NationStates Jolt Archive

"The time for diplomacy is now." So said Condoleezza Rice on day one of her confirmation hearing in front of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

True to her word, less than a week in the job, President George W Bush's new secretary of state is embarking on her first major diplomatic mission.

It will encompass a tour of eight European countries and the Middle East in the space of seven days.

So does this all signify an new era in US foreign relations?

Well for one thing, the rhetoric is different.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4231895.stm)


Is this just rhetoric, or is there really a shift in the foreign policy position of the Whitehouse?
The way Rice has spoken in the past has been significantly diferent to the approach indicated by this report. As she is newly appointed to the office of Secretary of State it seems probable that she is giving an official Whitehouse line, more than her own specific opinion. Is there hope yet for the world?

Is this just rhetoric, or is there really a shift in the foreign policy position of the Whitehouse?
The way Rice has spoken in the past has been significantly diferent to the approach indicated by this report. As she is newly appointed to the office of Secretary of State it seems probable that she is giving an official Whitehouse line, more than her own specific opinion. Is there hope yet for the world?
around the world in a week to fix all the problems that she caused... shit

around the world in a week to fix all the problems that she caused... shit

But at least its with a microphone and not with an assault rifle. It could be a start.

I expect nothing of the USA except to be a very cheap funeral.

Time to put out the fires on their burning bridges I guess.

Rhetoric. The "GWB" policy is "My way, or the highway".

There was "talk" before the invasion of Iraq. Remember? It went something like this:

"Give up those WMD!"

"We aint got no stinking WMD."

"Give up those WMD!"

"We still aint got no stinking WMD."

"Hey. They say they aint got no stinking WMD."

"Who asked you?"

"Well, we are the world. Thought we might finish looking around in there for WMD before we started killing."

"Yo! We aint got no stinking WMD."

"For the last time, Give up those WMD."

"Is this thing on?"

SHOCK & AWE!! and death

"Well, will you look at that. There aint no stinking WMD here..."

Is this just rhetoric, or is there really a shift in the foreign policy position of the Whitehouse?
The way Rice has spoken in the past has been significantly diferent to the approach indicated by this report. As she is newly appointed to the office of Secretary of State it seems probable that she is giving an official Whitehouse line, more than her own specific opinion. Is there hope yet for the world?
as opposed to the time for diplomacy being before she decided it was a good idea to go piss everyone off

Rhetoric. The "GWB" policy is "My way, or the highway".


"Is this thing on?"

SHOCK & AWE!! and death

"Well, will you look at that. There aint no stinking WMD here..."

Well, it was more of the UN telling Iraq to open its doors to UN inspectors, and make a report to the UN, which was late and falsified. By the way, that requirement was a "last chance" offered by the UN, if you actually remember history CORRECTLY.

The "Shock and Awe" campaign was initiated when Bush gave the Regime the warning, and specified, again, if you remember CORRECTLY, that Saddam had failed to allow inspectors into its borders, falsified its reports, and had failed to cooperate with the rest of the world one, last time. But then again, no one remembers THAT. They're too busy editorializing.

And of course, Iraq is completely incapable of moving those weapons, right? I mean, those mobile chemical labs weren't really mobile, that's just a catchy term we use... and the Iraqi border patrol would be too tight for anything like small weapons and personnel through their fingers... wait... weren't they under Sadda.... nah......

Just smoke and mirrors.

Well, it was more of the UN telling Iraq to open its doors to UN inspectors, and make a report to the UN, which was late and falsified. By the way, that requirement was a "last chance" offered by the UN, if you actually remember history CORRECTLY.

The "Shock and Awe" campaign was initiated when Bush gave the Regime the warning, and specified, again, if you remember CORRECTLY, that Saddam had failed to allow inspectors into its borders, falsified its reports, and had failed to cooperate with the rest of the world one, last time. But then again, no one remembers THAT. They're too busy editorializing.

And of course, Iraq is completely incapable of moving those weapons, right? I mean, those mobile chemical labs weren't really mobile, that's just a catchy term we use... and the Iraqi border patrol would be too tight for anything like small weapons and personnel through their fingers... wait... weren't they under Sadda.... nah......

Here were the choices, if you remember your history CORRECTLY:

1. Continue diplomatic efforts (talk)
2. Start an invasion (war and death)

GWB selected...you guessed it...war and death.

Perhaps we could put together a panel discussion on the issue. We could comprise the panel of some of those killed in the war so far - you know, a couple of dead American soldiers, a couple of dead Iraqi children, a few beheaded contractors, and to round it out a small number of dead "insurgents". See what they all think about the choice George made.

Only, they're just a little dead, aren't they? Makes it hard for them to get their opinions across.

Maybe, if Georgie boy had selected "talk" some of them might still be alive, and we could ask them.

Oh, well...

[/sarcasm]

Here were the choices, if you remember your history CORRECTLY:

1. Continue diplomatic efforts (talk)
2. Start an invasion (war and death)

GWB selected...you guessed it...war and death.

Again, you're forgetting the MONTHS of UN resolutions and negotiations, the MONTHS of UN investigators being reinvited then kicked out of Iraq, and you are forgetting the inspections which took weeks because
"oh, wait you can't go back there."
*two months and 14 cargo movements later*
"OK, you can inspect this building now."

You don't remember that, do you.

The UN said they were offering a "final resolution." When Saddam didn't own up, he was calling the UN's bluff. President Bush made sure it wasn't a bluff.

And ask the contractors? That's what they are... CONTRACTORS... meaning they ASKED to go there! They're civilians in a warzone, what the hell do you expect?!

I'm sure you could also ask the Kurds, the dead from vietnam, the Jews of WWII, hell, we could even ask the Romans! Terrorism will always be around, so are you suggesting we blame the people in persuit of it?

The "Shock and Awe" campaign was initiated when Bush gave the Regime the warning, and specified, again, if you remember CORRECTLY, that Saddam had failed to allow inspectors into its borders, falsified its reports, and had failed to cooperate with the rest of the world one, last time. But then again, no one remembers THAT. They're too busy editorializing.

Yeah, I'd like the following "warning."

"Leave your country in 48 hours or we will come and kill joo!"

Yeah, I'd like the following "warning."

"Leave your country in 48 hours or we will come and kill joo!"

At least he GAVE a warning.

"We're going to invade Kuwait in ... oh.... 5 days. Stop us if you want...."

The US "all your base are belong to us" foreign policy will continue unabated until someone other than poorly funded "insurgents" grows a set of balls and actually stands up to us.

We won't run out of money and we won't run out of guns and we won't run out of warm bodies to pull triggers.

I'm lookin' at you, Europe. After we're done with the Middle East, we'll come a knockin' on your door. Nip it in the bud now. You'll be doing the world a favor.

Well, unlike you in the States, I have to go to bed now. (I'm in Korea)

Feel free to continue bickering without me, or email, if you're in the mood for a mature debate/discussion. No flame, please.

Peace.


Out.

Is this just rhetoric, or is there really a shift in the foreign policy position of the Whitehouse?
The way Rice has spoken in the past has been significantly diferent to the approach indicated by this report. As she is newly appointed to the office of Secretary of State it seems probable that she is giving an official Whitehouse line, more than her own specific opinion. Is there hope yet for the world?
Actually, yes. We have realized that we have made a mistake. We went it alone, and it's tougher than our theories predicted. We need help, and a general feeling of happiness with the rest of the world. As such, we're easing our way into change.

Again, you're forgetting the MONTHS of UN resolutions and negotiations, the MONTHS of UN investigators being reinvited then kicked out of Iraq, and you are forgetting the inspections which took weeks because
"oh, wait you can't go back there."
*two months and 14 cargo movements later*
"OK, you can inspect this building now."

You don't remember that, do you.

The UN said they were offering a "final resolution." When Saddam didn't own up, he was calling the UN's bluff. President Bush made sure it wasn't a bluff.

OK, a few questions on this, How do you know there were 14 cargo movements? if your really think that this was a WMD site, why wern't they tracked? and please don't say that tracking couldn't be done.
Could the cargo movements have been for legitimate business purposes.

