Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
NYC to GOP: Drop Dead
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Sands: [QB] Jay, I'm sorry to hear that your efforts to become a professional historian failed. I'm also sorry UCLA didn't work. I know a little bit about not getting in the first time, so I can imagine some of the frustration you feel. Good luck on whichever path you choose. (If this is all old news, forgive me: I've been out of the loop with law school for three years.) Regarding your immediate comment about what Bush has been doing about Iran, I think we both understand something has to be done. But the reason I don't think Bush has been delinquent on Iran is that we would never have been able to fight both Iraq and Iran at the same time. People complain about an overstretched military. This is where that overstretching hurts. We can't fight all our battles at once. I noticed the other day that Kerry came out with an initial take on the Iran situation, allowing them to keep their reactors but with some kind of locks on their spent fuel. (I think they did the same in North Korea for a while with satalite links. Someone correct me if I have remembered incorrectly.) I'm really uncomfortable leaving that kind of infrastructure, especially in a nation that energy rich. It really stretches "dual-use" pretty thin. But give me a few days to catch up on Kerry's Iran policy and I will have more to say. As for North Korea, I honestly don't know what to say because I haven't followed that theater of conflict well. I don't know enough to give a sophisticated opinion on what to do with them. So on this, I really can't give you a meaty response. However, if desperate for a snapshot answer on what very little I know, I think there's huge potential for failure no matter what course of action either candidate would take. So on that vote, neither candidate has an advantage in my view. Lee, on making lots more people ready to kill us, I think a rational case can be made either way. And because we don't really have polling that I know of on who is willing to do what to US interests, I won't try to argue over that point using the only available tool left: rhetoric. However, alienating the rest of the world is relative to me. The starting point for me is Lord Palmerston's axiom: nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests. What that idea gets at is that there is no "ratchet" of concordance with nations' aims. Just because someone once shared our aims does not mean that they will also work to help us achieve our aims in the future. I suspect that what most people who say we are alienating the world mean is that we no longer abide the objections of the Rhineland countries, Russia, and China as to invading Iraq. However, there are a lot of other nations that [i]do[/i] support us. Here is a list from list from the Heritage Foundation as of March 2003 along with summaries of what their support entails: [QUOTE] Afghanistan: Afghanistan has pledged its support for the U.S. backed effort to disarm Iraq. May open airspace to U.S. and allied military flights. Albania: Offered to send troops. Approved U.S. use of airspace and bases. Angola:* Australia: Sent 2,000-strong force of elite SAS troops, fighter jets and warships to the Gulf. Azerbaijan:* Bahrain: Headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Bulgaria: Offered use of airspace, base and refueling for U.S. warplanes; sent 150 non-combat troops specializing in chemical and biological warfare decontamination. Canada:* Sent military planners to join U.S. counterparts at their command post in Qatar. A destroyer and two frigates sent to the region could protect U.S. ships. Colombia:* Croatia: Airspace and airports open to civilian transport planes from the coalition. Czech Republic: Sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to U.S. request. Denmark: The government decided to take part in the military action with submarine, surface ships, and a medical team comprised of 70 elite Jaegerkorps soldiers. Dominican Republic:* El Salvador* Eritrea* Estonia* Ethiopia: Ethiopia has publicly pledged its support for the U.S. backed effort to disarm Iraq. Georgia: Georgia has expressed strong support for the U.S. attack on Iraq, and has offered both its airspace and military bases to support the campaign.3 Greece: U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. sixth fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes. Honduras:* Hungary: Hosts a U.S. base where Iraqi exiles are trained for possible post-war administrative roles. NATO can use the country�s roads, railways and airspace to carry military support for Turkey�s defense. May open airspace for U.S. military flights. Iceland: * Italy: Offered logistical help and use of military bases and ports under longstanding NATO commitments. Japan: Japan expressed unequivocal support for U.S. plans to forcibly disarm Iraq. Will provide post-conflict assistance. Jordan: Opened its airspace to coalition planes; hosts U.S. troops carrying out search and rescue operations in western Iraq and manning a Patriot anti-missile defense system. Kuwait: Hosts