For how long will justice be muted? Iraqi war against Kuwait.

Franchise2001:

Hey, moron. They don't keep every worthwhile article on earth on-line. I did find several articles that implied Arab-Israelis were not normally allowed in the military, but none that stated it explicitly, hence my not-posting it.

Whether or not you believe it, Israeli-Muslims are not allowed in the Israeli military with very few exceptions.

The Druz-sect is for the reason that nobody knows exactly what they believe. Very interesting sect. They refuse to discuss any theological issues with outsiders.

Incidentally, my theology professor, Dr. Thomas M. Beaudoin, served in the Israeli defense force and will vauch for the accuracy of my statements.

 

glynch:

1) You are right about the oil. And just think about that: without the money they recieve for the oil they would have almost no income, and their economies would be totally shattered. So they basically hate us because we pay their bills. Odd, isn't it?

2) That is a lie. We do not support "whatever policy Sharon or the Israelis have at the moment". We have repeatedly asked them to end the settlements, and even to pull out of the occupied terrirories even at times when it would be detrimental to their security situation, so what you wrote is simply a lie.

Tell them to accept the next deal, and everything will be fine. They can have their state, get the Israelis out of their territory, end the settlements, etc. if they'd just accept a deal and abide by it.

My "faulty assumptions" are based on realities that you deny (some people cannot be dealt with peacefully, the majority of Arabs dislike us, the Israelis are not the only a*sholes in the middle east). You seem to think that the US truly is evil, and while I admit that we are not 100% innocent (who is?), the fact that their leaders have told them to hate us since they were born probably has more to do with their feelings than anything that we have actually done.

It is my personal belief that you simply hate this country and wish to lay the blame for 9/11 entirely on us for our foreign policy. You have said nothing as of yet that places the blame anywhere else. I wonder why that is?

Oh, really? So you believe everything that the official line is saying? I thought you didn't trust our government?

 

Respectable debate gets a separate post.

Ah, not a matter of "the victor," so much as its the best way for countries to get what they want.

If everyone just allied with the most powerful state, said state would have little reason to ever give concessions. Other states would be mere vassal's and not valued by the hegemon.

Any state that doesn't allow approximately 40% of its population to vote and deprives them of basic rights relative to their other citizens like economic activity, education, etc on the basis of race... is fascist and racist.

Different argument entirely. Huge difference between justifying Arab invasions of Israel, and acknowldging that Israel treats its Arab population like ****. That would be like treating German-Americans like 2nd class citizens for the decades following ww2.

You completely put words in my mouth! I think they're all wrong. I tend to focus on Israel because Americans are completely blind to the fact that Israel's a racist state.

I don't need to tell people that Arab nations aren't always exactly nice to Israel.

At the heighth of US power, we were capable of fighting two Gulf-War conflict simultaneously with one smaller peace operation (like Somalia). Now, we continue to attempt to maintain that mission, even though even internal military reviews acknowledge that we're completely incapable of doing so and that we're ac tually canabalizing our military in the attempt to maintain battle readiness.

Success in the late 21st century will be determined by supranational institutions. Insofar as we weaken these institutions, we're damaging our future.

Sorry, that's completely inaccurate. The US is able to project force on par with its relative superiority. It takes more states in coalition to oppose us, we're more able to dominate, it lowers the relative "cost" to us in terms of taking any individual action. For example, Africa never needs to "catch-up" as a region... the closer they get, the less likely they (as a region) are to jump when we tell them to.

At the end of WW2, the US produced an AMAZING 50+% of the world's GDP. It was capable of opposing its will almost at will among its Allies. The US has never enjoyed such a period of dominance again thanks to actual growth but "relative" decline.

China will surpass the US in terms of GDP within the next 45 years, if not sooner. The progress made in terms of growth is really amazing. As for civil war... well, that's always a possibility. And then, there's the fact that certain provinces have started to become more autonomous. So, to an extent, there's even the question of their government's ability to project a coherent front. Some provinces (Hunan, I believe, for one) have become industrialized and have established very close ties with US businesses. These provinces actually lobby the central government in a pro-Western fashion at times.

So, perhaps you're right. But China has been a monolithic state for quite a while now. After centuries of solidarity (well, relative... they've had their share of internecine conflict)... I have trouble believing that any Chinese split would be irrevocable.

As for the EU.... well, that threat to US hegemony is very real. A couple of factors diminish it though:

1. Some nations seem committed to expanding the EU at the price of deepening the degree of union itself. Germany, for example, wants to extend into the Balkans. There's absolutely no way that nations jealous of their autonomy like Great Britain will consent to binding themselves to such states.

2. The EU has failed its last few tests of political solidarity and cohesion. The big "testing ground" for the EU's "cohesive" foreign policy was supposed to be Bosnia. Oops. They failed miserably, and the US had to step in and handle "their" problem for them.

3. Inter-EU rivalry conflicts between Great Britain and France and Germany. Great Britain and France generally side together on substantive issues, such as interaction with the United States. However, Germany often sides with France on structural issues such as surrendering increased sovereignty to the EU. Hence, you have the three Great Power states of the EU in a triangular pattern of opposition to each other.