I am glad Saddam has gone, he is a bad man. Just don't lie to me GWB & TB.

I still dont get though why we never got into the saudi's re Osama, he's family after all.

And ask the contractors? That's what they are... CONTRACTORS... meaning they ASKED to go there! They're civilians in a warzone, what the hell do you expect?!

I'm sure you could also ask the Kurds, the dead from vietnam, the Jews of WWII, hell, we could even ask the Romans! Terrorism will always be around, so are you suggesting we blame the people in persuit of it?What I'm suggesting, and will continue to suggest regardless of all and any objections, is simply this: Talking doesn't kill people. War kills people. Therefore, continuing to talk is a better option than starting a war.

For those who think starting a war is a better option, there are recruiting offices for the Military Services all over the place. Go sign up, and take your turn in the box.

As for Georgie boy and his cohorts, or any other idiot(s) that decide to have themselves a little war, I firmly believe that we need a new "rule". Anyone who chooses war over diplomacy must put on a damn uniform and go fight it on the front lines. The view is a little different from a foxhole than from a desk.

Again, you're forgetting the MONTHS of UN resolutions and negotiations, the MONTHS of UN investigators being reinvited then kicked out of Iraq, and you are forgetting the inspections which took weeks because
"oh, wait you can't go back there."
*two months and 14 cargo movements later*
"OK, you can inspect this building now."

You don't remember that, do you.

The UN said they were offering a "final resolution." When Saddam didn't own up, he was calling the UN's bluff. President Bush made sure it wasn't a bluff.So, there's some kind of a time limit on diplomacy? How many months is a soldiers life worth? How many months is a childs life worth?

How many months is your life worth?

EDIT: I note that you say you're in Korea. Checked your profile, and found out you're a soldier. I hereby "tone-down" my response. Not the gist, but the inherent sarcasm. As one soldier to another. US Army, SGM, 27 years

The US "all your base are belong to us" foreign policy will continue unabated until someone other than poorly funded "insurgents" grows a set of balls and actually stands up to us.

We won't run out of money and we won't run out of guns and we won't run out of warm bodies to pull triggers.

I'm lookin' at you, Europe. After we're done with the Middle East, we'll come a knockin' on your door. Nip it in the bud now. You'll be doing the world a favor.

Europe has neither the will, nor the means to do so. Short of using an all-out nuclear attack without warning, their collective armed forces wouldn't stand any real chance.

There is no Navy on the planet that could survive contact with the US Navy. And few strategic air forces that could reach targets in the US - and probably would not survive past the first attack attempt.

The US has far more surveillance capability, and would have an inordinate amount of warning time. A surprise attack would probably not be possible with conventional forces.

No nation on earth except the US has any real ability to land large numbers of troops on shore in an invasion.

Most European weapon systems and expenditures along those lines emphasize local, mobile defensive operations and tactics. They have little real world experience in attacking and securing strategic objectives (other than the UK forces).

It is a realistic assumption that even now, the US has the capability to conquer the EU, at least as far as conventional military battles is concerned. While there would probably be an insurgency, IMHO most Europeans, especially the French, don't have the heart for such a thing. The problem for them is that they think like Westerners, and they value their individual lives - far more so than the Americans. At least Arabs have some chance, because in the end, their insurgents want very much to die.

It's hard to suppress an insurgency composed of people who look forward to death. It's easy to suppress an insurgency composed of people who are high minded, believe themselves civilized, and are afraid to die.

oh yeah because there is no army in the whole of europe and there are no weapon systems capable of being defensive despite you jsut saying they have defensive weapon system

oh yeah because there is no army in the whole of europe and there are no weapon systems capable of being defensive despite you jsut saying they have defensive weapon system

I think the point of the post actually was that there is no way in heel Europe could pull of any type of offensive against the US which is true.

Any type of attack against the US would have to be a "terrorist" attack, due to the fact that our military is pretty much unstoppable, especially on the home ground (not that that has really been proven). And we all know what happens when terroristsattack the US, your neighbor gets blown to hell.

oh yeah because there is no army in the whole of europe and there are no weapon systems capable of being defensive despite you jsut saying they have defensive weapon system

It's kind of hard to invade the US if you don't have an amphibious assault capability (capable of deploying multiple divisions on the other side of the Earth).

It's kind of hard to invade the US if you don't have at least a collective Navy capable of defeating the US Navy.

It's kind of hard to go head to head with even one US carrier task force.

It's kind of hard to support an invasion on the other side of the globe without a decent sealift capability - and the ability to ensure dominance of the sea so those ships aren't sunk by US subs.

You can count the Russians out on this one. Most of their submarines are now rusting away in port. So are their aircraft carriers.

The UK has a small, but credible aircraft carrier force - but not one that would survive contact with a US carrier force. The French Navy is a running joke - their most advanced submarines are so noisy that they cannot run undetected.

No real stealth capability in the European air forces - no matter what they say about the Eurofighter, which is a really short range aircraft.

No strategic bombers.

Reaper, your complete ignorance of things military is showing.

Is this just rhetoric, or is there really a shift in the foreign policy position of the Whitehouse?
It's rhetoric. Same administration, this time they don't have to worry about re-election. If anything, they can now afford to be even more stubborn.

did i say offensive? i dont recall saying that

did i say offensive? i dont recall saying that

The line advanced by Keruvalia was that the Europeans attack the US before it's too late.

I then said it's not possible.

And then you said that I had implied that they don't have a military.

They do have a military. But it's largely in the category of "uncooperative target" as far as the US military is concerned.

Want to know where the best, absolute best, French air defense radar was proven to be absolute crap in combat?

The most recent Iraqi invasion. France would last about as long as Iraq if it were invaded by the US. Two weeks to drive all over it - and I bet most French don't have the balls that the average Arab has concerning being an insurgent.

Want to know where the best, absolute best, French air defense radar was proven to be absolute crap in combat?

The most recent Iraqi invasion. France would last about as long as Iraq if it were invaded by the US. Two weeks to drive all over it - and I bet most French don't have the balls that the average Arab has concerning being an insurgent.
At which point the joke that is the French submarine fleet would demonstrate embarrassing gaps in the US missile defense shield. :p (Probably aided by their more competent British colleagues and the outdated Russian weight-of-fire approach)

At which point the joke that is the French submarine fleet would demonstrate embarrassing gaps in the US missile defense shield. :p (Probably aided by their more competent British colleagues and the outdated Russian weight-of-fire approach)

In US Naval exercises, the joke is that the French submarines can be heard in Norfolk when they are leaving their French ports. You just have to stick your head in the water.

They probably couldn't get within range.

Additionally, the missile defense shield is meant for a handful of missiles from North Korea.

But...

the Airborne Laser would probably be usable in such a situation. It's supposed to be operational by the end of the year, and it's been proven to work. Much better than the missiles they plan to use in Alaska.

So, we find out where the French subs are. I'm sure that just as in the past, the French will make a lot of diplomatic noise first, so no surprises. We have the airborne laser loiter in the areas where the French subs were detected.

When the missiles clear the water, they get shot down. Then we sink the French subs.

The British would have a real chance. Their subs are very quiet, and their crews can justifiably be called the most competent on Earth.

But I doubt the UK would go along with such a plan. The French would have to subjugate the UK first, and we know how likely that is.

I heard somewhere along the lines that Russia, China, and India would be hugging together for a military alliance, Russia and China are supposed to have joint training missions, was it this month? The arms trading between Russia and the other two nations could spur it's economy. And you also have to keep in mind that as an all out war is, well, rather stupid, to be attempted by any nation, "Terrorism" is not.

I'm not talking about a few planes. What if a few civilian freights happened to be carrying Chinese infantry, and landed in maybe, like...Oregon. Or Washington. The thing is, the United States isn't very much capable of war on it's own turf, or rather, used to it. Plus, Urban Warfare tactics are, although changing, not to much in practice for the average soldier. At least I think. Also, there would I believe be a low insurgent number on the US part.

Supplied with sufficent reinforcements, slow advancements, city hopping, it could be done. Not currently, but in time.

And plus, the usage of civilian shields would be tough.

And...if the rest of the world decided that America was weakest at this moment...

