Printable View
The international bullies can't do much either if both sides aren't ready for peace. The Soviet Union learnt in Afghanistan, the US learned it in Vietnam. The US didn't do so well in Lebanon in the 80s or Somalia in the 90s either, and Iraq and Afghanistan don't look as good for them as they'd like. Oh, and Korea is still divided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
They didn't threaten anyone since the Gulf war? You are right to a point. He didn't because the US and UK were constantly on top of him. The problem is, that was no permanent solution. AT some point, the world had to be able to be able to trust Iraq. Easy for you to say that the world should have to monitor this guy for years on end at great expense. The US and the UK had a lot of assets at great expense there monitoring this "peace".Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
So if they were to leave, we are to believe that Iraq would become a good citizen of the world? You are naive if you believe THAT.....No, if Saddam was left alone, we know where he would have been.
As for no new arms? I guess the US Army was fighting non-existent troops and tanks during their war in 2003? Saddam did manage to keep a lot of his army intact and was able to slowly put pieces in place to manage to keep a strong military prescence. The fact the soldiers didn't always do well is more a function of the fact no one wants to die for a dictator if given a choice.
Eki, Understand something here. It is fine to criticize from a fine warm home in a peace loving little nation such as yours or a peace loving bigger nation such as mine, but solutions are never black and white, and to condemn people to live in a constant state of fear based on the rule of a mad man is wrong. You would condemn anyone to live in oppression to avoid a war. You have stated that all human life is sacred. I agree it is, and sometimes wars break out for motives that are not always clear or agreeable, but for you to cry over the lost lives since the US has arrived ignores the future the country now has, and you are also ignoring the millions of people oppressed by other nations in the Middle East and around the world who would likely love for the yoke of oppression to be lifted.
The Americans may be clumsy in their prosecution of the war, but at least they went in with motives beyond just conquest. If the US was all about that, then they would be controlling a large empire at the point of a gun. They do not and will not have that ever. The US believes in Democracy, just like Finland or Canada does. The only difference is, occasionally they are willing to die for that principle. It seems many in the West are not....
I think they do it because they are a professional military and are paid for it. Reinstitute draft, and you'll see how many Americans are really willing to die without a pay in foreign wars that have little to do with them. Many in the US military aren't even US citizens, they have enlisted because they wish they can get the citizenship that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Eki, WRONG on the number of US citizens in the Army. Very few joined under your pretences. Back up that statement...I defy you. There will not be a draft in the US because there is no need. The US military is not lacking volunteers. See, Americans are willing to die for their nation and they are willing to serve it. What is more, their military is willing to reward them with an education and other benefits. While they are not always right in some of their decisions, the US military is run by a democratically elected government and is only employed by civilian leadership. They are loyal their civilian leaders and only act when asked based on the democratically elected leaderships dictates.
You know little of Americans EKi, and it is making your arguments very weak.....
I have not heard them complaining about being in Germany and Japan for 60 years or in Korea for 50 years. Forty more years and Saddam would have been long gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I read one American writer who said that all imigrants from mexico should be first enlisted in the US army, then those who make it back alive should be granted citizenship :dork:
Funny how one of the first hits I got when I googled for evidence was this story in Boston Globe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ng_foreigners/
Military considers recruiting foreigners
Expedited citizenship would be an incentive
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | December 26, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.
Foreign citizens serving in the US military is a highly charged issue, which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries to defend the country. Other analysts voice concern that a large contingent of noncitizens under arms could jeopardize national security or reflect badly on Americans' willingness to serve in uniform.
The idea of signing up foreigners who are seeking US citizenship is gaining traction as a way to address a critical need for the Pentagon, while fully absorbing some of the roughly one million immigrants that enter the United States legally each year.
The proposal to induct more noncitizens, which is still largely on the drawing board, has to clear a number of hurdles. So far, the Pentagon has been quiet about specifics -- including who would be eligible to join, where the recruiting stations would be, and what the minimum standards might involve, including English proficiency. In the meantime, the Pentagon and immigration authorities have expanded a program that accelerates citizenship for legal residents who volunteer for the military.
And since Sept. 11, 2001, the number of imm igrants in uniform who have become US citizens has increased from 750 in 2001 to almost 4,600 last year, according to military statistics.
With severe manpower strains because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and a mandate to expand the overall size of the military -- the Pentagon is under pressure to consider a variety of proposals involving foreign recruits, according to a military affairs analyst.
"It works as a military idea and it works in the context of American immigration," said Thomas Donnelly , a military scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a leading proponent of recruiting more foreigners to serve in the military.
As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, the Pentagon has warned Congress and the White House that the military is stretched "to the breaking point."
Both President Bush and Robert M. Gates, his new defense secretary, have acknowledged that the total size of the military must be expanded to help alleviate the strain on ground troops, many of whom have been deployed repeatedly in combat theaters.
