Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

Artevelde said:

With all due respect, but you are wrong on multiple counts.

There was NO UN support for the NATO attack on Serbia.

The NATO attack on Serbia also didn't fall under NATO treaty obligations. No NATO country was attacked. The fact that NATO lent its structure for this attack doesn't mean it was a NATO treaty obligation, since this was an offensive operation.

Click to expand...

Such a tragedy to conduct an "offensive operation" on a criminal government that was ethnically cleansing the area, is it not? Poor Serbs! They were killing children, women, elderly, so well, and in daily basis, with most evil of methods (i.e., burning alive, butchering, etc), until that meddling NATO came to intervene so offensively! What a cursed day that was, yes? Hence it should not have done that, right?

Penderyn said:

There isn't a world community, and the capitalists always respond by making everything worse while they make profits, as we all know.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the iPhone making Chinese who now have a much more viable means of putting food on their tables.

Captain Adverse said:

Excuse me, but where is the "NO ONE" option? In my opinion NO ONE has the right to be the "world's policeman."

Click to expand...

Because nature abhors a vacuum, and a world without a worlds' policeman is your neighborhood without police. The biggest, meanest gangs rule. Then they become the policement as far their power allows. The closest to "no one" is the "regional" option.

P.S. It is not "isolationist" to respect the sovereignty of other nations and demand they respect OUR sovereignty. We can make our own alliances and deal with our own interests without outside interference.

Click to expand...

And what if our own interests include ensuring that the Suez Canal, Malacan Straits, and Persian Gulf remain open to our shipping? What if our interests are to maintain our nice, first-world lifestyle that is utterly dependent upon global trade which is in turn utterly dependent upon the U.S. security guarantee?

So what would it take to make the UN less ineffectual? As in, the US can scale back it's involvement if the UN scaled up?

Maybe if we made a deal in which US goods are tarrif, tax, duty free in the countries we deal with, as a means of paying us back a little?

DDD said:

Such a tragedy to conduct an "offensive operation" on a criminal government that was ethnically cleansing the area, is it not? Poor Serbs! They were killing children, women, elderly, so well, and in daily basis, with most evil of methods (i.e., burning alive, butchering, etc), until that meddling NATO came to intervene so offensively! What a cursed day that was, yes? Hence it should not have done that, right?

Click to expand...

I did oppose this unprovoked attack on a country that wasn't a threat to any of its neighbours, yes. I never was a fan of the Milosovic regime or its policy towards towards the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Very quickly after the war it became clear that there had been no attempted genocide by the Serbs (as had been claimed). And the net result of the war was an ethnic cleasing in reverse. Certainly not something I would like to see repeated.

Artevelde said:

With all due respect, but you are wrong on multiple counts.

There was NO UN support for the NATO attack on Serbia.

The NATO attack on Serbia also didn't fall under NATO treaty obligations. No NATO country was attacked. The fact that NATO lent its structure for this attack doesn't mean it was a NATO treaty obligation, since this was an offensive operation.

Click to expand...

I didn't say I agreed with it. I don't. However we are members of NATO and the council of members can decide how to use military force. Once the decision is made we abide by it. And while there was no UN "resolution" like Bosnia, there was a UN Resolution (1199) voicing concerns about "human rights violations" that NATO used to support their decision.

DDD said:

Right but mine "has no merit?"

Click to expand...

That's right...in MY opinion, your's has no merit. Tuff.

Now the rest of your post needs no response. I've said everything I need to say to you on the subject.

Captain Adverse said:

I didn't say I agreed with it. I don't. However we are members of NATO and the council of members can decide how to use military force. Once the decision is made we abide by it. And while there was no UN "resolution" like Bosnia, there was a UN Resolution (1199) voicing concerns about "human rights violations" that NATO used to support their decision.

Click to expand...

well hells bells- how many UN resolutions were there about Iraq? 23?

DDD said:

My stance on civilization being more easier in ME than Africa is not based on Biblical stories (sorry non religious here), but more to do with prejudice and somewhat primitive customs that Africans have been used to live in ever since the dawn of human kind. Do not know whether you had some time with them?