I heard somewhere along the lines that Russia, China, and India would be hugging together for a military alliance, Russia and China are supposed to have joint training missions, was it this month? The arms trading between Russia and the other two nations could spur it's economy. And you also have to keep in mind that as an all out war is, well, rather stupid, to be attempted by any nation, "Terrorism" is not.

I'm not talking about a few planes. What if a few civilian freights happened to be carrying Chinese infantry, and landed in maybe, like...Oregon. Or Washington. The thing is, the United States isn't very much capable of war on it's own turf, or rather, used to it. Plus, Urban Warfare tactics are, although changing, not to much in practice for the average soldier. At least I think. Also, there would I believe be a low insurgent number on the US part.

Supplied with sufficent reinforcements, slow advancements, city hopping, it could be done. Not currently, but in time.

And plus, the usage of civilian shields would be tough.

And...if the rest of the world decided that America was weakest at this moment...


The problems would be supplying your troops on the other side of the world.
And you could drop light infantry over here, but without armor, you're not going to sweep around and take any real territory.

That, and light infantry don't do well against an insurgency. There are several hundred million guns in the US in the hands of civilians - and a great deal of these are more high performance than most military rifles.

I would surmise that without armor, you would get you ass handed to you by civilians.

Actually, yes. We have realized that we have made a mistake. We went it alone, and it's tougher than our theories predicted. We need help, and a general feeling of happiness with the rest of the world. As such, we're easing our way into change.

Alone? 28 nations have troops on the ground in Iraq! Britain was their from the start as were other nations. So how was it alone?

The problems would be supplying your troops on the other side of the world.
And you could drop light infantry over here, but without armor, you're not going to sweep around and take any real territory.

That, and light infantry don't do well against an insurgency. There are several hundred million guns in the US in the hands of civilians - and a great deal of these are more high performance than most military rifles.

I would surmise that without armor, you would get you ass handed to you by civilians.

Unfortunatly, unlike the Middle East, not many people are trained in any sort of tactics. And many more would rather flee then fight. I would assume for any sort of reinforcement to happen, they would need Canadian support, I admit that. But city hopping provides cover for the infantry, and again, randomly, I would like to stress that American citizens are more likely to run. And what, 2/3 of the population is overweight and out of shape? This is not the Middle East, where you've got to be in a constant state of training to survive. There is no selectivity here. Over there, if you're slow and fat, you get shot, and your house taken.

Plus, if there were an insurgancy, I doubt they'd be looking to public intrest, rather then their own family. While fleeing.

Oh good a USA versus EU fictional pissing contest.

May I just add that I'd REALLY LIKE you all to be a general on MY side, since NONE of you are at all OVERCONFIDENT or UNDERESTIMATE THE ENEMY and you see few if any real problems with WORLD WAR FUCKING THREE which will DESTROY THE WESTERN WORLD.

Yeah! Push that button! Hell let's just fucking kick France's ass, because the French just haven't lost enough wars AND we disagree on some issues! it'll be easy, all we have to do is sacrifice our military for it, and it'll be COOL! I mean hell they joined the military, they should have known they'd be thrown into pointless conflict a few months or years before the masturbatory self-destruction of the West and the inevitable resulting rise of the China-India-Russia SuperSovietUnion!

Luckily, by then we will have laid waste to all of Europe and depleted our armed strength in the same move, so we won't be able to defend it. THEN WE KILL THEM ALL! somehow. GO USA! USA UBER ALLES!

:p

I heard somewhere along the lines that Russia, China, and India would be hugging together for a military alliance, Russia and China are supposed to have joint training missions, was it this month? The arms trading between Russia and the other two nations could spur it's economy. And you also have to keep in mind that as an all out war is, well, rather stupid, to be attempted by any nation, "Terrorism" is not.

I'm not talking about a few planes. What if a few civilian freights happened to be carrying Chinese infantry, and landed in maybe, like...Oregon. Or Washington. The thing is, the United States isn't very much capable of war on it's own turf, or rather, used to it. Plus, Urban Warfare tactics are, although changing, not to much in practice for the average soldier. At least I think. Also, there would I believe be a low insurgent number on the US part.

Supplied with sufficent reinforcements, slow advancements, city hopping, it could be done. Not currently, but in time.

And plus, the usage of civilian shields would be tough.

And...if the rest of the world decided that America was weakest at this moment...

The joint training is between Russia and China, no India. The Indians have severe problems with the Chinese, ranging from some border wars, to severe disagreements over Tibet and the like.

Unfortunatly, unlike the Middle East, not many people are trained in any sort of tactics. And many more would rather flee then fight. I would assume for any sort of reinforcement to happen, they would need Canadian support, I admit that. But city hopping provides cover for the infantry, and again, randomly, I would like to stress that American citizens are more likely to run. And what, 2/3 of the population is overweight and out of shape? This is not the Middle East, where you've got to be in a constant state of training to survive. There is no selectivity here. Over there, if you're slow and fat, you get shot, and your house taken.

Plus, if there were an insurgancy, I doubt they'd be looking to public intrest, rather then their own family. While fleeing.

Don't need tactics. If you have a gun and know how to use it, you could do alot of damage. Anyone trained with a gun will not make life easy for an invasion force.

Alone? 28 nations have troops on the ground in Iraq! Britain was their from the start as were other nations. So how was it alone?
Relatively alone.

Listen, I'm not arguing with you, I'm just saying it could have been done a little bit better.

Relatively alone.

Listen, I'm not arguing with you, I'm just saying it could have been done a little bit better.

Your right, it could've but what is done is done.

One of the interesting things about the US was the system of enticing large numbers of people to join the military for only 4 years.

Most who got out did not end up in the Active Reserve, nor did they end up in the National Guard. The Active Reserve and NG are currently deployed overseas, so they won't count.

But, a larger number of people who are within 10 years of having been in service - who are trained - exist in the US. More people than are currently in active service.

Of those, about 1 in 12 were infantrymen. Most of those are still gunowners.

I'm not fat, or overweight, and I'm 44. I can still run as fast and as far as I did when I was in the infantry (I can run 12 miles at a 6 minute 15 second pace). I can also shoot better than I did when I was in service, and have a much, much better rifle and personal equipment.

I know quite a few people like me. It stems from the "will to power", I know, but there it is.

That sort of thing is actively discouraged in most countries, but it's considered a hobby in most red states.

The problems would be supplying your troops on the other side of the world.
And you could drop light infantry over here, but without armor, you're not going to sweep around and take any real territory.

That, and light infantry don't do well against an insurgency. There are several hundred million guns in the US in the hands of civilians - and a great deal of these are more high performance than most military rifles.

I would surmise that without armor, you would get you ass handed to you by civilians.
india and china together make up what 1/3 or 2/3 of the worlds population by themselves, they could easily overwhelm the us

Don't need tactics. If you have a gun and know how to use it, you could do alot of damage. Anyone trained with a gun will not make life easy for an invasion force.
very few people would be going outside to fight an invasion force, going outside to run away maybe

india and china together make up what 1/3 or 2/3 of the worlds population by themselves, they could easily overwhelm the us

Lack of military knowledge I see.

If you don't have the sealifting capacity, your not going to win. You still have to contend with the US Navy and Air Force. If you don't have the capacity to defend against them, your not going to succeed.

very few people would be going outside to fight an invasion force, going outside to run away maybe

I guess you don't know Americans. Maybe in California they will but even there I think there'll be a fight.

Americans will fight to keep their rights from being trampled on by an outside force. Remember the Revolutionary War? War of 1812?

Lack of military knowledge I see.

If you don't have the sealifting capacity, your not going to win. You still have to contend with the US Navy and Air Force. If you don't have the capacity to defend against them, your not going to succeed.
the airforce is qutie obviously only as useful as the morons in charge of telling them shit is going down, i think we learned that from 9/11


I guess you don't know Americans. Maybe in California they will but even there I think there'll be a fight.