Bush said last week that he has ordered Gates to come up with a plan for the first significant increase in ground forces since the end of the Cold War. Democrats who are preparing to take control of Congress, meanwhile, promise to make increasing the size of the military one of their top legislative priorities in 2007.Continued...
I don't think so. I think the decision for war was made many months before the whole UN resolution business. How many times was Hans Blix discredited by the Bush Admin for not finding the evidence that was never to be found anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
According to the phrase of the time that would be "53 are for me, 90-odd are against me" :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Bush was not the problem. He was the puppet. His neocon admin was the problem, as are -in my eyes- those who blindly follow people like them on their mission from above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
And Saddam was an idiot, yes, to say the least :s
Neo-con agenda propaganda is used to excuse the arguments the Bush supporters have put forward. Labelling people because you don't like their arguments doesn't change their arguments. Bush was given bad advice in your eyes, fine, but lets not change the reality that Saddam did everything he could to jerk the UN around.
As for the 53 for me, 90 against me crack, I would rather be standing with most of the 53 on a moral ground. While Canada was part of the 90 "against", at least Canada has a cordial relationship with the US and also is dedicated to democratic principles. I am not sure about all of the 90 being so dedicated to human rights.
As for Your claim Eki of all the foreigners trying to be recruited to get US citizen ship, 4600 is not much compared to the over 1 million men and women in Uniform in the US. It is a volunteer military, and it is a good one because of the fact people want to be there. Imagine that, being willing to give to your nation and its principles. Whatever you think of Bush, don't demean the vast majority of the people who serve in the military of the US. Anyone who serves as a volunteer in the military of a democratic nation deserves respect.
My contention has ALWAYS been that to cry over the death's in Iraq after Saddam provoked this conflict is to demean those who have suffered under his rule for over 3 decades. It is to demean every man, woman and child who has suffered in many other regimes around the world. Your contention that the US is the sole cause of all the suffering in Iraq is ill-founded. While the civilians caught in the conflict as innocents didn't deserve to die, neither did they deserve to live under the oppressive leadership of Saddam, and to be kept there by his son's after his passing if nothing was done.
IF the US went to war based on flawed intelligence, Fine, I can buy that, for I don't disagree they had bad intelligence. That said, their motives are a hell of a lot more pure than Saddam's and they didn't go there to enslave the people of Iraq. The path to hell may be paved with Good intentions in my eyes, but the hell of living in Iraq before the invasion was every bit as reprehensible and more than what is happening now. Iraqi's have a shot at peace and democracy, no matter how crude it is to you. You would take that away because the war violated your precious principles. I stated it before, those of you who would condone living in this nation have no concept of what that would be like, and you obviously see nothing wrong with dictators oppressing people unopposed. If you did, then you would spend a lot more time deploring their actions, but 35 pages in, I don't see the rabid condemnation of their actions vs those of George W Bush. When you condemn them with as equal and fervent enthusiasm, I will accept your principles with a different light, but so far, nothing has convinced me that any of this has to do with a fight for justice, just a fight to rid the world of George Bush. In 2 years he is gone, unlike Saddam, they wont have to invade Washington to get rid of him, Americans understand the value of democracy. Some of you obviously have forgotten....
Funny, I always thought the US had a professional army, rather than an army of volunteers. :\ Oh, the biased coverage we get around here... :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
True, and I'm glad many of them are hesitating to enlist or re-enlist after seen how the US military has been abused by the present administration. I'm also glad the Finnish military is obligatory because 1) it's cheaper 2) it's bigger and 3) the Finnish government wouldn't even dream to send it into action unless Finland was REALLY threatened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Studiose, they are volunteers in that they sign on. No one puts a gun to their head. THey are compensated so yes, they are professional. Don't split hairs, you knew exactly what I meant.
There is no draft and the US military establishment would not back one. Their experience with draftees in Vietnam is one of the reasons that war was such a miserable experience for all involved.
I think, Mark, that the debate is really about the methods of spreading democracy. Well, at least for me it is. What difference does it make that the Iraqis have "a shot at democracy", if they'll actually end up in some horrible radical dictatorship?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
In the end, results matter a hell of a lot more than intentions. If Iraq actually becomes a stable democracy, then the US has done well. If Iraq becomes a lawless anarchy or an even more radical dictatorship, then the US has ****ed up very severely.
Perhaps we should just give it some time before passing judgements?
In any case, I don't see much point in banging on about how noble the Americans are compared to the Europeans. We all live in free democratic countries, and I'm sure we all value what we have, and want others nations to have the same (as it is very much in our own interest). It's a question of methods more than anything else, and I don't see any overwhelming evidence to the American method being more effective.