My guess is that all these issues will be resolved in time. After all, European states have HATED become accustomed to merely being "great powers" rather than super powers. They're well aware that a united Europe is their only hope of maintaining elite nation status on par with the US and maybe China into the 21st century. So I think they'll resolve their differences, especially after the current economic forms are better integrated, and after the new "you can vote anywhere in the EU" programs are implemented.

But it will take a while.

Armies are becoming increasingly irrelevant overseas. There are two key features to US strength: maritime power and our missiles. Even the air force is a red herring, as most non-government experts actually think the airforce is already 98% redundant with missiles. Rumsfield actually advised beginning to scrap the air force when he entered power, but retracted once there was too much opposition in industry and in the air force bureaucracy.

China might never develop a navy capable of projecting power across the globe. But it already has ICBM's (even if they stink). China should have ICBM's capable of providing an effective projection of power in the relatively (10-15 years, perhaps?) near offing.

I don't think he realizes the futility of the US acting as a hegemon.

I'm post-modernist enough to believe that everybody has "bias." It's developing beliefs that have internally logical frameworks that's the issue. I don't believe in absolute truth in this world. But I do believe in superior of interpretation and rules that define superiority of interpretation.

 

haven:

You seem to think that the Palestinians are going to get respect and rights before they stop blowing up school buses. Is that the optimist in you speaking again? Not until they cease the violence.

Apparently I need to, because one will never hear a peep about it from the pro-Palestinian side, which you appear to be on. I have yet to hear you you, glynch, boy, Q8, or anyone else from the pro-Palestinian side mention it.

Actually, the 2 MRC (major regional conflict) had been policy for a while (it was never 2.5), but it has degraded to about 1.5 MRC (one major war, plus a Kosovo-type conflict). That is still within our capability to do - despite the cutbacks - and it is still far better than anyone else can do. The closest anyone else can come would be about a .5 MRC. It is extremely difficult to move modern land forces over long distances, and we will be light years ahead of everyone else in this dedpartment for decades at the minimum.

There you go with that "nation-states are no longer relevant" gobbledygook again... It's going to be a lot longer than you think before a "United Council of Earth States" is able to get a handle on world peace... And until it does, nation states will be the primary actors in global politics. I am not saying that there's no place for coalitions - they will be more important than ever. I am just saying that no one can really tell the world's superpower what it can and cannot do yet.

I want to hear how anyone will be able to stop us if we decide to take unilateral action? The only way is to form a coalition to oppose us, and everyone will be reluctant to do so as long as we maintain our relative and our absolute advantages.

Thinking that the rest of the world will catch up enough to oppose us without ganging up on us is ridiculous. And I have a hard time coming up with any situation in which a large number of nations would gang up on us, even though most of the world dislikes us. I don't see much of an anti-US coalition forming up right now, do you?

I agree on maritime power. As for missiles, they will only be useful to balance out Chinese growth. But you've forgotten the most important part of all: land power. The US Army (and the Marine Corps) is without question the most powerful Army in the world, even if it is not the largest. Training and technology make up for what it lacks in size.

The greatest threat that can ever be made against another state is that of defeat and deposition on the ground (losing power and being occupied). That has been true since the first cavedweller picked up a rock, and it will be true when the robots are doing the fighting for us. Some things never change.

As for scrapping the air force, not gonna happen. The JSF will, however, be the last manned fighter ever built for the USAF, Navy, or Marines. That is what he was talking about, not getting rid of the air force...

 

haven:

 

treeman:

I'll reply to the bulk of your post later tonight once I get home from work (this computer really, really sucks)... but I wanted to ask you oen thing first.

Do you have a link to an official document detailing the purchase of a Russian carrier? I had not heard of this. As far as I've heard, the most recent significant purchase was that of 200 Russian planes (that were 20 years old).

As far as I know, China, besides not having the technology, doesn't even have the military logistical support structure necessary to operate a carrier.

Very interesting, if your information is accurate. I'm just surprised that I haven't read this elsewhere.

If it is true, I can imagine this is going to mean thousands of more jobs for Americans as we build another couple carriers to "match" the Chinese .

 

haven - This is not where I heard it from, but...

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/wnt980729_varyag.html

Before 9/11 we actually had plans to cut one of our CVBGs. I suspect that won't happen now.

 

<A HREF="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/plan/cv.htm">Chinese Aircraft Carrier Project</A>

<A HREF="http://naval-technology.com/projects/kuznetsov/index.html">What the Varyag would have looked like if completed</A>


Mango

 

Thanks for the links, mango and treeman. Hardly sounds frightening. I'd guess they want to "study" it like the old Australian carrier mentioned.

Not sure how much we should continue this Treeman, since we seem to have run up against each other's sticking points now. In any event, here I go...

I think that both sides are about equally dishonest.

And quite frankly... I don't give a **** about history. I've heard pro-israeli and pro-Palestinian people debate the history to death. I don't care. Just like I don't really care that much that the US illegally occupied the West. Happened too long ago for me to care. And I dont' want to make reparations for slavery .

I do care about how they're acting now. I really believe that this problem could have been cut off at the pass if Israel had made a good-faith attempt to assimilate its Arab citizens, as well as those in the occupied territories. That's probably why I blame Israel more, because I think they made the real fundamental mistake.

Obviously, we'd all prefer peace marches with little children joining hands and signing peace carrolls. Obviously the violence needs to stop on both sides. Obviously the Palestinians aren't being completely honest either.

But Israel is behaving very poorly for a supposedly modern state. I've argued it both ways... generally, I'll end up pro-Israeli while discussing the situation with one side, and pro-Palestinian the other. I do think I've failed to give you an accurage guage of my feelings. But you see, I don't need to defend the poor, blighted Israelis right here !

Untrue, the EU is a fully functional supranational institution that, some errors aside, functions pretty well in an economic sense, and fairly well in a foreign policy sense. And it's gradually improving on that front.

There are also various supranational institutions like the WTO in the realm of trade, and they work fairly well. It only makes sense that these organizations would originate in the economic sector, as that's the first aspect of globalization.

And I stress: I don't believe that supranationalism will take the form of a "United States of the World." It'll be a gradual transition with more and more authority being handed over to various institutions. Eventually, these supranational institutions will have disputes amongst each other, necessitating a governing authority.

The creation of the nation-state took hundreds of years; a "world" government has only existed as an truly coherent idea since the early 20th century. Give it some time.

Purposefully designed to fail... no. Designed so that it couldn't truly succeed? yes. Did they know about the integral design flaws? Probably. It just doesn't have enough coercive authority.

It'll happen as it IS happening in Europe: states will surrender sovereignty as they realize it's necessary for prosperity and security.

You've got hangups with both the UN and Saddam . The UN has its uses. But more importantly, the international arena is a club of statemen. They face the challenges of c ooperation... or not doing so. If we confront challenges with the methodology of fostering cooperation, we'll be better off in the long run. Otherwise, such concepts will be discredited.

Control? No. Project power, yes.

Incidentally, that carrier sounds less than frightening .

I'm not advocat abandoning our ground forces, just reducing them. Incidentally, I can't really fathom what we gained from the Gulf War. I think it was a mistake.

Let's face it, rational actors are generally going to avoid bombing campaigns. If they're too strong to fear such, then I'd rather avoid a war with them anyway.

I'm not saying ground power is worthless... but it's our navy that guarantees US power.

I don't believe the US could ever have defeated the Soviet Union in a conventional war in Europe. Even as late as 1985(that's correct, right?) Reagan was exerting heavy pressure on Germany to accept mid-range nukes. The reason? He knew if the Soviets came, we'd lose a ground war. And the Germans had problems believing the US would retaliate with nukes... unless the nukes were there.

I don't know enough about the specifics of the US arsenal to comment on the rest.

Unmanned planes... perhaps... I'm not incredibly interested either way at the moment . Doesn't really matter, as long as whatever is decided is effective...

And in many aspects, completely removed from the original topic.

 

When all is said and done:

1) I deserve to get my a*s kicked for all the misspellings I've made here

2) There will be no peace in the ME until Sharon is gone and the Palestinians take responsibility for their own actions.

3) The US should act in any way it sees fit to prevent future WMD attacks against its citizens. If the world body politic goes along, all the better.

4) Saddam Hussein must be removed. The US will not be safe until he is. And the Baath party. The only historical equivalent is Hitler and the Nazi party. Think of Hitler with nukes.

5) If we allow Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, etc to maintain their terrorism support systems, then we have lost the war against terrorism, because they are over half of the problem. Al Qaeda and Iraqi Intelligence are just the immediate perps.

6) Organizations such as the IRA and ETA must be eliminated as well. No double standards in this war.

7) This war must end at some point. We must at some point be able to say "OK, we can let our guard down now". Otherwise we lose.

That's my rant.

 

haven, you can email me if you want to continue this. Or we can do it here.

This can go on forever, but I think we're both getting tired of this particular debate... Email would probably be a less confrontational platform as well. Up to you.

We can keep doing this for days, weeks. The only value I see in doing that would be to educate those who haven't been keeping up with international issues. I can't help but think that there's a better way to do that.

I am not going to "back down", and neither are you. Your call.

(if that's not diplomacy, I don't know what is)

 

I don't think it was a particularly nast argument. Seemed to follow the rule of 3rds: I agreed with you 1/3 of the time, disagreed 1/3 of the time, and thought about 1/3 of it was debatable.

We've just about exhausted the topic. Glad you're finished as well, though... I'm pretty bad at backing out of arguments gracefully . I always feel like I'm "conceding something."

 

I'm glad to hear you can agree with me at least 1/3 of the time, and be in the middle another 1/3rd...

Exhausted/finished? You're not getting off that easy...

I am personally exhausted for reasons that don't have anything to do with this line. Expect a full response tomorrow... You know it will come.

Even right-wing-social-warmongering-WTF-semiliberal-halfwaynormal people such as myself have to sleep.

'Night.