK. Be a big investment for them, but perhaps the ability to respond when and as they see fit will outweigh that.

That is quite possible. But at the same time I can a few European countries aligning them more along with the US than the EU.

Not for long and this is why. Economics. Say that these countries supporting us now keep being a thorn in the EUs side. These countries are looking for economic aid. Unless the US subsidizes them perpetually, they are going to have to deal with France, Germany and the like. Unless they want to be in the backwater forever, they will align themselves. Gradually the government will become more centralized. Happening right now. Not saying in 3 or 5 years, but certainly by time the next generation takes over. There will not be another WWxxx in Europe simply because of a common currency and trade. That was always more powerful than any treaty. Britian will be the only hold out, but even they will come around if ostracised by what I will call for sake of this discussion the US of E. Either they do that or they become a third world nation. Certainly, it would be too great an economic burden for us to put them on some kind of national welfare program.

Imagine a Nafta for Europe.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I really do believe that other countries will re-evaluate their outlook on the military. When there was a common enemy in the form of the Soviet Union, our interests were the same. Now that appears to be changing. Europe is going one way, we another. To be sure, we have some support from lesser nations there, but eventually, Europe will become unified. Japan may not be content to allow themselves to be at the mercy of NK. Be a big investment for them, but perhaps the ability to respond when and as they see fit will outweigh that.

It doesn't bother you that the world will be rearming. The Europe of WWI and WWII will have to rearm. The Japan of WWII will have to rearm. Russia and the other former Soviet states will rearm. China will have even more to worry about and will step up it's arms purchases.

The world will not be a safer place when that happens.

May you be happy with what you have sown.

The United States, actually, the Bush administration has created this current situation. They should have left things as they were with Iraq, as it is now snowballing into something much greater.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider I really do believe that other countries will re-evaluate their outlook on the military. When there was a common enemy in the form of the Soviet Union, our interests were the same. Now that appears to be changing. Europe is going one way, we another. To be sure, we have some support from lesser nations there, but eventually, Europe will become unified. Japan may not be content to allow themselves to be at the mercy of NK. Be a big investment for them, but perhaps the ability to respond when and as they see fit will outweigh that.

That is quite possible. But at the same time I can a few European countries aligning them more along with the US than the EU.

Not for long and this is why. Economics. Say that these countries supporting us now keep being a thorn in the EUs side. These countries are looking for economic aid. Unless the US subsidizes them perpetually, they are going to have to deal with France, Germany and the like. Unless they want to be in the backwater forever, they will align themselves. Gradually the government will become more centralized. Happening right now. Not saying in 3 or 5 years, but certainly by time the next generation takes over. There will not be another WWxxx in Europe simply because of a common currency and trade. That was always more powerful than any treaty. Britian will be the only hold out, but even they will come around if ostracised by what I will call for sake of this discussion the US of E. Either they do that or they become a third world nation. Certainly, it would be too great an economic burden for us to put them on some kind of national welfare program.

This is true. In the end Europe will esentially be a federal union with common monetary and security policies. The nations supporting the US (the newer members or NATO and the EU will eventually realize that the US does not offer them what the EU does.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: justint
If this continues what international organizations will be relevant??

If we continue to tell the world to fvck off, it's not going to matter

So us against the world, and screw everyone else??

Well it appears the UN is actively working against the security of the US. So screw them.

Haha....sure. Screw the world. USA right, the rest of the world is wrong. 😉

It is unfortunate, but true. It seems the world would rather protect a dictator.

The rest of the world doesn't want the United States as its dictator. Them's the facts.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider I really do believe that other countries will re-evaluate their outlook on the military. When there was a common enemy in the form of the Soviet Union, our interests were the same. Now that appears to be changing. Europe is going one way, we another. To be sure, we have some support from lesser nations there, but eventually, Europe will become unified. Japan may not be content to allow themselves to be at the mercy of NK. Be a big investment for them, but perhaps the ability to respond when and as they see fit will outweigh that.

That is quite possible. But at the same time I can a few European countries aligning them more along with the US than the EU.