Can you please tell me where in the world is a professional army comprised of persons forcibly enlisted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
It's not a question of splitting hairs. It's a question of calling a spade a spade.
studiose, I think you're misunderstanding the word "volunteeer". It doesn't mean unpaid, it means that you chose to do the job, rather than being forced to do it. So the US forces are composed of people who are BOTH professional AND volunteer.
I just want to put in a word for the US military, since they have been discussed here in derogatory terms, which pains me, to be honest. Over the years, I have worked with hundreds of US military aviators, both grizzled old-timers who spent years in the skies over Vietnam, and starry-eyed midshipmen at the US Naval Academy, keen, naive, idealistic kids. Almost to a man, these have been outstanding individuals, the kind of people you would be proud to have as a brother-in-law or as godparent to your children. Some of these men that I knew have died in service of their country, and I can tell you that none of them risked their lives for anything other than the highest motives. You could fairly argue that they have at times been misguided and badly led, but those I worked with were never evil, vengeful or hate-filled, and I think that fair-minded people should remember that, when discussing the sometimes terrible consequences of US military interventions. No one regrets those terrible consequences, when they happen, more than the US service personnel on the ground.
Eki, yes, it is my contention that most of your biases are based on the fact that Finland has never been overseas fighting for anything. That is fine, Finland has that luxury. Finland is also 5.5 million people so a form of universal service is a necessity. That said, unless Putin loses his mind, Finland has as much chance as being threatened in a direct attack as Canada does, that is to say, NOT at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
As for re-enlistment rates falling in the US, that is natural, they may agree with the war and still feel it is someone elses's turn to serve.
Your dodging my point that you would condemn people to live in oppression because you don't want your precious principles violated still stands. The world isn't Finland Eki. No matter how great you think Finnish diplomacy or democracy is, and it is great, it doesn't change the fact most of the world doesn't see things your way, and maybe on occasion shouldn't. Finns, and Canadians live in a world that is protected by the fact that the US would stand up for any western democracy if attacked. The resentment of the fact the US would be the defender of many nations that seem to spit on its face still remains.
I need not state that the US is often the first nation to donate aid and help in times of natural disaster. They had diverted a carrier group to Indonesia to help out with the disaster there when the tsunami struck 2 years ago, and they spent their tax dollars to provide this service. They didn't question the need to help people suffering, yet the Indonesian government told them to take a walk because they didn't want to be seen as weak and needing American aid. Typical....yet America is the bad guy?
occasionally wrong, but their intentions are more trustworthy then most of the nations that take potshots at them...
Before a drafted military can be effective, it should be given a proper motivation to fight and die for. Vietnam wasn't one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I don't know enough about this to pass judgement, but I understand that the American forces in Iraq have developed a reputation for erring on the side of brutality, which is hardly helpful under the circs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
On the whole, however - yes, I also believe that the US army is a noble organization comprised of fine people.
That's like saying most of the garbage men do their job because they want the environment to be tidy and not because they are paid to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Yes, exactly, that was my point. Military service is a profession like any other in the US, is it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The US soldier is NOT the thug that some of you would portray him as. Nor is the airman or sailor serving the US military. He/she sign up for reasons that are more motivated by love of country than for the pay. The pay is not horrible, but it isn't great either. It is a job that is seen as rewarding in that the soldier feels he is trying to serve his nation and democratic principles at all times. Whether you agree with the US foreign policy is immaterial, I can tell you that 99% of those who serve in the US service believe that in the end, they are on the side of right, and if they didn't, there would be mass dessertions or people avoiding following orders such as what happened in the last stages in Vietnam. The soldiers are held to a standard of conduct, and when they violate it, they are punished for it. They are held to a standard that Saddam would never respect, and most of you are willing to ignore to serve your arguments, rather than the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
No, disagree with the war in Iraq all you like, but please, spare me the rhetoric about how bad the Americans are......
Last time I looked, they are often the first ones ready to spend a lot of money such as the US Navy sending a carrier group out of its way in Indonesia to assist in aid following the tsunami. The Americans always try to do the right thing, even if it is arguable that it may not be. I don't trust too many nations with that privledge....
Mark, no offence, but you're beginning to sound like an old record, fighting against wind-mills that exist only in your head. :\Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I know. Of course there are some bad apples, and the Iraqi conflict has placed stresses on the men and women that you and I can hardly conceive of. Some have broken under the pressure. With hundreds of thousands of troops out there, there are going to be some awful incidents. But on the streets of New York, there are awful incidents. No one concludes from those, that New Yorkers generally are brutal thugs. Nor should they conclude that, in my opinion, about American troops.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Thank you. They are.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
I never disagreed to that :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
We all know that after 911 it was closer to 140 for and 3 against. Too late now, but what went wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
What a waste of moral ground :(
And who is threatening the US? Canada, Mexico or maybe Cuba? Not even the Germans and the Japanese couldn't reach the mainland US and they were closer than the Middle East. Now you probably mention the 9/11 attacks, but that was one lucky shot that can more effectively be avoided with better airport security and international police co-operation than with military invasions to countries half way across the globe. And the motive for the 9/11 attacks were mainly the US troops in the Middle East and their unconditional support to Israel. Some adjustment in the US foreign policy to a more moderate direction could help much more than any military operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
No, It is a job to take out the trash, and thank god someone does it. That said, you don't join the Army just for a job. Some do, but rarely do they stay past one term. How about all those who are in the reserves/national guard who are serving? They do it willingly while holding down a job. It often hurts their civilian career.