Americans will fight to keep their rights from being trampled on by an outside force. Remember the Revolutionary War? War of 1812?
oh yes i remember wars from TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO when most people were in the military anyway or still on edge because all the shit was happennig WITHIN A SINGLE LIFETIME, they were ready to fight an invasion force

when was the last time there was an invading armed force on us soiL? TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO. i rest my case, well i think we may have did some fighting in what? the republic of texas but i dont think it was part of the us officially at said point

Well, China and Russia had been on board for past proposals, and as mentioned, India was always eh to the idea. But apparently the prospect of arms sales boosting their economy has at least interested them in the idea. I agree, many negotiations would have to take place.

Plus, a sustained war would not do to well between China. Economically, it would be bad for us, and yeah them, unless they start shifting customers. Or something. And remember, biological or chemical weapons could come into play.

I'm not sure how the whole thing would work out, but as far as insurgancy, I doubt it would be a persistent problem, at least initially. Plus, this is the West.
Us city folk don't fare to well in resistence. Pushing East would be a problem, unless they avoided the South entirely. I don't know, don't think I've thoroughly thought it out, I should probably have breakfast.

Also, how would a counter-attack go? An invasion? On Russian soil?
At the very least it's a stalemate.

the airforce is qutie obviously only as useful as the morons in charge of telling them shit is going down, i think we learned that from 9/11

Difference between civilian Aircraft, and the FAA and the ATC were blamed for lack of knowledge, and Military Aircraft!

Reaper, your kinda hurting this whole thing. Like, a kick in the penis of thinking.
Eh, well, screw it. I'm going to make some eggs and whip up a feast fit for the lesser Gods.

india and china together make up what 1/3 or 2/3 of the worlds population by themselves, they could easily overwhelm the us

Reaper, you obviously have zero military knowledge.

Let's give you an example of how modern things have gotten.

Just before the fall of Baghdad, two Iraqi armored divisions (roughly 40,000 men, roughly 2000 tanks and armored personnel carriers, and as many trucks and smaller vehicles) rolled out of Baghdad moving south east to try to meet the oncoming Americans.

They were spotted moving by JSTARS. Google up JSTARS and read about it.

Three B-52 bombers (just three) were re-routed to attack them. They were carrying CBU-97 weapons.

In a single pass, in a few minutes, 80 percent of the men in those divisions, and nearly all of their vehicles, were destroyed. The men were dead or wounded.

There isn't a comparable set of capabilities in anyone else's armed forces.

The Chinese Army would be even more vulnerable than the Iraqis, as their armor isn't even as advanced as the vehicles the Iraqis had bought from the Russians (most of the Russian Army isn't even as advanced due to money problems).

Imagine losing 32,000 men every few minutes, all over the battlefield, in all the wrong places, at all the wrong times.

Your army would run away and ignore your orders.

There's a book you should read called, "The Transformation of American Air Power". It's a history book - and a book that shows where all this is leading.

Anything of a conventional military on the ground is a target. If it moves, it's no longer any harder to hit than if it sits still.

Reaper, you obviously have zero military knowledge.

Let's give you an example of how modern things have gotten.

Just before the fall of Baghdad, two Iraqi armored divisions (roughly 40,000 men, roughly 2000 tanks and armored personnel carriers, and as many trucks and smaller vehicles) rolled out of Baghdad moving south east to try to meet the oncoming Americans.

They were spotted moving by JSTARS. Google up JSTARS and read about it.

Three B-52 bombers (just three) were re-routed to attack them. They were carrying CBU-97 weapons.

In a single pass, in a few minutes, 80 percent of the men in those divisions, and nearly all of their vehicles, were destroyed. The men were dead or wounded.

There isn't a comparable set of capabilities in anyone else's armed forces.

The Chinese Army would be even more vulnerable than the Iraqis, as their armor isn't even as advanced as the vehicles the Iraqis had bought from the Russians (most of the Russian Army isn't even as advanced due to money problems).

Imagine losing 32,000 men every few minutes, all over the battlefield, in all the wrong places, at all the wrong times.

Your army would run away and ignore your orders.

There's a book you should read called, "The Transformation of American Air Power". It's a history book - and a book that shows where all this is leading.

Anything of a conventional military on the ground is a target. If it moves, it's no longer any harder to hit than if it sits still.


We still have a problem of our civilians being in the area, plus city coverage.
And I'm not saying right now, I'm saying in the future this could pose a serious threat. With money from arms sales, all those fantastico upgrades could eventually come through. Damnit, I'm not trying to run the actual invasion. I just wanted to comment before eggs.

I'll eat now, I swear.

im too tired & haven’t read every thin said up to this point yet, so sum1 may have said this already:

The US wants to rule the world, in one way or another, in a way that benefits itself (egotism), so it’s only logical for it to want a Political Monopoly, Economic Monopoly and heck an Ideological Monopoly. What GWB doesn’t understand is that different people have different ways of thinking, different beliefs, different ethical priorities & Different ways of implementing themselves, & thus tries to be the bossy kid in the class room always speaking out when it sees something different and raising an eyebrow, followed by a frown.

The US is being a bully...because it CAN. & guess what...in many ways it benefits it...so y not (xpt for all the ethical stuff, lol).

Europe, I love you, I’m a European & i love it. im proud of you Europe for being able to stand up on your own feet & not always trying to kiss the Big Kid's ass. (Although having Tony as my Prime-Minister doesn’t help!)

PROBLEM: every once in a decade or so America Realises that its money & cheques are becoming useless & that their deficit is becoming too much of a burden, so it (the US) calms down, stops playing with the lives of the rest of the world & gets down to a bit of business (as the ideal setting for MOST of the economy is PEACE).

Note: who do you think is the most hated country in the world? Its only logical that EVENTUALLY they US isn’t goanna have enough ppl to trade with, so it decides to create new nations out of old countries, & today…the US cant afford to do up another country, as its already done 2 in the past 4 yrs.

But this isn’t the end. I’ll bet any amount of any money that they’ve got @ LEAST 1 more county to do in the near future.

Imaginary then why is it that most of the old timers said to jump start the economy all we need is a good war?

Did you know that WWII brough the US out of an Economic Depression? Did you know that WWII sent people to work in the war plants to build ships, planes, guns, ammo, etc?

SHOCK & AWE!! and death

The technical term is "Blitzkrieg".

yes i do. And it did wonders for the Americans, i think it may have something to do with not having the country in question flattened, & only attacking where & when u feel like it (xpt the Japanese kinda screwed that up 4 the Americans). However, Note: Europe, was better of be4 the war. And Britain was MUCH better off b4 the war. After WW2 America started getting a lot of stuff from places like the UK. besides that, That’s when we decided to play around with the middle east. A lot of good came out of that, presuming u r standing on the right side of the deal.

+ Economies tend to do gr8ly after war...y? Because in comparison to the run up & during the war, there would be an infinite increase in security & thus Stability, (the most important think 4 the majority of the economy). Plus, after a war, the government of the (supposedly) winning country will plough more (than it would at normal times) money in to the economy to get the ball rolling.

Well these are a few things, but to be TOTALLY honest with you…I'm not either an economist nor a politician so I cant truly say. (although it just occurred to me that after a war, there would be more of a monopoly present in both the Economic field & the Political field, which as I've mentioned b4, brings power = good thing if u wanna make money)

The technical term is "Blitzkrieg".

The old term is "asskicking".

Ok maybee a bit of target but it is pretty clear that China and India that have over 1/3 of the world population will gain more and more power in the world. The question is if it will be through military, econimcally or political process and how long time it will take. It could therefore good that todays superpower USA and the EU show a good example in leading the world and they see that the process will be peacfull and with increasing democracy in ecpecially. Or we can see a facist capatisic China as a superpower that take more and more power and influence from a more and more marganilised EU and USA.

This is so transparent as to be laughable, if it weren't at once so frightening.

The administration is coming to th e table with Europe UN in order to gain military support in the form of "peace keeping" forces in Iraq, so that they can turn their eyes on Iran. That's all. Watch, soon enough there will be some kind of "provocation" from Iran, like "they won't shut down their nuclear program", or some kind of staged attack on american sodiers at the border, or something equally fabricated. Then we'll be off to the races again.

Meanwhile GWB will be standing there with his shit-eating smirk, lying his ass off, while all the wingnuts eat up his falsehoods with with giant spoons.