I have had the opportunity to be with the company of people from Africa whom were either businessman or academics. There are exceptions but I found them either juvenile or bullies. This on that business and academic level of people from various parts in Africa (i.e., what of the ones not as fortunate?).

They would hang with other black people sometimes American Africans. To which point they would express high prejudice towards me as the white in the table. It took the African American to put some sense back to them in words and that they obeyed. Perhaps there is a hint here that if some operations are to be done in Africa it might as well be conducted from Europeanized or Americanized Africans, for they seem to respect that!

If there was not prejudice there would be **** measuring of inappropriate styles for all of us at such gatherings (e.g., very close eye to eye starring, close higher chin posing, and at hominem critiques). Should you challenge one of them the rest would group in seconds trying to "defend" like in a pact.

All this from a very deep belief I imagine that they think that we look down on them to which they react to completing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rarely do they recognize that it is not about that. In that group of all of us only one approached and commented that it seemed not to be about measuring at an academic gathering.

Thus, unless they grow from all that and think things through better, there may be difficulties for civilization. These were the challenges with their elites. But in Africa you have people living in jungles too you know.

Click to expand...

My observation is there seems to be a culture of dishonesty and con-artistry with a lot of Africans I've met. In fact around half the Africans I've personally met seem to think dishonesty and scheming is the ticket to material success. On a more macro scale, we hear about widespread corruption and other problems in Africa that to me seem to be factors of their relative newness to representative government. Many of the problems we see in Africa with government was going on here a century ago and to a lesser extent even today that we finally matured out of for the most part. That's a lot different than the Middle East where suicide bombing is an act of worship.

Plus a big part of why there is so much of what we consider barbaric practices is because they embrace the Medieval Age and all that the 8th to the 11th centuries represented culturally. The devotion to reliving that time in history continually is tied inseparably to a type of nationalistic pride and patriotism. This is because the Medieval Age was their "Golden Age," taken from them through military defeat. If you study up on it its undeniable they were accomplishing some pretty impressive stuff back then for that time in history and they're very proud of that and in practice seek to relive that time in history forever. However, with that they also try to embrace every nuance of life back then including many of the very disturbing 8th to 11th century norms based on modern aka western standards. Another major component of their culture is they feel it is their duty to enforce compliance up to and including the use of deadly force to what they think is right behavior on others. As long as they see the 8th to 11th century culture as the right way to live, its their sacred duty to make everybody around them also comply and we're all up in their grill because of the utter importance of oil, I can't see an end to conflict.

Captain Adverse said:

I didn't say I agreed with it. I don't. However we are members of NATO and the council of members can decide how to use military force. Once the decision is made we abide by it. And while there was no UN "resolution" like Bosnia, there was a UN Resolution (1199) voicing concerns about "human rights violations" that NATO used to support their decision.

Click to expand...

No NATO member was under obligation to join in this campaign as it was outside the NATO area and outside the scope of the NATO Treaty.

cpwill said:

Because nature abhors a vacuum, and a world without a worlds' policeman is your neighborhood without police. The biggest, meanest gangs rule. Then they become the policement as far their power allows. The closest to "no one" is the "regional" option.

And what if our own interests include ensuring that the Suez Canal, Malacan Straits, and Persian Gulf remain open to our shipping? What if our interests are to maintain our nice, first-world lifestyle that is utterly dependent upon global trade which is in turn utterly dependent upon the U.S. security guarantee?

Click to expand...

Hmm, who owns the Suez Canal? I believe that's part of Egyptian territory or am I mistaken? Is it the ONLY route to the Red Sea or the Mediterranean? Gee, I wonder how people got around before it was built... LOL So because we are a superpower we can decide what things in a sovereign foreign nation are OUR things to control?

The Malaccan Straits is shared by two nations, but international law recognizes up to a 5 mile territorial limit for coastal waters. Should Malaysia and Indonesia ever unite, then the Straits would belong to a single nation and could be legally denied. If that, we'd just go around. Until then, like the Persian Gulf, it is open sea. Open seas are always free for all shipping. For any nation to prevent that is either an act of war or piracy...I have no problem defending our rights to sail the open seas.

I think I've answered your "trade" question by my responses above.

cpwill said:

well hells bells- how many UN resolutions were there about Iraq? 23?

Click to expand...

Hells bells I didn't want us in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia either... what can I say? I don't make foreign policy.

Artevelde said:

No NATO member was under obligation to join in this campaign as it was outside the NATO area and outside the scope of the NATO Treaty.

Click to expand...

So what? it was a NATO action, we are treaty members. I didn't approve of it either...but I don't make foreign policy. If I did we wouldn't be intervening so much.

Captain Adverse said:

Hmm, who owns the Suez Canal? I believe that's part of Egyptian territory or am I mistaken?

Click to expand...

It is part of Egyptian territory and the second reason why we have so strongly supported the Egyptian military over the past few decades.

Is it the ONLY route to the Red Sea or the Mediterranean?

Click to expand...

No. For example, you can also sail West and go around the southern tip of South America, across the Pacific Ocean (which covers 1/3 of the globe), and then through the Malaccan Straits and sail the Indian Ocean.

It is, however, far and away the best and critical route which is why so much time and effort was expended building it.

So because we are a superpower we can decide what things in a sovereign foreign nation are OUR things to control?

Click to expand...

You are the one who suggested we should look out for our interests. No fair getting upset when people point out to you that that is precisely what we are doing.

The Malaccan Straits is shared by two nations, but international law recognizes up to a 5 mile territorial limit for coastal waters. Should Malaysia and Indonesia ever unite, then the Straits would belong to a single nation and could be legally denied

Click to expand...

:shrug: or could be illegally (or legally) denied now.

Until then, like the Persian Gulf, it is open sea. Open seas are always free for all shipping.

Click to expand...

That is correct. And they are that way because the U.S. Navy undergirds and enforces a system that says it is - it is a role we partly developed ourselves and partly picked up from the British.

For any nation to prevent that is either an act of war or piracy...I have no problem defending our rights to sail the open seas.

Click to expand...

Fantastic. You should be aware that the "pirates" you will be dealing with will include among many others the nations of Iran and China.

I think I've answered your "trade" question by my responses above.

Click to expand...

Yes. You have basically reaffirmed our current position.

Captain Adverse said:

So what? it was a NATO action, we are treaty members. I didn't approve of it either...but I don't make foreign policy. If I did we wouldn't be intervening so much.

Click to expand...

So there was no obligation for the US to intervene. It was a free choice. And in that particular case a wrong-headed one.

Captain Adverse said:

Hells bells I didn't want us in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia either... what can I say? I don't make foreign policy.

Click to expand...

So did the UN resolution legitimize the NATO actions in Bosnia?

Captain Adverse said:

I never said you didn't have a right to your opinion, did I? We have a saying in the USA, maybe you've heard it? "Opinions are like (in polite terms) the anus, everyone has one."

This was about what I considered your flippant, unsolicited response to an issue of major concern to my country and my fellow countrymen.

Everyone demands that we step in and defend "democracy," or "morals," or "human rights;" yet whenever we do it ends up becoming a disaster for us. Our allies smile but treat us like a loose cannon, our enemies smile and try to figure out how to use it against us, and all the neutrals smile and think we are interfering bullies.

Even the people who ask us for help are never satisfied; it's either not enough interference/aid or too much interference/aid. And EVERYONE hopes one day we'll fall on our self-rightious ass and maybe learn a little humility.

Personally, I think we need to talk softly, talk softly some more, and keep being diplomatic until the only option left is to bring out the big stick and knock the other guy so deep into the dirt he will NEVER be a problem again.

Click to expand...

Great post! I think this describes how most American citizens feel about it in a nutshell.

cpwill said:

So did the UN resolution legitimize the NATO actions in Bosnia?

Click to expand...

No, it didn't.

cpwill said:

It is part of Egyptian territory and the second reason why we have so strongly supported the Egyptian military over the past few decades.

Click to expand...

Good to know..which means that despite our "interests" we have no right to control it or to try to destablize an unfriendly government in order to try to control it. That means we just sail around instead. Why? Because we can without war or bullying, as you so nicely pointed out in your other segmented replies.

cpwill said:

You are the one who suggested we should look out for our interests. No fair getting upset when people point out to you that that is precisely what we are doing.

