How can you not support democracy?

[BalefireX]

Wouldn't the first issue be deciding which language this joint European army was going to speak?


We have an international group made up of many nations for dealing with these issues - its called the UN Peacekeeping Force.
The fact that it is useless is perhas a good indication of how successful a European Army would be.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Jag

Lothar,

It seems that we are diverging from the main issue here that is your question, and it seems evident that you're tyring to funnel this issue leading it to a military action. Well Democracy isn't incompatible with military actions (as in forging one) but the decision of establishing a democracy belongs to the people and not to the military,that is to say it's a political decision (wider meaning of this word) and not a military one.

As for the Britains being the principal, this headline hasn't any bearing at all on this issue by the way - Star Wars deal places US missiles on UK soil?(http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspac...iles_in_uk.htm)

As for the Kosovo, you're right, there shouldn't be any need for the U.S. to intervene in there, should the European states be more cohesive, that has been and allways be the doom of Europe, and it shows the need more than ever to have a joint army composed of all the E.U. states.
The question is: does the U.S. sees it with good eyes?

No, I am not funneling this into a justification for the use of military action. I was very clear in stating that each situation would require a different tactic and that military action should be the rare option. However, it should remain an option. Let me remind you that we have over 240 years of civilian control of our military and never has the US military turned on the civilian authority. This is not true of most other nations.

When I said the British stand on principal I think something was lost in the translation. I was referring to the British willingness to step up immediately to help fix the problems in Kosovo along with the US.

In terms of the EU…I think you have a multitude of problems which as an outsider I am highly skeptical you can fix right now. First you speak over a half dozen languages and each country worries about loosing its unique culture. The French and the Germans are trying to run the show (they want a unified Europe with them as the head) and the UK really would prefer to be the 51st State in of our country not a member of the EU. A true EU with a unified fighting force will require a solid federal system with a single political authority. Each or your countries will have to completely give up its sovereignty in favor of the EU Federal system. Honestly, I don’t see the love and trust required for that to work.

The Untied States started of as a confederacy of states in the years immediately after our revolution. What we found was that the system was ultimately too week to work. In the end each of the original states had to give up much of it antimony in favor of a stronger more cohesive federal system. I think it was much easier for us to do this because America started with a clean slate. Even so we still ended up in civil war some 70 years later and this was what finally cemented our federal government’s powers. I don’t think that the EU will end up in war however; I do think it will take you several generations and a common language in order to completely unify. Much to the chagrin of the French I predict the language will be English.

[talcum]

Lothar, if our democracy lacks the political cohesion and longevity to address long term issues (20 - 30 years away) how do you think the EU will do?? To paraphrase an old TV show 'a rag tag bunch of political states seeking to escape the menace of the evil cylons - errr, America" They lasted 24 42 minute episodes which is about all you can expect the EU to hang together for unless the US gives them a good reason to stay together, ala Bismarck. We're still the big dog on the block and need to second guess ourselves as if we are.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by talcum

Lothar, if our democracy lacks the political cohesion and longevity to address long term issues (20 - 30 years away) how do you think the EU will do?? ....

I certain I use the word continuity. Significant difference

This is not supposed to be s pissing contest with the EU. But I think the answer to your question is evident in post #127

[nexxo]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I think your economic theory is tanking. It is far cheaper to bribe people. As we have all seen…not going to point fingers (rhymes with Lance)

...but not reliable in the long term (or even in the short). Who says that the guys you bribed today will still be in charge tomorrow? Conflict investment is to make sure that they are.

Honestly, my republic doesn't even have the continuity to fix long term internal problems. Two, four and six year periods respective of office are all you get. Planning for most policy ten, twenty or thirty years down the road is almost imposable in a democracy; the policy makers are only concerned about the next election. It’s one of the few but significant failings of all modern democratic governments.

Again, you have to step beyond the here-and-now perspective for a bit. This has nothing to do with one particular government being in office; this is the long-term cumulative effort of a whole bunch of interested parties, part business, part political (because it is tied up in business). The City (as in Wall Street, or London) will always be the City, no matter who is in office at a particular time. Business will always be in business.

To get back to the "would you buy the airline to use your frequent flyer miles?" question: well, if you want to be absolutely sure that you can fly when you want, where you want, for as ling as you want, at any time now or in the future, then yes, the best thing to do is to own the airline. Or at least be a major share holder.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by nexxo

...but not reliable in the long term (or even in the short). Who says that the guys you bribed today will still be in charge tomorrow? Conflict investment is to make sure that they are.


Again, you have to step beyond the here-and-now perspective for a bit. This has nothing to do with one particular government being in office; this is the long-term cumulative effort of a whole bunch of interested parties, part business, part political (because it is tied up in business). The City (as in Wall Street, or London) will always be the City, no matter who is in office at a particular time. Business will always be in business.

To get back to the "would you buy the airline to use your frequent flyer miles?" question: well, if you want to be absolutely sure that you can fly when you want, where you want, for as ling as you want, at any time now or in the future, then yes, the best thing to do is to own the airline. Or at least be a major share holder.

From a pure business perspective it is far more reliable to bribe and woo a well established well organized dictatorship. Their is far less risk involve. War is always uncertain.

This completely ignores the fact that political will is required for ANY democracy to win a war. That political will comes from the people and the people could care less about business interests. For the people to sacrifice their sons, daughters, bothers, and sisters etc...It has to be for more than money.

If you want to fly when every you want, you buy or lease an airplane, not an airline.

[Incoherent]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

....and the UK really would prefer to be the 51st State in of our country not a member of the EU....

?


Are you serious?

[MadHacker]

And to think I'm told that whenever you visit any country...
wear an Canadien pin or something that shows your Canadien.
so that you get treated with respect and not mistaken as an American.

[Lothar5150]

Incoherent- Straight from the mouths of some of the most loyal of British Subjects Obviously said with a wink over drinks but it speaks to how tentative they are about the EU.

MadHacker- Most of my friends fly for a living...none has noted any change in their treatment when flying to international destinations. While some my disagree with our Foreign Policy or not like our President, Americans are always well received because as individuals we spend money and treat locals with respect.

[superart]

Originally Posted by MadHacker

And to think I'm told that whenever you visit any country...
wear an Canadien pin or something that shows your Canadien.
so that you get treated with respect and not mistaken as an American.

Dude, I'm in a position to be friends with many people from different countries. And every foreign person i have talked to (not counting arabs) said when going over seas, always let on that your from america. Its the fastest way to get laid, cus foreign chicks like americans.

[pdf27]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Incoherent- Straight from the mouths of some of the most loyal of British Subjects Obviously said with a wink over drinks but it speaks to how tentative they are about the EU.

Not far off. It's been a fundamental tenet of British foreign policy for centuries that since we aren't powerful enough to dominate Europe, the balance of power must be maintained and no other power must be allowed to do so. That's the whole reason we're in the EU - to ensure it cannot become a superstate and generally make sure nobody (i.e. the French and Germans) can take over Europe under the EU flag.
As for the US, blood may well be thicker than water, but we don't particularly want to become a mere state in the US (our egos couldn't take being less important than California!). Besides, it's too similar to the "Airstrip One" of 1984. Care to guess which country we were attached to in the book?

As for BillA's question about who to get rid of, Mugabe in Zimbabwe and that nutter in Equatorial Guinea are good candidates. One has been practicing genocide for years, while the other is most probably a cannibal.

[BillA]

any 'honest' list would have so many Africans that it would provoke immediate cries of racism,
that continent is a blight on civilization, a reminder of how close we are to the abyss
what did I just read, 900,000 slaves in Niger ? who gets the blame for that ?

[pdf27]

Yeah, I guess we'll have to be an equal-opportunity exporter of democracy.
Still, Northern Ireland would be a good candidate for a US preventive war.... I'm sure the UK wouldn't object in the slightest if you tried to take it, in fact we'd probably lend a hand.

[BillA]

we have enough with the Irish already here, Thanks
lol

[pdf27]

Oh well, another attempt to get shot of the problem failed.
I guess we'll just have to persuade the IRA to take up robbing banks rather than just blowing people up. Oh, hang on a minute...

Back on topic, the reason Africa's so high up the list is that we haven't put the effort into exporting good government that we have elsewhere. Europe, Asia and South America for instance got far more attention during the cold war, and had a far less destructive experience of colonialism as a whole.
The scariest statistic I've heard recently is that something like 80% of foreign aid to africa ends up in Swiss bank accounts...

[nexxo]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

From a pure business perspective it is far more reliable to bribe and woo a well established well organized dictatorship. Their is far less risk involve. War is always uncertain.

True, but sometimes the established government prefers to do business with your main competitor nations and because that choice may be largely ideological, or tied to all sorts of affiliations, nothing can be done to change that. Except changing the government.

Sometimes the government we have been happily wooing and bribing suddenly changes its loyalties (to wit: Saddam Hussein) and a change of government is again called for.

This completely ignores the fact that political will is required for ANY democracy to win a war. That political will comes from the people and the people could care less about business interests. For the people to sacrifice their sons, daughters, bothers, and sisters etc...It has to be for more than money.

And THAT, my friend, is why we have propaganda! WMD, anyone?

If you want to fly when every you want, you buy or lease an airplane, not an airline.

Semantics. The idea remains the same.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by pdf27

(our egos couldn't take being less important than California!)

Being a native Californian I'm not too sure how to take that... we are so insignificate that we are now geting our own Navy and Marines If it is any consolation the UK is the worlds 4th largest economy and California is 5th. That would make you the largest economy in the republic.

Originally Posted by nexxo

True, but sometimes the established government prefers to do business with your main competitor nations and because that choice may be largely ideological, or tied to all sorts of affiliations, nothing can be done to change that. Except changing the government.

Sometimes the government we have been happily wooing and bribing suddenly changes its loyalties (to wit: Saddam Hussein) and a change of government is again called for.

And THAT, my friend, is why we have propaganda! WMD, anyone?

Semantics. The idea remains the same.

In the real world money talks bullshit walks. A good dictatorship gives lip service to ideology but acts very pragmatically. Saddam like all "good" dictators was simply pragmatic regarding the US. We lead the world ageist him after he invaded Kuwait. Thus we were no longer good business partners. Had we helped him get sanctions lifted then we would be good partners once again.

The WMD was not propaganda, just bad intel.

The problem with analogies is that they rarely stand up analysis.

[pdf27]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Being a native Californian I'm not too sure how to take that... we are so insignificate that we are now geting our own Navy and Marines If it is any consolation the UK is the worlds 4th largest economy and California is 5th. That would make you the largest economy in the republic.

Hmmm... maybe it isn't such a bad idea after all
What I was kind of getting at is that we would (nominally at least) have less power than we do now - right now we've got a seat in the Permanent 5 on the security council, our own nuclear weapons, etc. To give all these up and still be smaller than one of the current states would just be too much...

[jman1310]

just for my own information:

what's the difference between a pesticide plant and a nerve gas plant?
concentration?
how many pesticide plants in Iraq? how long to change a nerve gas plant back into a pesticide plant? hour?
ten minutes and a can of paint!
so does nerve gas count as a wmd? because we found lots of pesticide.
just because we didn't find a SCUD missile with a big sign on it saying "NERVE TOXIN" doesn't mean that it couldn't be used that way

Saddam buried his air force to avoid its distruction
why wouldn't he have buried (or destroyed) his wmds? Think he was stupid? no
he knew that the lack of evidence could be a major factor in the political will of America and the international community
and he was RIGHT
unfortunately for saddam, Bush is not a democrat, he's a Republican, which means he knowns how to prosecute a war (historically, since WWII all wars by democrats have been lost or stalemates (and only stalemates because a Republican was voted in) and most Republican wars have been won.)

[pdf27]

Originally Posted by jman1310

just for my own information:
what's the difference between a pesticide plant and a nerve gas plant?
concentration?
how many pesticide plants in Iraq? how long to change a nerve gas plant back into a pesticide plant? hour?
ten minutes and a can of paint!

One for pH I suspect, but I think it's probably of the order of weeks or months to convert between the two. Haven't read up on it much, but the bits I do remember suggest that containment and corrosion resistance are far bigger problems with Nerve gas than pesticide. Feedstock is another issue as well - just because they have the plant doesn't mean they can make anything with it.

Originally Posted by jman1310

so does nerve gas count as a wmd? because we found lots of pesticide.
just because we didn't find a SCUD missile with a big sign on it saying "NERVE TOXIN" doesn't mean that it couldn't be used that way

True, but pesticide is pretty inefficient as a chemical weapon - your targets might die of cancer in 20 years time, but that's no good for stopping an invading army...

Originally Posted by jman1310

Saddam buried his air force to avoid its distruction

Unfortunately, it didn't get done right and the air force is now good for scrap only...

Originally Posted by jman1310

unfortunately for saddam, Bush is not a democrat, he's a Republican, which means he knowns how to prosecute a war (historically, since WWII all wars by democrats have been lost or stalemates (and only stalemates because a Republican was voted in) and most Republican wars have been won.)

Uhh... Kosovo? Doesn't work in other countries anyway - see Sierra Leone, Iraq 2 and Malaya for details. In fact, you could argue the reverse is true for the UK - Suez?