Good luck America, we're REALLY going to need it...

Ok maybee a bit of target but it is pretty clear that China and India that have over 1/3 of the world population will gain more and more power in the world. The question is if it will be through military, econimcally or political process and how long time it will take. It could therefore good that todays superpower USA and the EU show a good example in leading the world and they see that the process will be peacfull and with increasing democracy in ecpecially. Or we can see a facist capatisic China as a superpower that take more and more power and influence from a more and more marganilised EU and USA.

It's far more likely the latter - with one asshole military superpower taking the place of another asshole military superpower.

Name one nation on earth that won the support, admiration, and moreover, great economic and political benefits and became the number one nation on earth - solely by talking peace and never going to war - in fact, never having a big military at any time.

Good luck!

Don't need tactics. If you have a gun and know how to use it, you could do alot of damage. Anyone trained with a gun will not make life easy for an invasion force.

Ah, but this is a Chinese invasion force. They wouldn't give a damn if a few of their men were killed. They have hordes of them. Also, unlike us, they wouldn't even make a token effort to be nice to the populace. If there was an insurgency, they'd probably just shoot first, ask questions later, or never. They'd probably just kill any civilian who they even SUSPECTED was armed on sight.

Ah, but this is a Chinese invasion force. They wouldn't give a damn if a few of their men were killed. They have hordes of them. Also, unlike us, they wouldn't even make a token effort to be nice to the populace. If there was an insurgency, they'd probably just shoot first, ask questions later, or never. They'd probably just kill any civilian who they even SUSPECTED was armed on sight.

That is if they defeat the US Navy first! They dont' have the sealifting capacity to sustain such an effort.

Alone? 28 nations have troops on the ground in Iraq! Britain was their from the start as were other nations. So how was it alone?First: to respond to the above quote...

numbers are approximate - but not far off
150,000 US troops
16,000 British Troops
8,000 Everybody else

No, not alone. Virtually alone. Wake up.

Second: The topic of this thread was what, again?

First: to respond to the above quote...

numbers are approximate - but not far off
150,000 US troops
16,000 British Troops
8,000 Everybody else

No, not alone. Virtually alone. Wake up.

Second: The topic of this thread was what, again?

This issue was settled already!

I think someone wanted to know why Rice mentioned that "this is the time for diplomacy" as though we weren't going to attack anyone (for a while) and wanted to talk.

I think what she meant was that there are some places where talk can work.
And that given certain changes (like the death of Arafat), change is possible in some areas in the Middle East.

And that even before the US goes in somewhere, talking first might avert something worse.

It does imply though, that there's a time for asskicking.

The technical term is "Blitzkrieg".
Hi there. Thanks for the lesson. Somehow, in my 53 years (27+ spent in the United States Army) I must have missed that. Maybe I took a nap that day...

Blitzkrieg (in German "lightning war") is not the same as "Shock and Awe".

Blitzkrieg: The concept is that of following an initial heavy but brief air, naval, and artillery bombardment with a massive ground troop strike, that by-passes the enemy strongholds, isolates them, and takes possession of everything else. Following the initial on-slaught, mop-up actions take place to eliminate, if necessary, the enemy strongholds by-passed initially.

Shock and Awe: The concept is of an initial air, naval, and artillery bombardment that is in itself intense, massive, lengthy, and is designed to wipe out, as much as possible, enemy strongholds. The ground action that follows is on a smaller scale than it would be in either a Blitzkrieg campaign, or a conventional campaign, and does the dual missions of taking physical possession of the area being fought over, and the mop-up actions.

The main difference is that Shock and Awe relies much more heavily on the bombardment phase, and less on the ground force strike.

Germany in WWII - Blitzkrieg
US in the Gulf War of the 90s - Blitzkrieg
US in the Iraq Invasion - Shock and Awe

(I don't care for the term, but thats what they call it)

Any type of attack against the US would have to be a "terrorist" attack.
There is no such thing.

There is no such thing.

No such thing as a terrorist attack? I guess 9/11 escapes you. I guess the embassy Bombings escape you. I guess Kobar Towers Escape you. I guess the 1st World Trade Center bombing escapes you.

No such thing as a terrorist attack?
Against the US.

Against the US.
Thanks for showing your anti-americanism.

I guess you forgot that 9/11 was a TERRORIST ATTACK! The Embassy Bombings were a TERRORIST ATTACK! Kobar Towers was a TERRORIST ATTACK! First WTC attack was a TERRORIST ATTACK!

Thanks for showing your anti-americanism.
No problem. :) It's not like I try to hide it.
I guess you forgot that 9/11 was a TERRORIST ATTACK! The Embassy Bombings were a TERRORIST ATTACK! Kobar Towers was a TERRORIST ATTACK! First WTC attack was a TERRORIST ATTACK!
Thats just what the US government calls them.

War of 1812?

Not that I don't agree with some of the other stuff you said, but tactically, we LOST the war of 1812. The goal for us starting the war was to drive britain from North America. Canada kicked our ass and that goal did not happen. Britain only ended the fighting because they wanted to pool their resources to use against France and were willing to accept a "you leave us alone and we'll do the same" type of agreement in the Americas.

It was the second time that the French saved our asses.

Not that I don't agree with some of the other stuff you said, but tactically, we LOST the war of 1812. The goal for us starting the war was to drive britain from North America. Canada kicked our ass and that goal did not happen. Britain only ended the fighting because they wanted to pool their resources to use against France and were willing to accept a "you leave us alone and we'll do the same" type of agreement in the Americas.

It was the second time that the French saved our asses.

Actually the French never got involved in the war of 1812! They were to busy going across Europe.

In 1812, it actually ended in a Draw. It wasn't a defeat for either side. Britain was impressing our people at sea into their navy and didn't stop when we asked them too so we went to war. In the end, it pretty much was a draw.

No problem. :) It's not like I try to hide it.

Funny like a crutch!

Thats just what the US government calls them.

And that is exactly what they were. Terrorist attacks.

French Military History in a Nutshell

Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."

Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War: Tied.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.

War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.

American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".

French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.

War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.

Great. I start a thread on the basis that there may be some hope for the USA after all. That some good sense may actually be beginning to appear in the most unlikely of places. I then have to go and deal with my life (Cellphone bit the dust and needed to be taken to the repair shop), only to come back to find the thread about the USA being willing to try talking for once has collapsed into yet another:

The USA is evil vs Terrorists are evil

or

Saying anything good about the USA is Evil vs Saying anything bad about the USA is evil

type thread.

Thanx all.

Great. I start a thread on the basis that there may be some hope for the USA after all. That some good sense may actually be beginning to appear in the most unlikely of places. I then have to go and deal with my life (Cellphone bit the dust and needed to be taken to the repair shop), only to come back to find the thread about the USA being willing to try talking for once has collapsed into yet another:

The USA is evil vs Terrorists are evil

or

Saying anything good about the USA is Evil vs Saying anything bad about the USA is evil

type thread.

Thanx all.

Your right Alien Born. It is good that the US Wants to talk. We always want to talk but sometimes talking doesn't work.

And that is exactly what they were. Terrorist attacks.
Nah. Isolated incidents blown way out of proportion.

Nah. Isolated incidents blown way out of proportion.

I guess you don't read what Bin Laden has been writing.

They are not isolated incidents.

Actually the French never got involved in the war of 1812! They were to busy going across Europe.

In 1812, it actually ended in a Draw. It wasn't a defeat for either side. Britain was impressing our people at sea into their navy and didn't stop when we asked them too so we went to war. In the end, it pretty much was a draw.


The French never needed to get involved in the 1812 war, their presence in Europe was enough to draw away troops from Canada and prevent us from making a serious attack on America. If Napoleon hadn't continued fighting in Europe the entire might of Britain would have been brought to bear on the US... and when you consider the mauling they got from a tiny force of Canadians, they would have been unlikely to be able to face off against His Majesty's army and the Royal Navy.

With regards to the causes... those are indeed the causes the US claims. Canada and the UK claim that the cause was that the US decided to try and nip in to pinch Canada while we were distracted. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, it usually is. However, the Crown won the war overall.

Nah. Isolated incidents blown way out of proportion.

hmm! No. They were terror attacks.

The French never needed to get involved in the 1812 war, their presence in Europe was enough to draw away troops from Canada and prevent us from making a serious attack on America. If Napoleon hadn't continued fighting in Europe the entire might of Britain would have been brought to bear on the US... and when you consider the mauling they got from a tiny force of Canadians, they would have been unlikely to be able to face off against His Majesty's army and the Royal Navy.

Typical British Propaganda. Napoleon was busy fighting across Europe and establishing the French Empire. He didn't have time to think about the Brits. The Brits had their own problems.

With regards to the causes... those are indeed the causes the US claims. Canada and the UK claim that the cause was that the US decided to try and nip in to pinch Canada while we were distracted. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, it usually is. However, the Crown won the war overall.

First I heard of those claims. Overall the war was a draw!

I guess you don't read what Bin Laden has been writing.

They are not isolated incidents.
Alright. Minor incidents. Blown way out of proportion.

There is no such thing...as a terrorist attack...Against the US.There is no such thing as Von Witzleben.

Both statements are equally true or equally false, Witlessleben. Take your pick.

Nah. Isolated incidents blown way out of proportion.Ok - why don't you ask a couple of your buddies to save you a place in the next building that is going to be the target of an "isolated incident blown way out of proportion" so you can experience it for yourself?

Typical British Propaganda. Napoleon was busy fighting across Europe and establishing the French Empire. He didn't have time to think about the Brits. The Brits had their own problems.


So he didn't have time to think about the people who only 7 years before had defeated him and sent him into exile? Or who would (with the help of the prussians) defeat him again at Waterloo?

The fact is that if Britain had not been involved in the European war of 1812 they could easily have overwhelmed the US forces. The US knew this and would not have dared attack Canada if not for Napoleon's Grand Armée.

To give an example, the pride of the US Navy in 1812 were the six Constitution-style frigates. These were possibly the best frigates in the world at the time, but that is precisely what they were... Frigates. In comparison, at Trafalgar Nelson led a fleet which included 7 Frigates and 27 Ships of the Line. Against that kind of force, the United States Navy would have been helpless.

Alright. Minor incidents. Blown way out of proportion.
As a function of the total number of people killed, or the total number of incidents, it may appear to be isolated.

But, if you read his writings, you realize that it's more than a trend. It's a plan. And you know that the plan eventually involves the destruction of the United States. And you know from the writings that he plans to annihilate the population. By any means.

You're going to tell me that Bin Laden is blowing this out of proportion?

That he really plans just to sell Girl Scout cookies, and that the isolated incidents were just rogue actions by a few Girl Scouts?

That the annihilation of the US population would not be terrorism?

It's a plan. And you know that the plan eventually involves the destruction of the United States.
*Shrugs* You have only yourself to blame for that.

You're going to tell me that Bin Laden is blowing this out of proportion?

LOL :D No. The US is.

I'd just like to add that there were more choices then "talk" or "start a war". What if Saddam did have weapons and used them? I'm still not convinced that they haven't been moved to another country either.

Most people in the world thought Saddam had weapons. This includes US Intelligence, British Intelligence, and Russian Intelligence. It also includes many liberal US democrats, such as Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.

The UN appears to generally be all talk and no action.

I'd just like to add that there were more choices then "talk" or "start a war". What if Saddam did have weapons and used them? I'm still not convinced that they haven't been moved to another country either.

Most people in the world thought Saddam had weapons. This includes US Intelligence, British Intelligence, and Russian Intelligence. It also includes many liberal US democrats, such as Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.

The UN appears to generally be all talk and no action.

We've known for a long time that the UN is all talk and no action!

*Shrugs* You have only yourself to blame for that.

LOL :D No. The US is.You're quite an asshole, aren't you?

You'er quite an asshole, aren't you?

Just now figured that out about him? :D

Just now figured that out about him? :DNah - just now decided to stop restraining myself from mentioning it :D

Nah - just now decided to stop restraining myself from mentioning it :D

Well done dude! :)

You're quite an asshole, aren't you?
I'm not American. So no.

I'm not American. So no.

Oh because you say your not American Doesn't make you an asshole?

Boy! I think someone needs to mature some.

Oh because you say your not American Doesn't make you an asshole?
Well, I'm not.

Boy! I think someone needs to mature some.
Cause I started the namecalling huh?

Well, I'm not.

Not what I asked. However, judging by what you posted regarding terrorist attacks, you could be considered an asshole.

Cause I started the namecalling huh?

Nope, I truely think you need to learn how the real world works though!

Not what I asked. However, judging by what you posted regarding terrorist attacks, you could be considered an asshole.
So could you.



Nope, I truely think you need to learn how the real world works though!
Pray tell. How does it work?

So could you.

I could what? Be considered an asshole? I am on some issues because I fight against them. You though, are an asshole because you condone the mass killings of Americans.

Pray tell. How does it work?

Take it one day at a time and hope that no one stabs you in the back. Diplomacy works in certain cases but tere are some that you can't negiotiate with and those that don't or wont negotiate need to be taken out. Kick him hard and keep'em down.

I could what? Be considered an asshole? I am on some issues because I fight against them. You though, are an asshole because you condone the mass killings of Americans.
But it's OK that the US has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi's directly or indirectly hmmm? Yeah. Your quit the humanitarian.
And I didn't say I condoned it. I just wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Take it one day at a time and hope that no one stabs you in the back. Diplomacy works in certain cases but tere are some that you can't negiotiate with and those that don't or wont negotiate need to be taken out. Kick him hard and keep'em down.
Sound like Osama took your advice and gave it a try.

But it's OK that the US has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi's directly or indirectly hmmm? Yeah. Your quit the humanitarian.
And I didn't say I condoned it. I just wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

I wonder how many people terrorists have killed over the years. More than the US has in Afghanistan and Iraq that is for damn sure.

Sound like Osama took your advice and gave it a try.

And is losing! He lost Afghanistan and his friend in Iraq failed to stop the Iraqi vote there.

I wonder how many people terrorists have killed over the years. More than the US has in Afghanistan and Iraq that is for damn sure.
I wonder how many peoples deaths the US has caused over the years. Vietnam, Central/South America, Middle East and so on.



And is losing! He lost Afghanistan and his friend in Iraq failed to stop the Iraqi vote there.
Losing? How do you know? Maybe he's just laying low for a while.

[QUOTE=Von Witzleben]I wonder how many peoples deaths the US has caused over the years. Vietnam, Central/South America, Middle East and so on.

how many people has germany killed? russia? britian? france? everyones done their part.

how many people has germany killed? russia? britian? france? everyones done their part.
At least they don't pretend they did it for a noble cause.

At least they don't pretend they did it for a noble cause.

Germany did.

Like I said, I like you. I wish more Germans were like you. (honest).

Germany did.

Like I said, I like you. I wish more Germans were like you. (honest).
Thanks.
And yes.Did. While the US are still at it.

The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies.
-- Apparently he isn't counting the invasions, occupations and nation-building endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

Thanks.
And yes.Did. While the US are still at it.

The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies.
-- Apparently he isn't counting the invasions, occupations and nation-building endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

I guess you didn't read the whole quote! Here's the rest:

"They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a cummunity of free and independt nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflefct their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace."

I guess you didn't read the whole quote! Here's the rest:

"They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a cummunity of free and independt nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflefct their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace."
Which goes directly against the part I posted. About not having the desire to force their form of government upon them.

Which goes directly against the part I posted. About not having the desire to force their form of government upon them.

Nowhere in here do I see that! Maybe you could point it out since you obviously have a higher intellect than I.

Nowhere in here do I see that! Maybe you could point it out since you obviously have a higher intellect than I.
I suspected as much.
The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies.
-- Apparently he isn't counting the invasions, occupations and nation-building endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

"They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a cummunity of free and independt nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflefct their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace."

I suspected as much.
The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies.
-- Apparently he isn't counting the invasions, occupations and nation-building endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

"They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a cummunity of free and independt nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflefct their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace."

I don't see anywhere about imposing our will on people. Want to try again?