coalition forces massed for an invasion. Latvia: Government has decided to ask parliament to authorize the deployment of a small number of troops. Lithuania: Authorized use of airspace for U.S. backed mission to disarm Iraq. Macedonia* Marshall Islands:* Micronesia:* Mongolia:* Netherlands: A few hundred Dutch troops are stationed in Turkey to operate three Patriot missile defense systems, allowing movement of U.S. troops and supplies from Germany through the Netherlands en route to the Persian Gulf. Nicaragua* Norway: Offered to send 10,000 chemical warfare suits to Turkey. Philippines: The Philippine National Security Council offered political support for a U.S. led war to disarm Iraq. Poland: To deploy up to 200 troops in the Gulf region, which will perform an unspecified non-combat role, supporting the U.S.-led offensive. A few dozen Grom elite commando troops and transport ship already stationed in the Gulf area, as part of the Afghanistan campaign, could be enlisted. Portugal: Made available NATO air bases and an air base in the Azores. Qatar: Hosts a mobile HQ for U.S. Central Command; allowed Washington to expand an airfield to handle more combat jets. Romania: Airspace and a base open to U.S. warplanes; sent non-combat specialists in chemical decontamination, medics, engineers and military police in response to a U.S. request. Will make available Black Sea air and naval bases. Rwanda:* Saudi Arabia: U.S. and British planes use its Prince Sultan Air Base to enforce a "no-fly zone" over southern Iraq. Singapore:* Slovakia: Sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to a U.S. request. Has approved U.S. flyovers and use of its bases. Slovenia: Signed the Vilnius 10 declaration supporting the United States Solomon Islands: South Korea: Seoul will dispatch some 500 army engineers to support a U.S. led war on Iraq, in addition to post-war assistance. Spain: Strongest ally of the United States and Britain. Promised use of its NATO bases for a strike on Iraq. Spain will send a medical support vessel equipped with nuclear, biological and chemical treatment facilities. A frigate and 900 troops will accompany the support vessel in the event of a conflict. Taiwan: Taipei opened its airspace to U.S. military aircraft. Turkey: Hosts U.S. planes enforcing "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq. Turkey has granted the United States the use of its airspace.) Uganda:* Ukraine: Agreed to U.S. request that it send chemical warfare and nuclear decontamination experts United Arab Emirates: Base for U.S. reconnaissance aircraft and refueling; host to an estimated 3,000 western troops. Has pledged 4,000 troops supported by Apache attack helicopters, Leclerc tanks, BMP3 amphibious armored vehicles, a missile boat and a frigate to defend Kuwait in case of war in Iraq. United Kingdom: Washington's chief ally on Iraq has sent or committed 45,000 military personnel, planes and warships. Uzbekistan* * Countries mentioned by Secretary Powell. [/QUOTE]Information was taken from [URL=http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm]here[/URL]. (Spain has pulled out, but I thought it was useful to list that it supported us until 3/11.) While it is true that some of those nations have comparatively little to offer the US while fighting in Iraq, some do: Poland ended up sending the Grom commandos. Denmark, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands all sent top notch forces. Now, listing all those countries doesn't really answer the question of whether that is sufficient support since Russia, France, Germany, and China don't approve. But my short answer to that objection is that the history of the UN Security Council acting as an affirmative agent of collective standards which might otherwise demand response is slim. Other than the Korean War, the Gulf War, and the bombing of Serbia, it has never been able to mediate conflicting Great Powers who have stakes in conflicts. Though it was envisioned as such by men like FDR and Churchill, most scholars of international studies generally agree that the arrangement of the voting power of the Security Council is not representative of what [i]ought[/i] to happen, but merely what the parties [i]want[/i] to happen. I also don't think it's much of an objectiont to say we should have waited to get French and German troops. Military commentators around the globe have remarked on the sorry states of those militaries relative to the expertise of the US, UK, and Australian troops. I doubt that adding them into the equation would make a marked difference in the peacibleness of the Baathist fighters trying to blow everything apart. As for Sun Tzu, I'll admit I was disappointed to see that movie steal such a great title. But, then again, Hollywood has recycled lots of names for movies before. (Just type "Gladiator" into IMDB.) But to respond to your substantive point, I would say that Sun Tzu is still taught at all the military academies, as well as at the advanced academies like the US Army War College. And Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse Tung also used it to win their wars. I must disagree with you. He