Not for long and this is why. Economics. Say that these countries supporting us now keep being a thorn in the EUs side. These countries are looking for economic aid. Unless the US subsidizes them perpetually, they are going to have to deal with France, Germany and the like. Unless they want to be in the backwater forever, they will align themselves. Gradually the government will become more centralized. Happening right now. Not saying in 3 or 5 years, but certainly by time the next generation takes over. There will not be another WWxxx in Europe simply because of a common currency and trade. That was always more powerful than any treaty. Britian will be the only hold out, but even they will come around if ostracised by what I will call for sake of this discussion the US of E. Either they do that or they become a third world nation. Certainly, it would be too great an economic burden for us to put them on some kind of national welfare program.

Imagine a Nafta for Europe.

They already have that. It is called the EU. Trade between the US and Europe will never match intra Europe trade.

 

[Insane3D]

Did you listen to Powells speech at the UN last week?

Yes I did, from beginning to end. It was very well organized and executed. However, it did not convince me that there is such an immediate threat that we should attack Iraq without waiting for the support of the UN.

Do you think more inspections are going to get Saddam to give up his WMDS?

I can't say whether it will or will not for sure, but it seems like there is no reason why we can't give it some more time. In the end it may be fruitless, and we will be left with no other choice, but at least then we would have the full support of the UN. I just don't see where there is any immediate danger to us right now.

Do you think inspections are going to run the Al Queda cells out of Baghdad?

Well, the Al-Queda link that Powell presented seemed pretty weak to me. IIRC, he claimed there was a poison gas factory run by them in a part of Iraq that isn't controlled by Saddam, so I'm not sure where the link to the Iraqi government is. This also brings up the question of why, if we know about an Al-Queda poison gas plant, we haven't taken it out yet?

The inspectors in Iraq are nothing more tourists.

That may be somewhat true as it stands now. However, I think they could be much more effective in larger numbers with an appropriate peace keeping force accompanying them.

Let me just say I realize that war is sometimes a necessary evil, but I think we should never rush to it without trying to exhaust all other peaceful means first. I realize you will probably disagree with me, but that's part of what makes this country great.


🙂

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: justint
If this continues what international organizations will be relevant??

If we continue to tell the world to fvck off, it's not going to matter

So us against the world, and screw everyone else??

Well it appears the UN is actively working against the security of the US. So screw them.

Haha....sure. Screw the world. USA right, the rest of the world is wrong. 😉

It is unfortunate, but true. It seems the world would rather protect a dictator.

They are not protecting a dictator. They are protecting 50+ years of a developing international order and trying to prevent more chaos and terrorism from arising from the middle east.

Yes and keeping this madman in power is great step for protecting world stability. I very much think security council not standing together against Saddam will cost far more lives than trying to keep the inspections going. IF the Security Council stood together, I think Saddam would much more easily fade away quietly, than having the US do a forced removal.

Continued inspections only give Saddam more time, nothing else.

But will forcing the removal of this madman by unilateral military action and in the process wrecking the United Nations, the NATO alliance, and longstanding alliances between the most powerful Western Democracies as well as angering the Arab and Muslim world to no end contribute to world stability??? Will it do more harm than good.

And doing nothing is the answer? We have worked with the UN for the past 12 years with inspection.

How many more years of inspections do we need?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I think we will see the Europeans and perhaps the Russians forming an alliance and perhaps a common military. The existance of the EU, with a common currency and constitution could make this happen. Be interesting to see what the balance of power is in 20 years or so.

I think there is too much diversity and seperate political agendas for the EU to evolve a cohesive<sp?> and functing military. UN peace keeping missions have generally been cluster f**ks because there are too many cooks in the kitchen, and no country want's to send it's troops yet every country wants troops sent.

An alliance I could see, but not a common military.


Lethal

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: justint
If this continues what international organizations will be relevant??

If we continue to tell the world to fvck off, it's not going to matter

So us against the world, and screw everyone else??

Well it appears the UN is actively working against the security of the US. So screw them.

Haha....sure. Screw the world. USA right, the rest of the world is wrong. 😉

It is unfortunate, but true. It seems the world would rather protect a dictator.

The rest of the world doesn't want the United States as its dictator. Them's the facts.

And we dont want to be the dictator of the world. WE just want to clean a few ratholes out and be done.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: justint
If this continues what international organizations will be relevant??

If we continue to tell the world to fvck off, it's not going to matter

So us against the world, and screw everyone else??

Well it appears the UN is actively working against the security of the US. So screw them.

Haha....sure. Screw the world. USA right, the rest of the world is wrong. 😉

It is unfortunate, but true. It seems the world would rather protect a dictator.