[intentionaly ignores the flamebait]

Again, you're forgetting the MONTHS of UN resolutions and negotiations, the MONTHS of UN investigators being reinvited then kicked out of Iraq, and you are forgetting the inspections which took weeks because
"oh, wait you can't go back there."
*two months and 14 cargo movements later*
"OK, you can inspect this building now."

You don't remember that, do you.

The UN said they were offering a "final resolution." When Saddam didn't own up, he was calling the UN's bluff. President Bush made sure it wasn't a bluff.
Are you trying to rewrite the facts?

Blix Report to UN SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm


Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

Bush was not going to allow the UN inspectors to finish their job because, quite frankly they were NOT finding ANY WMD!!! If WMD were not to be found, then Bush would lose out on the opportunity of invading Iraq.

Is this just rhetoric, or is there really a shift in the foreign policy position of the Whitehouse?
The way Rice has spoken in the past has been significantly diferent to the approach indicated by this report. As she is newly appointed to the office of Secretary of State it seems probable that she is giving an official Whitehouse line, more than her own specific opinion. Is there hope yet for the world?
The time for diplomacy:now. The time for ass kicking: Two months from now.

America's 5 year plan...

War with Iran - 1 year
War with North Korea - 4 years

America's 5 year plan...

War with Iran - 1 year
War with North Korea - 4 years
I should re-adjust my stock portfolio. Perhaps an investment in casket and bodybag makers is in order?

I should re-adjust my stock portfolio. Perhaps an investment in casket and bodybag makers is in order?
Good idea!

Bush was not going to allow the UN inspectors to finish their job because, quite frankly they were NOT finding ANY WMD!!! If WMD were not to be found, then Bush would lose out on the opportunity of invading Iraq.
http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004951.php


Read and learn, something you may be unused to when it comes to your political views.

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004951.php


Read and learn, something you may be unused to when it comes to your political views.
Perhaps that is the root of your problem? Using weblogs to support your arguments that is.

It is too bad that you missed so many great posts on this very subject early last year.

Pray tell. How does it work?
Hey Witzleben, you live in the Netherlands, right?

Perhaps that is the root of your problem? Using weblogs to support your arguments that is.

It is too bad that you missed so many great posts on this very subject early last year.
Let's, of course, ignore the fact that that particular weblog is one hell of a lot more credible than CBS or the AP. Did you even read the article?

I'm not American. So no.What you are is a flame baiting, wise-ass, little weasle.

And those of us who are Americans are rather grateful that you aren't.

Let's, of course, ignore the fact that that particular weblog is one hell of a lot more credible than CBS or the AP. Did you even read the article?

Let's also ignore the fact that the website he linked to was the freaking official UN site.

Let's, of course, ignore the fact that that particular weblog is one hell of a lot more credible than CBS or the AP. Did you even read the article?
Just to be fair, I went back and read the blog post and my opinion stands unchanged. The post is BS, especially the concluding paragraph:

Saddam could have prevented the whole war by simply complying with what he had previously agreed to do -- allow inspectors unfettered access.

Which he was doing when the US invaded. Iraq posed zero threat to the US and the UN inspectors were proving that on a daily basis. This was unacceptable to Bush so he launched the attack.

Just to be fair, I went back and read the blog post and my opinion stands unchanged. The post is BS, especially the concluding paragraph:

Saddam could have prevented the whole war by simply complying with what he had previously agreed to do -- allow inspectors unfettered access.

Which he was doing when the US invaded. Iraq posed zero threat to the US and the UN inspectors were proving that on a daily basis. This was unacceptable to Bush so he launched the attack.
We gave him a deadline for that option. A very simple deadline. He could have met that deadline at any time of his choosing. He didn't. When it became apparent that the deadline wasn't bullshit he backpedaled furiously, but in this case it was called a deadline for good reason.

We gave him a deadline for that option. A very simple deadline. He could have met that deadline at any time of his choosing. He didn't. When it became apparent that the deadline wasn't bullshit he backpedaled furiously, but in this case it was called a deadline for good reason.
Many traditional US allies were not prepared to invade Iraq as long as the UN inspections were going forward and were being productive. I thank God that my country was one of those less than "willing" to march to the beat of the Bush war drums. Bush was going to invade Iraq, come Hell or high water.

It appears that Iraq is more screwed up than it was before and don't tout that "democracy" crap because it is simply not true.

What I'm suggesting, and will continue to suggest regardless of all and any objections, is simply this: Talking doesn't kill people. War kills people. Therefore, continuing to talk is a better option than starting a war.

Talking and doing nothing does kill people. How many dead in Darfur so far? The UN continues talking... and it's "not genocide". I wonder what would be. Meanwhile people continue to die.

A war is better than such a genocidal "peace".

Speaking of which, how many people has Saddam killed, exactly? The commonly accepted number is 500,000, but a lot of Iraqis claim >5 million.

As for Georgie boy and his cohorts, or any other idiot(s) that decide to have themselves a little war, I firmly believe that we need a new "rule". Anyone who chooses war over diplomacy must put on a damn uniform and go fight it on the front lines. The view is a little different from a foxhole than from a desk.

The military voted overwhelmingly for Bush (70-75%).

We don't have a "rule", we just held an election in the US which was among other things a referendum on the war and on Bush. Bush won. And then the Iraqis had another election which was a referendum on democracy vs terrorism, and democracy won.

"We need a new rule"? Really? I assume you propose to establish that by some means other than an election, seeing how you lost the last one.

The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies.
-- Apparently he isn't counting the invasions, occupations and nation-building endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

"They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a cummunity of free and independt nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflefct their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace."

There is no contradiction. We do not wish to impose our way on anyone, however we will prevent anyone else from imposing *their* way. (We mean *you*, Saddam, Khomeini, Al-Sadr, Zarqawi, Osama...).

Democracy cannot be imposed, by definition: it is the only form of government for which that is true. If people didn't like it, they could vote to put a dictator in power, of course, and that has happened occasionally. (but what happens if they change their minds?)

It appears that Iraq is more screwed up than it was before and don't tout that "democracy" crap because it is simply not true.
Show me a single change in government that is as extreme as Iraq is going through in as volatile a region surrounded by countries whose best interests lie in it failing miserably that is doing it better and more peacefully. You can't. For that matter, Iraq is in better shape still than a hell of a lot of other countries that changed governments.

For that matter, Iraq is in better shape still than a hell of a lot of other countries that changed governments.

Yery true. I would say "better shape than a lot of countries" period, including most of Africa and most of the Middle East.

So, there's some kind of a time limit on diplomacy? How many months is a soldiers life worth? How many months is a childs life worth?

How many months is your life worth?

EDIT: I note that you say you're in Korea. Checked your profile, and found out you're a soldier. I hereby "tone-down" my response. Not the gist, but the inherent sarcasm. As one soldier to another. US Army, SGM, 27 years

Hooah, Sergeant Major!

I've already done the "put on a uniform and fight a war" thing.
I had some of the best times of my life, and feel that I did a good thing.
I feel that there are some things worth more than money - that some things can only be purchased by personal sacrifice - a concept that appears to be lost on people who oppose war unconditionally.

Wars are sometimes necessary. It may be argued that it wasn't necessary in this instance. But, to really make that judgment, we have to wait 50 years to see if that's really true.

Skip over the ostensible reasons that any war was started. Do we really think that WW I was all over some Archduke getting lead poisoning? Do we really think that the US entered WW II "only" because of Pearl Harbor? That Vietnam was about the Tonkin Gulf incident? That Iraq was only about WMD?

It takes decades to see if the effect of war was a bad thing or a good thing. Yes, people die and things are blown up. But sometimes something good comes of it.

The United States was the result of the American Revolution - a war.
The United States was firmly cemented as a Republic as a result of the Civil War.
The world was rid of Hitler because a lot of nations fought against him in WW II.

Are all wars bad? In prompt effect - they are horrific and terrible. But there can be a good effect in some cases.

What happens if democracy really does come to the Middle East over the next few decades? What if it's the result of American hegemony and bullying? What if those nations become more stable, more prosperous, and more wise than the nation that initially went to war against them?

