NationStates Jolt Archive

Since we're naming successes, name a UN success - one that involves military action and regime change - that does not involve the US. You could also include any major massacres stopped in their tracks and the perpetrators brought to the Hague, or countries liberated by the UN without US help.

Ouch... this would be amusing if it was not so tragic.

I recently read "Shake Hands with the Devil", a book about Rwanda by Romeo Dallaire, the former commander of UN forces there during the genocide. It is the most damning account of what the UN does and why that I can imagine... what the UN did was worse than if they had done nothing... and they did it with full knowledge of the situation and the consequences. May they burn in hell forever.

Yes, pretty much (at least on our better days).

I think Iraq is a campaign in a broader war, somewhat similar to the Spanish Civil War '36-39 as part of WW2. It is not the showdown - not even close - it is merely the first clash of arms, an early test of strength and commitment, and a way to gain experience and test doctrine. Most participants are not fighting on their own territory.

Reading our Donald Kagan, are we?

Go to http://dieoff.org/page67.htm

and scroll down to A New Kind Of War

Ouch... this would be amusing if it was not so tragic.

I recently read "Shake Hands with the Devil", a book about Rwanda by Romeo Dallaire, the former commander of UN forces there during the genocide. It is the most damning account of what the UN does and why that I can imagine... what the UN did was worse than if they had done nothing... and they did it with full knowledge of the situation and the consequences. May they burn in hell forever.


I gave my father that book for Christmas. And I still find it incredible the way you try and pass off the UN as some autonomous entity devoid of input from the US. Pray tell, when the matter was up for debate in the Security council, why - despite all available evidence - did Clinto tell his ambassador to the UN to refrain from usign the word genocide? The answer: because defining something as genocide would have triggered a required response under UN security council rules.

However, if you want a currently ongoing example under UN auspices that is having far more success than you are in Iraq, how about East Timor?


The problem is that successes don't get the press. You don't read articles entitled "Ceasefire between Ethiopia and Eritrea Holds for 476th Consecutive Day," "Zero Killed in Cyprus," or "East Timor Still Functioning." in the news.

It doesn't sell papers.

I disagree. I think it was one war... the common link is ideas, if you will. There is a good reason why each country ended up on the side it did.

Germany and Japan may not have traded a lot of material good, but they did exchange technical data, as far as I know.


My point being that from a strategic and tactical standpoint - they were fought as entirely seperate actions. A success or setback on one front had zero impact on the other, except when the total success in Europe allowed the US to threaten to re-allocate large numbers of troops to the Pacific theater.

I was not implying that the concept of a fight against empirical regimes was not common to both - just that from a purely military standpoint they were proseuted independantly from each other. Which is why I disagreew entirely with your initial assertion which was that the US invaded North Africa to fight the French as a direct response to Japanese aggression.

Had Germany not declared war on the US it is uncertain whether the US would have had the political will to voluntarily open a two-front war when the most pressing concern was the country that had attacked you - Japan. It is not impossible that you would not have taken on the Japanese first and avoided the European conflict for a while longer. Certainly Teddy wanted to go to Europe, but it was Hitler who made the decision much easier for him with the declaration.

Reading our Donald Kagan, are we?

Go to http://dieoff.org/page67.htm

and scroll down to A New Kind Of War

I hadn't heard of Kagan, actually - did he come up with this idea or similar? What is he known for?

The link you give has numerous references to Van Creveld, whom I have read (some, not all). Actually I am re-reading "Transformation of War" now. I think Creveld is not entirely correct, he seems in a lot of ways influenced by Toeffler ("War and Anti-War") and so he has some of the same mistakes. While post-modernism is interesting, it can sometimes be trumped by much simpler forms of a century or two ago.

Regarding the idea of a dissolution of states and a world awash in low-intensity conflict by subnational actors: I think it may happen but only as a passing phase. Conflict ebbs and flows, there is as much tendency towards peace and stability as there is towards war.

My favorite to date is a lecture at West Point titled "We Have Seen the Enemy and They Are Just Like Us" which basically says that any society which is militarily competitive with the USA must have a lot of the same cultural and political characteristics as the USA, in effect being its twin brother... anyone else will fall behind, like the Soviets did.

Kagan wrote several tomes on the events in and around the Peloponnesian War, as well as a rather general study on war.

He follows Thucydides, but he tries to outline how events forced people into war.

And I still find it incredible the way you try and pass off the UN as some autonomous entity devoid of input from the US.

We provide what, 60% or more of the UN's total funding?

We sure as hell aren't getting our money's worth in terms of diplomatic cover and rubber-stamping, are we? They sure seem to be holding a diplomatic gun to our head all the time, don't they?

The UN may have been our creature once upon a time, but now they hold us hostage in the court of public opinion. A situation which will hopefully end as more of the UN's malfeasance is brought to light.

Pray tell, when the matter was up for debate in the Security council, why - despite all available evidence - did Clinto tell his ambassador to the UN to refrain from usign the word genocide?

Because Clinton was of the feckless, make-talk-not-war, multi-lateral, multi-cultural, give-missiles-to-China-and-plutonium-to-Iran, anything-goes, do-nothing, fiddle-while-the-world-burns party... which is in perfect harmony with the UN.

Why did America attack Iraq?

WMD - no.
Oil - no.
Terrorism - no.

To save the American dollar - maybe.

US$ is world's reserve currency. It is used to finance drug deals, oil markets, commodity trades and tourists travels world wide. It is also strengthened by the Chinese and Japanese central banks which purchase large numbers of US$.

America has a growing economy based on consumerism. To sustain consumerism requires a strong currency to negate the effect of the budget deficit.

Before the war Iraq and Iran were the 2 oil producing countries that considered most seriously moving to the euro as a trading currency. The euro has for the past 5 years been the more stable of the 2 currencies and therefore better to trade in.

The invasion and occupation has secured the Iraqi oil trade in US$. The Iranian nuclear issue is providing justification for further military intervention.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303a.asp (http://)

We provide what, 60% or more of the UN's total funding?


22% of total UN funding comes from the USA

22% of total UN funding comes from the USA

Almost right: in recent years it's 22% of the regular operating budget (used to be higher). However, we contribute a much larger portion of the peacekeeping budget (nominally 35%, in reality closer to half I think) and separately into various program funds. Okay, 60% is too high, the real number if maybe 30% or a little over.

Almost right: in recent years it's 22% of the regular operating budget (used to be higher). However, we contribute a much larger portion of the peacekeeping budget (nominally 35%, in reality closer to half I think) and separately into various program funds. Okay, 60% is too high, the real number if maybe 30% or a little over.

Less the $1,000,000,000.00 or so arrears that the US may get around to paying sooner or later. So the real number may be 25% or so.