[nexxo]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

In the real world money talks bullshit walks. A good dictatorship gives lip service to ideology but acts very pragmatically. Saddam like all "good" dictators was simply pragmatic regarding the US. We lead the world ageist him after he invaded Kuwait. Thus we were no longer good business partners. Had we helped him get sanctions lifted then we would be good partners once again.

I beg to differ. Ideology is the tool by which a dictator (or terrorist, for that matter) manages his followers. Like small gods, their power comes from how many people are prepared to believe in them. But my point was that some dictators simply will not do business with the West --or the West, for reasons of their own, will not do business with the Dictator (I mean, do you see us strike up a good business relationship with N. Korea any time soon?).

In any case, we led the war against Saddam because he ceased to be a good business partner --in invading Kuwait he welched on the deal.

The WMD was not propaganda, just bad intel.

Again, I beg to differ. Everyone knew the data were distorted and contrived before we went to war. That's why there was such a resistance to it.

The problem with analogies is that they rarely stand up analysis.

Care to elaborate?

[Lothar5150]

jman1310

I don’t agree with the Democrat/Republican theory on winning wars…we only lost one war in the 20th century (Vietnam) and it lasted thru three presidents one democrat and two republicans. The loss was political not a military defeat.

Korea was a success in that the political and military aims were meet as per the UN. Further, let’s not forget Kosovo was/is a success. (Ok, it looks like pdf27 made this point already)


jman1310 & pdf27

Many pesticides and industrial chemicals are precursors for modern chemical weapons, in some cases it’s just a matter of concentration. Yes, most any industrial chemical plant can be put to use making chemical weapons…no paint required.

BTW many of the Nazi camp victims were gassed with high concentrations of common pesticides.

Castor Bean=Castro Oil*Hydraulic Fluids*Coatings for Vitamins and Ricin

Nexxo

You my beg all you like but you wrong here. Dictators give lip service to an ideology but they maintain control buy the use of fear and brutality. Terrorists maintain control of their followers by cultive personally and ideology. These are two are as different as apples and oranges. The aims of a dictator is to operate a state and maintain order, the aims of a terrorist are often to destroy a state.

Your argument about N Korea is a bate and switch. Further, it is a poor example because we sold them fuel oil in exchange for their promise not to enrich nuclear materials. They broke the agreement so WE cut them off.

[jman1310]

my gf found this, i thought it might be relavent

"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag." -- Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC

Lothar-
Korea was a stalemate, begining positions were the same as the ending positions- ie not a victory
Vietnam was won (fighting stopped) and treaty signed but it was then lost when the democrat Congress refused to allow Nixon to carry out treaty obligations to S. Vietnam and bomb the sh*t out the commie b*st*rds to the North. they did this to ensure Nixon's political funeral. Just don't forget that Kennedy got us into that useless war.

I was thinking of Somalia and Bill Clinton.

[superart]

Originally Posted by jman1310

I was thinking of Somalia and Bill Clinton.

lothar will probably have a better insight on this, but IMO clinton pulled out of somolia because he was afraid of political lashback, and it had nothing to do with military status at the time in that place.

I believe the military people in charge could have looked at the events that took place, and taken necisary measures to prevent them from hapening again.

[Lothar5150]

jman1310

The strategy in Korea had limited aims and returning to the original borders along the 38th parallel was the primary aim. So it was a political and military success. If the primary aim in Korea were to push the communists into China and reunify the peninsula we would be having a very different discussion. Korea was painful in that we really were not ready to fight a war. However, this less to do with the politicians and more to do with Generals, in that troop readiness was allowed decline to criminal levels. You also need to remember that Korea was not just Americas war 15 countries under US leadership fought in Korea.

Vietnam-the root of most of the political ills associated with Vietnam had more to do with the median age of the US population and less to do with Democrat vs. Republican. Explaining this would be a new thread…so I’m going to just let this rest.

Further, I am sick of hearing the republicans blame all the worlds’ ills on democrats and vice versa. Before you start turning Democrat or Liberal into a bad word, consider that black moderates like me remember that it was the “Liberals” who supported us in or fight to end apartheid in America.

jman1310&superant

Going into Somalia actually was initiated by the 1st Bush administration. Further, it was a peace keeping mission. The only aim of the operation was to provide humanitarian relief and provide security for relief workers. Given the very limited aims of the operation I think it was ultimately deemed too risky and unpopular by the Clinton once you had “operators” being dragged down streets on International TV. Again this goes back to the political will of the population. Once Americans saw this on TV everyone began to say…”why are we even there” As I recall the “conservative” politicians screamed the loudest.