Look at Germany and Japan. Two formerly warmongering nations who were fought by an assortment of other nations who imposed new forms of government on them. What are those two nations like today? Sure, the war was a nightmare. We could have taken Chamberlain's advice and just pulled our pants down and bent over for Hitler.

What would the world be like in that case?

Hey Witzleben, you live in the Netherlands, right?
Yes. Why?

What you are is a flame baiting, wise-ass, little weasle.
Like you weren't. So get off your high horse.

And those of us who are Americans are rather grateful that you aren't.
You have no idea how gratefull I am each day.

What you are is a flame baiting, wise-ass, little weasle.
Like you weren't. So get off your high horse.

And those of us who are Americans are rather grateful that you aren't.
You have no idea how gratefull I am each day.

What you are is a flame baiting, wise-ass, little weasle.
Like you weren't. So get off your high horse.

And those of us who are Americans are rather grateful that you aren't.
You have no idea how gratefull I am each day.

Well, von, if you're upset now, prepare to get more upset.
Just heard more Condi speaking, and she sounds like a real firebrand.

If I was an Iranian, I would be digging a bomb shelter in my backyard.

Don't feed the troll, people.

Well, von, if you're upset now, prepare to get more upset.
Just heard more Condi speaking, and she sounds like a real firebrand.

If I was an Iranian, I would be digging a bomb shelter in my backyard.
I saw it on the news. What tact and diplomatic skills. I see why she was given the position.

that reminds me. you're in the Netherlands, right?
are you the MF who stole my bike last summer?

that reminds me. you're in the Netherlands, right?
are you the MF who stole my bike last summer?
Maybe. What kind of bike was it?

It was a Santa Cruz (full suspension).

Stealing bicycles seems to be the national sport in the Netherlands.

It was a Santa Cruz (full suspension).
Sorry. Wasn't me.

Stealing bicycles seems to be the national sport in the Netherlands.
Well, yeah. Kind of. If you go out, on let's say Saturday night, and your bike mysteriously disappears you either go shop for one yourself or you look for a junkie who will take your order. And if your lucky he already has a bike. Price:
Usualy 10 to 20 Euros. Locks and keys not included.

For that matter, Iraq is in better shape still than a hell of a lot of other countries that changed governments.
Can you offer facts to support this claim?

Yes. Why?
Because the people that run the rotterdam film festival are running scared from the muslims. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050201/NOTE01-5/TPEntertainment/Film

Because the people that run the rotterdam film festival are running scared from the muslims. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050201/NOTE01-5/TPEntertainment/Film

It was my experience that you need to find some way to secure your bicycle, not worry about Muslims, in the Netherlands.

Losing your bike is far more likely to happen than anything else.

There is no contradiction. We do not wish to impose our way on anyone, however we will prevent anyone else from imposing *their* way. (We mean *you*, Saddam, Khomeini, Al-Sadr, Zarqawi, Osama...).

Democracy cannot be imposed, by definition: it is the only form of government for which that is true. If people didn't like it, they could vote to put a dictator in power, of course, and that has happened occasionally. (but what happens if they change their minds?)

I think the idea that you should prevent anyone else from "imposing *their* way" is a very strange one, seeing that you claim to be democratic. Do you think that it is appropriate to use force in order to change social structures? Personally, I would have no objection to a totalitarian state - such exist without the control-through-violence which inhabitants of the United States of America seem to associate with them.

I strongly disagree with the idea that democracy cannot be imposed - the version of democracy touted by the United States most certainly can. It is a nationalistic democracy, one that places in government an absolute power with control over all the people and is so not a true democracy - since such would allow any person resident in the area who disagreed with the elected government's policies to remove themselves from the legal system of said government.

Oh, and any 'democratic' system which gives economic entities the inviolable rights of individuals is seriously corrupted. A corporation has no body, no physical presence whose rights can be intruded upon.

Like you weren't. So get off your high horse.

You have no idea how gratefull I am each day.No, I'm not flame-baiting, and you know it. That's just another ploy on your part to enrage someone - in this case, me. Failed.

Don't care how grateful you are about not being American - or, really, about anything you think, or anything about you.

I've discovered you're not worth the effort.

Because the people that run the rotterdam film festival are running scared from the muslims. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050201/NOTE01-5/TPEntertainment/Film
Yes I know. What are you trying to say?

No, I'm not flame-baiting, and you know it. That's just another ploy on your part to enrage someone - in this case, me. Failed.

Don't care how grateful you are about not being American - or, really, about anything you think, or anything about you.

I've discovered you're not worth the effort.
Neither are you.

I've already done the "put on a uniform and fight a war" thing.
I had some of the best times of my life, and feel that I did a good thing.
I feel that there are some things worth more than money - that some things can only be purchased by personal sacrifice - a concept that appears to be lost on people who oppose war unconditionally.

Wars are sometimes necessary. It may be argued that it wasn't necessary in this instance. But, to really make that judgment, we have to wait 50 years to see if that's really true.

Skip over the ostensible reasons that any war was started. Do we really think that WW I was all over some Archduke getting lead poisoning? Do we really think that the US entered WW II "only" because of Pearl Harbor? That Vietnam was about the Tonkin Gulf incident? That Iraq was only about WMD?

It takes decades to see if the effect of war was a bad thing or a good thing. Yes, people die and things are blown up. But sometimes something good comes of it.

The United States was the result of the American Revolution - a war.
The United States was firmly cemented as a Republic as a result of the Civil War.
The world was rid of Hitler because a lot of nations fought against him in WW II.

Are all wars bad? In prompt effect - they are horrific and terrible. But there can be a good effect in some cases.

What happens if democracy really does come to the Middle East over the next few decades? What if it's the result of American hegemony and bullying? What if those nations become more stable, more prosperous, and more wise than the nation that initially went to war against them?

Look at Germany and Japan. Two formerly warmongering nations who were fought by an assortment of other nations who imposed new forms of government on them. What are those two nations like today? Sure, the war was a nightmare. We could have taken Chamberlain's advice and just pulled our pants down and bent over for Hitler.

What would the world be like in that case?

WL, I just want to say kudos, very well written. I agree completely.

I think the idea that you should prevent anyone else from "imposing *their* way" is a very strange one, seeing that you claim to be democratic.

I don't see how. If they are *imposing* their way (implying that they are doing so by force or threat of force) they are not democratic. A truly democratically-minded person would want to prevent that, of course.

Do you think that it is appropriate to use force in order to change social structures?

Yes, absolutely! But only in order to counter force. That's when the need to use force ususlly comes up anyway.

Personally, I would have no objection to a totalitarian state - such exist without the control-through-violence which inhabitants of the United States of America seem to associate with them.

Um, and your experience with totalitarian states is what exactly? Based on my fairly extensive first-hand experience of living authoritarian states for 15 years total I can say that you are flat out wrong. Control-through-violence (or the threat of violence) is damn near the only kind that exists (although other secondary methods such as propaganda or religion may be used).

I strongly disagree with the idea that democracy cannot be imposed - the version of democracy touted by the United States most certainly can. It is a nationalistic democracy, one that places in government an absolute power with control over all the people and is so not a true democracy - since such would allow any person resident in the area who disagreed with the elected government's policies to remove themselves from the legal system of said government.

I think that you're (a) confusing "true democracy" with some kind of idealized notion of anarchy and (b) have no clue about the foundational principles of the USA.

"True democracy" is simple majority rule, every decision put to a vote and the alternative which gets more than 50% of the vote imposed on everyone. Democracy means literally "mob rule", and that's exactly what it is. You said "any person [...] who disagreed with the elected government [...] to remove themselves from the legal system" - that is most definitely not the definition of democracy.

The version of democracy touted by the United States is based on Natural Rights. The government does NOT have "absolute power" by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh, and any 'democratic' system which gives economic entities the inviolable rights of individuals is seriously corrupted. A corporation has no body, no physical presence whose rights can be intruded upon.

This has no relevance to the question of democracy. Corporarions are "fictitious legal personae", they are not individuals, and they possess no inviolable rights whatsoever (except as representing the rights of their constituent individials). In particular, they do not vote.