They are not protecting a dictator. They are protecting 50+ years of a developing international order and trying to prevent more chaos and terrorism from arising from the middle east.

Yes and keeping this madman in power is great step for protecting world stability. I very much think security council not standing together against Saddam will cost far more lives than trying to keep the inspections going. IF the Security Council stood together, I think Saddam would much more easily fade away quietly, than having the US do a forced removal.

Continued inspections only give Saddam more time, nothing else.

But will forcing the removal of this madman by unilateral military action and in the process wrecking the United Nations, the NATO alliance, and longstanding alliances between the most powerful Western Democracies as well as angering the Arab and Muslim world to no end contribute to world stability??? Will it do more harm than good.

And doing nothing is the answer? We have worked with the UN for the past 12 years with inspection.

How many more years of inspections do we need?

No one is suggesting doing nothing. But taking military action without the support of the council is not a recipe for stability.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider I really do believe that other countries will re-evaluate their outlook on the military. When there was a common enemy in the form of the Soviet Union, our interests were the same. Now that appears to be changing. Europe is going one way, we another. To be sure, we have some support from lesser nations there, but eventually, Europe will become unified. Japan may not be content to allow themselves to be at the mercy of NK. Be a big investment for them, but perhaps the ability to respond when and as they see fit will outweigh that.

That is quite possible. But at the same time I can a few European countries aligning them more along with the US than the EU.

Not for long and this is why. Economics. Say that these countries supporting us now keep being a thorn in the EUs side. These countries are looking for economic aid. Unless the US subsidizes them perpetually, they are going to have to deal with France, Germany and the like. Unless they want to be in the backwater forever, they will align themselves. Gradually the government will become more centralized. Happening right now. Not saying in 3 or 5 years, but certainly by time the next generation takes over. There will not be another WWxxx in Europe simply because of a common currency and trade. That was always more powerful than any treaty. Britian will be the only hold out, but even they will come around if ostracised by what I will call for sake of this discussion the US of E. Either they do that or they become a third world nation. Certainly, it would be too great an economic burden for us to put them on some kind of national welfare program.

Imagine a Nafta for Europe.

They already have that. It is called the EU. Trade between the US and Europe will never match intra Europe trade.

Never is along time. And there are more than handful of european countries that are not a member of the EU.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison<brIt is unfortunate, but true. It seems the world would rather protect a dictator.

They are not protecting a dictator. They are protecting 50+ years of a developing international order and trying to prevent more chaos and terrorism from arising from the middle east.[/quote]

Yes and keeping this madman in power is great step for protecting world stability. I very much think security council not standing together against Saddam will cost far more lives than trying to keep the inspections going. IF the Security Council stood together, I think Saddam would much more easily fade away quietly, than having the US do a forced removal.

Continued inspections only give Saddam more time, nothing else.[/quote]

Well, here we go again. Saddam is hardly the worst leader out there, on any score. Bush and his drone like followers are completely fixated on him however. Not that it really is any of the United States business to begin with. You should be glade that the rest of the world no longer wants American help, they're starting to stand on their own.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: justint
If this continues what international organizations will be relevant??

If we continue to tell the world to fvck off, it's not going to matter

So us against the world, and screw everyone else??

Well it appears the UN is actively working against the security of the US. So screw them.

Haha....sure. Screw the world. USA right, the rest of the world is wrong. 😉

It is unfortunate, but true. It seems the world would rather protect a dictator.

They are not protecting a dictator. They are protecting 50+ years of a developing international order and trying to prevent more chaos and terrorism from arising from the middle east.

Yes and keeping this madman in power is great step for protecting world stability. I very much think security council not standing together against Saddam will cost far more lives than trying to keep the inspections going. IF the Security Council stood together, I think Saddam would much more easily fade away quietly, than having the US do a forced removal.

Continued inspections only give Saddam more time, nothing else.

But will forcing the removal of this madman by unilateral military action and in the process wrecking the United Nations, the NATO alliance, and longstanding alliances between the most powerful Western Democracies as well as angering the Arab and Muslim world to no end contribute to world stability??? Will it do more harm than good.

And doing nothing is the answer? We have worked with the UN for the past 12 years with inspection.

How many more years of inspections do we need?

No one is suggesting doing nothing. But taking military action without the support of the council is not a recipe for stability.

I would prefer to have the councils blessing, but this needs to be done reguardless of what the council says. The council has too many players with their own self interests involved at this point.