Click to expand...

Sorry, don't generalize or twist my words. I have made it very clear when military intervention is acceptable...simply because it might make things "easier" for us or "more profitable" does not constitute my support for a war. For your kind of logic talk to Big Oil and corporate interests like Haliburton.

cpwill said:

That is correct. And they are that way because the U.S. Navy undergirds and enforces a system that says it is - it is a role we partly developed ourselves and partly picked up from the British.

Click to expand...

Thats a circular world policeman argument that I don't buy. "The oceans are free because WE keep them free, and we keep them free because the oceans ARE free." LOL

cpwill said:

Fantastic. You should be aware that the "pirates" you will be dealing with will include among many others the nations of Iran and China.

Click to expand...

Sorry, did you miss the part about "act of war?" Chinese or Iranian naval action (i.e. military action of national forces like the act Obama contemplates in Syria) is an act of war. Piracy is reserved for "independent" gangs of individuals.

cpwill said:

Yes. You have basically reaffirmed our current position.

Click to expand...

Nice try, but no. We don't keep the oceans free. They are free because they are simply too big to control (or patrol) and because any nation that tried would lose trade doing so. If you mean they are free for US to go just about wherever we want because we currently have the biggest navy...that lasts only as long as we KEEP the biggest navy. Notice China is building up their navy there partner? I wonder how much longer we will have the biggest navy the way our economy is going....

We have no moral high ground to act as the world's policeman. In fact, we have no moral high ground at all, we simply have the power currently to bully just about anyone we want. That's why Obama drew his "red line in the sand," because he thought Assad would never cross it. Now he's stuck between acting and maybe getting us into another little dirty war, or backing off and embarassing us internationally.

If we didn't keep acting the bully, we would not be getting into such messes in the first place.

KevinKohler said:

Tell that to the iPhone making Chinese who now have a much more viable means of putting food on their tables.

Click to expand...

Some of them. Why not do something about your incredible prison and spy systems or the third-world standard of your poor before attacking other countries if you believe your masters give a twopenny whatsit for ordinary people?

Sherman123 said:

Our foreign and military posture is not the source of our financial and fiscal woes.

Click to expand...

Disagree.
Wars are expensive...the flow of money in a war is on a one-way street....never to return
Vietnam was becoming so costly that we HAD to leave.
WW2 , how did we ever finance that ??

Helix said:

my opinion :

we cover the Americas, China deals with Asia, and Saudi Arabia handles the Middle East. we maintain our alliance with Israel.

if we're to be global cop, there needs to be a global tax to pay for it. even if there were, though, i still wouldn't support it.

also, any police action needs to be met with wartime tax rates at home. we can't afford to put another one on the credit card, and also, shared sacrifice. all tax brackets should go up significantly until the mission is complete.

Click to expand...

All good ideas...
Judging on the behavior of the nations, there is a need for police....Syria goes beyond this need... But it is a civil war there , I think...I do not think at times that any nation in that area, other than Israel is ready to govern itself....probably the re-birth of an Ottoman Empire would be worse...maybe...

earthworm said:

Disagree.
Wars are expensive...the flow of money in a war is on a one-way street....never to return
Vietnam was becoming so costly that we HAD to leave.
WW2 , how did we ever finance that ??

Click to expand...

Historical Top Tax Rates and Wartime « Reality Check

the recent wars are the only ones we haven't raised taxes for.

it's apparent how well that one worked.

Artevelde said:

I did oppose this unprovoked attack on a country that wasn't a threat to any of its neighbours, yes. I never was a fan of the Milosovic regime or its policy towards towards the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Very quickly after the war it became clear that there had been no attempted genocide by the Serbs (as had been claimed). And the net result of the war was an ethnic cleasing in reverse. Certainly not something I would like to see repeated.

Click to expand...

Wait a second, you deny the genocide?

Captain Adverse said:

That's right...in MY opinion, your's has no merit. Tuff.

Now the rest of your post needs no response. I've said everything I need to say to you on the subject.

Click to expand...

Okay. Just that, in my opinion, your opinion has no merit neither then.