is still relevant. And certainly more useful as a system of warfare than Clausewitz or the distant third, Jomini. Cartman: I think the war [i]is[/i] foreign relations. You stated, "global-scale terrorism cannot be fought (let alone defeated) without first addressing the question of why 'Islamofascism' is running so rampant out there and that formulating the right answer to its popularity will require international input." I fail to see why we must address whatever econo-political problems yielded Islamofascism [i]first[/i]. Waiting around to try diplomatic and cultural transformation of the underlying conditions would not stop those already hell-bent on killing [i]now[/i]. It's not a matter of choosing one theater to the exclusion of others until you find a silver bullet answer to the problem. I don't think anyone in the national security establishment, be they Ds or Rs, really thinks just trying one method of engagement is going to suffice. Granted, some will think some forms will be more effective than others, but saying we have to look to underlying causes first has [i]never[/i] been a winning strategy in [i]any[/i] war. The most effective multi-pronged way of warfare similar to the way we are fighting right now is the Philippine insurrections of the very early twentieth century. While the US Army fought the rebels in the mountains, engineers followed after and built infrastructure like roads and schools that eliminated many of the conditions the rebels had been complaining about. It worked then. It can work again. Back to Jay: I don't really see how a verbal showing of solidarity behind defeating our enemies qualifies as "barbaric." What I was trying to get at with that vignette was that the responses of the delegates indicates the general mindset of the parties who are represented by the candidates. I think the appropriateness of the image of 9/11 is linked to what you think the appropriate response is. I for one don't want to sit, grouse, and examine the sociological implications of acts like 9/11 in the hopes of some collaberative understanding and harmonious consensus. I want to get even, prevent them from doing this to other nations, and thereby increase by some degree what justice is found in the world. That's a feeling of aroused anger, not pensive sorrow. To both Jay and Cartman: I don't know if this would represent some kind of middle ground, but read [URL=http://www.techcentralstation.com/061604B.html]this[/URL] and tell me if this is what you had in mind. Back once again to Jay: I will freely admit, I used to think like you that a president who didn't do policy ought not to be as worthy of respect as one who does. However, I learned a few things in law school working at the side of one of the top lobbyists in Washington who was nice enough to commute down to Alabama every week to teach us. Reagan (I think) observed that the people you choose [i]are[/i] the policy. [i]No[/i] effective president does policy. What some of my MBA friends were telling me of why they thought Clinton wasn't as effective as he could have been was because he tried to do too much himself. Intellectuals loved it that he wined and dined them, but his White House was regarded by many to be one of the most ineffective ones of this half-century. I would also point out that even most members of Congress don't read everything. Remember the scene in [i]Farenheit 9/11[/i] where John Conyers told Michael Moore that no one there read everything? If you want to read more on this, try the last chapter of [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201624702/qid=1094264394/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-3584476-1280765?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]this book[/URL]. (The author is [i]very[/i] liberal. Even he says presidents just don't have the time to sit and think about issues and indefinitely as people like us do periodically throughout the day.) So ulimtately, the response to "Bush doesn't do policy" is, so what? No president who gets things done ever does. They provide the basic direction they want and tell their subordinates to implement it. Bush has his priorities set. He has chosen the people he wants to make his vision happen. So whatever relative lack of wonkishness he has really isn't as consequential as most people think. OK, and to respond lastly to the Slate piece in simple declarative sentences... [URL=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/453ttpaz.asp]Economic health is not merely a measure of jobs.[/URL] Corporate fraud is not something that really could have been prevented by Bush. (Sorry, still looking for the best of only a thousand anti-Sarbanes-Oxley articles to link here; give me time.) Not all reasons for the war were based on false premises. It will take decades to sort out which groups Saddam was working with (we know Abu Nidal for sure). We needed to deliver humanitarian support. And we needed to stop someone who had tortured thousands of people. For the aforementioned reasons, I just don't see Saletan's article as demonstrating a dearth of accomplishments. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3