Ed Waller Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Although to be fair, Lend-Lease was pretty handy... Despite the facts that: 1 the US demands of war, 2 fears that the privations of US business (ha ha) were benefiting European business successively reduced it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymond Blair Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Saddam would have been allowed to remain in power so long as he created no threat to world stability.The conflict which he was on the road to initiation, would have drawn virtually all nations into what would have been an Arab vs. many nation conflict, which would have had effect upon the entire world population. For this reason, and this reason alone, he was removed. It is by far more advantageous to swat the mosquito than to have to treat and recover from the malaria which it can spread. It seems to me that this theory was disproven in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. Instead of being a rising threat to the region, Hussein was revealed to be a blustering dictator intent on remaining in power. After his tussles with Islamic Fundamentalism in the Iran war it is hard to imagine that short of being desperate he was going to give WMDs to terrorists and then clearly removed from power after having done this. (The US would definitely have attacked at that point) Hussein was swatted when he tried to play Bismarck to the Arab world by starting with Kuwait. He was swatted hard and effectively. The policy of containing him seems to have been a success and the original Bush's decision to not remove Hussein seems to have been the right one. Similarly the United States stepped in to promote democracy in the aftermath of the French Indochina war in 1954. We have not yet stopped an election but our policies there did not bear fruit in 20 years of direct action. Saddam Hussein was removed for many reasons and many of those were to prove a point for the PNAC doctrine of American military and political power for the neo-conservative foreign policy. That it is likely to be disastrous to scare the world back into militarism by the American use of their oversized military with an act of preemptive war seems to be lost on many in the United States. Where is our credibility today if India or China decides to invade a neighbor? Or Russia, or Zimbabwe? Or Turkey? The previous system worked because the US did not bully its allies and perceived threats in blatant ways. Now a new balance of power is in the making and sane countries are looking to put their place in a PNAC orchestrated balance of power. Iraq was contained and Hussein was an evil dictator who had the same intentions as most heavy handed dictators, to so suppress his own people that they would not rise against him until he died of natural causes. To continue to stick to the doctrine that Hussein was a rising threat to the world after 1993 is an act of faith not science. And I would suggest that you find a new diplomatic spiritual advisor. The United States is presently the greatest danger to itself. The world was our oyster and now I believe that we have triggered a new age of militarism that will stress our budget to try to remain as the top dog. Can anyone say Dreadnought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Saddam would have been allowed to remain in power so long as he created no threat to world stability. The conflict which he was on the road to initiation, would have drawn virtually all nations into what would have been an Arab vs. many nation conflict, which would have had effect upon the entire world population. For this reason, and this reason alone, he was removed. It is by far more advantageous to swat the mosquito than to have to treat and recover from the malaria which it can spread. It seems to me that this theory was disproven in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. Instead of being a rising threat to the region, Hussein was revealed to be a blustering dictator intent on remaining in power. After his tussles with Islamic Fundamentalism in the Iran war it is hard to imagine that short of being desperate he was going to give WMDs to terrorists and then clearly removed from power after having done this. (The US would definitely have attacked at that point) Hussein was swatted when he tried to play Bismarck to the Arab world by starting with Kuwait. He was swatted hard and effectively. The policy of containing him seems to have been a success and the original Bush's decision to not remove Hussein seems to have been the right one. Similarly the United States stepped in to promote democracy in the aftermath of the French Indochina war in 1954. We have not yet stopped an election but our policies there did not bear fruit in 20 years of direct action. Saddam Hussein was removed for many reasons and many of those were to prove a point for the PNAC doctrine of American military and political power for the neo-conservative foreign policy. That it is likely to be disastrous to scare the world back into militarism by the American use of their oversized military with an act of preemptive war seems to be lost on many in the United States. Where is our credibility today if India or China decides to invade a neighbor? Or Russia, or Zimbabwe? Or Turkey? The previous system worked because the US did not bully its allies and perceived threats in blatant ways. Now a new balance of power is in the making and sane countries are looking to put their place in a PNAC orchestrated balance of power. Iraq was contained and Hussein was an evil dictator who had the same intentions as most heavy handed dictators, to so suppress his own people that they would not rise against him until he died of natural causes. To continue to stick to the doctrine that Hussein was a rising threat to the world after 1993 is an act of faith not science. And I would suggest that you find a new diplomatic spiritual advisor. The United States is presently the greatest danger to itself. The world was our oyster and now I believe that we have triggered a new age of militarism that will stress our budget to try to remain as the top dog. Can anyone say Dreadnought? Intervention in Indo-China/Vietnam was to prevent the French from incurring a completely humiliating defeat. Let me think now, we armed and trained Castro, as well as provided he required support necessary for him to gain power, then we allowed him to remain in power. We armed and trained Ho Chi Minh and for a number of years conducted a "delayed action" conflict against him, only to finally pull out of Vietnam and allow his forces to take over the entire country. Vietnam is now a relatively peaceful and prospering country. In both instances, the peoples of these countries are now governed by persons of their own ethnic background, without the capitalistic rape of their resources which the US has in the past been quite well known for. Saddam was on the near verge of drawing us into a "lose/lose" situation which would have constituted an Israeli/Arab conflict. He had conducted border skirmishes with Iran for some 8 years with no success. He had attacked Kuwait with initial alarming success, only to be driven back. He had waged a campaign against the Kurds of the North, only to be restricted by the air power of the US operating out of Turkey. He had no other direction to turn, other than eastward across Syria or Jordan, to Israel. Had we waited until such an event, or more likely waited until such time as Israel was forced into direct action, the overall conflict would have ultimately encompassed most of the Arab nations, with, in all probability, Iran joining directly with Iraq. Lastly, someone has severely mis-informed you in regards to out "oversized" military. Since the 1970's (after Vietnam), the active duty strength of the US Armed forces has been progressively decreased. We, the US, have progressively worked toward changing our economic structure from the old "Military/Industrial" complex, to an economy which is not based on military strength and expenditures of tax revenues to support a large active duty force. As with the Soviet Union, when an economy is consuming a large portion of it's GNP revenues in paying for an extensive armed force, the remainder of the economy suffers. To the extent possible, the conflict in Iraq is being conducted with National Guard and Reserve forces. This is of course a part of the overall military strategy to provide us with such "Civillian" armed forces, who have the necessary training and experience to actually go to war if required. As with most things, the reasons which the Government gives to the American people and the world, is seldom the "whole truth". Think "Glomar Explorer"! Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymond Blair Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Lastly, someone has severely mis-informed you in regards to out "oversized" military. I was referring to a world in which other countries decide that they can no longer risk being behind the United States in military capabilities. I guess I misinformed myself through sources like the CIA factook about US military expenditures. 1 United States $ 370,700,000,000 March 2003 2 China $ 67,490,000,000 2004 3 Japan $ 45,841,000,000 2004 4 France $ 45,238,100,000 2003 5 United Kingdom $ 42,836,500,000 2003 6 Germany $ 35,063,000,000 2003 7 Italy $ 28,182,800,000 2003 8 Saudi Arabia $ 18,000,000,000 2002 9 India $ 16,970,000,000 2004 10 Australia $ 16,650,000,000 2004 11 Korea, South $ 16,180,000,000 2004 12 Turkey $ 12,155,000,000 2003 13 Brazil $ 11,000,000,000 2004 14 Spain $ 9,906,500,000 2003 15 Canada $ 9,801,700,000 2003 16 Netherlands $ 9,408,000,000 2004 17 Israel $ 9,110,000,000 FY03 18 Taiwan $ 7,574,000,000 2003 19 Mexico $ 6,043,000,000 2004 20 Greece $ 5,890,000,000 2004 21 Sweden $ 5,729,000,000 2004 22 Korea, North $ 5,217,400,000 FY02 23 Singapore $ 4,470,000,000 NA 24 Argentina $ 4,300,000,000 NA 25 Iran $ 4,300,000,000 2003 est Factbook Of course we can turn it around to say perecent of GDP, but really it turns around to be a "my army can beat up your army" realpolitik reality doesn't it. And I wonder if the US figure reflects monetary assitance to many of our strategic allies around the world. I also wonder is any other country has troops posted all over the world. 144 nations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Lastly, someone has severely mis-informed you in regards to out "oversized" military. I was referring to a world in which other countries decide that they can no longer risk being behind the United States in military capabilities. I guess I misinformed myself through sources like the CIA factook about US military expenditures. 1 United States $ 370,700,000,000 March 2003 2 China $ 67,490,000,000 2004 3 Japan $ 45,841,000,000 2004 4 France $ 45,238,100,000 2003 5 United Kingdom $ 42,836,500,000 2003 6 Germany $ 35,063,000,000 2003 7 Italy $ 28,182,800,000 2003 8 Saudi Arabia $ 18,000,000,000 2002 9 India $ 16,970,000,000 2004 10 Australia $ 16,650,000,000 2004 11 Korea, South $ 16,180,000,000 2004 12 Turkey $ 12,155,000,000 2003 13 Brazil $ 11,000,000,000 2004 14 Spain $ 9,906,500,000 2003 15 Canada $ 9,801,700,000 2003 16 Netherlands $ 9,408,000,000 2004 17 Israel $ 9,110,000,000 FY03 18 Taiwan $ 7,574,000,000 2003 19 Mexico $ 6,043,000,000 2004 20 Greece $ 5,890,000,000 2004 21 Sweden $ 5,729,000,000 2004 22 Korea, North $ 5,217,400,000 FY02 23 Singapore $ 4,470,000,000 NA 24 Argentina $ 4,300,000,000 NA 25 Iran $ 4,300,000,000 2003 est Factbook Of course we can turn it around to say perecent of GDP, but really it turns around to be a "my army can beat up your army" realpolitik reality doesn't it. And I wonder if the US figure reflects monetary assitance to many of our strategic allies around the world. I also wonder is any other country has troops posted all over the world. 144 nations The expenditures are for the "smart" weapons which we now possess which allow us to win virtually any conflict with minimal human casualties, as well as having to maintain only a minimal strength active duty fighting force. Technological weapons systems are extremely expensive. The "freeing" of millions of dollars into "human" salaries, medical care, retirement, etc; by reduction in force size, has given the monies to pursue these new weapon systems. Currently, the program is underway to develop an entirely new system of drone helicopters and drone aircraft which can not only gather information, but engage targets if necessary as well. Certainly, all are expensive, however, the American society will no longer accept massive human casualties, which will not win a war on the technological battlefield anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now