See, when you don't have a voluntary service Eki, you have people there against their will. Finland forces everyone to serve, the US doesn't. I could use the argument you have LESS rights than Americans because of it. I wouldn't because unlike you, simplistic arguments hold no water with me. I know that every nation has its own reasons and values to enforce and defend, and when they don't grossly violate human rights, I can understand them. In Iraq, there was no nice gentle princple of defense being a reason. Saddam and his henchmen were all about control of their nation, oppression and in the end, if left unchecked conquest of his neighbours. I am not making it up, the proof is in the history of the area in the last 27 years....
Really? I thought most people did. :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
I agree, a lot of nations forgot what they were in support of. That said, I undestand the waste of moral ground....Bush didn't handle himself well,but that doesn't necessarily mean his motives were wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
I'm not saying, Eki, that people who enlist in the US armed forces do so simply because they want to make the world a better place. Of course not. Each person enlists for his or her own reasons. All I am saying is, first, that they are paid, second, that they are volunteers in that they choose to take the job, and third, that they are not, except for a very few unusual cases, motivated by evil, hatred and a thirst for violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
No one is threatening the US except nations that would sponsor terrorism and terrorist actions. The reason the US was in Saudi aggravating Bin Laden was because they were there to defend the Saudi's against the threat of Saddam. Again, if Saddam isn't the threat he proved to be all along, the Ameircans wouldn't be there. You feel if the Americans played a game of condemning Israel to a fate of conquest by the Arabs, they would just get along. That is condoning the acts of those who commit terrorist acts to attain a position. You would tell the Americans to just condone terrorist attacks against Israel to keep the peace? Nice princples you have there Eki...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
No, American foreign policy has always been to try to reach a middle ground. No matter the politics of the President, they have always been trying to mediate a peace in the Middle East. When two parties want it, it works, witness the Camp David Accords in the late 70's. They have often dealt with and tolerated some of the most exterme and rotten leaders in this part of the world to try and keep a peace. They have did what you suggested for years Eki. Then Saddam invaded Kuwait, and it all changed. Add in the fact Saddam was funding Hamas and was one of the few leaders cheering when the WTC fell says all you need to know about his potential threat to the US. Left unchecked, there is no way of knowing how much havoc he would create, but it is clear he didn't give a damn about peace....
Eki, if you say the US deserves what they get because they were in the Middle East, it is like condeming the woman in the short skirt she deserved to be raped. You condone the most vicious people and their actions in your desire to pain the US in a bad light. It is pitiful to use such an argument in that manner while ignoring the greater injustices all over the world.....again, you are simply an anti-American...
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Good ol' Jimmy :p :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Good one! Nice to have a little light-heartedness in this rather sombre thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
When someone says that the USA is at war against terrorists they basically mean that the USA is at war against any other country. The CIA is spying on all web use. (if you're reading this in langley, i hope you dont freeze to death by morning.).
I have a big smile on my face, when I hear that the US government is setting up domestic spying programs, what's good for the allies is good for the rubes.
You might add a woman in a short skirt in a mensroom. The US has no right to be in the Middle East, its own territory isn't even near the Middle East.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Ok Eki, they stay home. They ignore whatever goes on everywhere else. Where are we? The world better then?? I say it isn't, but go ahead, tell me how the suffering stops? Tell me how the world's economy improves? Tell me how well enlightened men such as Saddam Hussein would make the world better.
ALso, if the woman was in the men's room Eki, she still wouldn't be deserving of a rape. The fact you think so says much about your logic.
sorry eki, even if she was naked it would still be no excuse :down:
I guess MI in the UK just reads paperbacks? How about the Russians? The Chinese? All nations have security services monitoring the world. The US using the NSA and the CIA is no different. The fact that they feel they have to is something I am not comfortable with, but I can tell you that I feel somewhat less threatened by them having this power than many other nations. I don't like it, but I understand the thinking behind it. You still however in the US have a right to free speech and it is guarnteed by law in the constitution. Some other democratic nations respect their people less in their laws and their intelligence gathering......again, the US isn't a dictatorship, although some of you who hate America wish you could prove it...Quote:
Originally Posted by SOD
Which nations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa