You can't be the Policeman of the World and Mr Nice Guy at the same time.

As we move slowly toward a World Government and the various forces of the Nationalism continue to rear their ugly heads, the US finds itself more and more in strange idiotic wars that can't be won...
Not while we continue to think in terms of "containment" and "security." Screw that. We need to go into Yugoslavia with one goal in mind -- cease this or die. To achieve this goal we should be preparing to send in troops -- from Turkey. Here ya go, ya Serbian swine, 40,000 US and NATO backed Turkish soldiers back to reclaim the Ottaman Empire. Enjoy!
Just the threat of that would make calmer heads come forward. We can't be playing patty cake with any of these guys. And what's more, there's no need too. We don't need to take crap froom anyone -- that's one of the perks of being a SUPERPOWER!
Right now, just for giggles let's declare everything north of the no-fly zone in Iraq as the Republic of Kurdistan. Here ya are, Kurds! Your very own homeland! And it's backed up by the US army and lots of free guns. And if that honks off the French and Russians, who cares?

If you declared a Republic of Kurdistan, it wouldn't be the Russians and French you'd piss off; it would be the Turks!

Then, who would you get to invade Serbia?

As long as we're talking about Turks, the following is an unconfirmed anecdote I heard once:
(Sometimes during the '60s or '70s I think) the compounds of the various countries' peace-keeping forces in Korea were all heavily secured with razor wire and high fences etc. all except that of the Turk forces. They had a only a simple single strand of barbed wire on posts, marking their perimeter. Now why do you think that is? ... It is because it was clearly demonstrated to the "locals" that if the Turks caught you trying to steal fom your camp, they would, quite literally, cut your head off and display it on said fencepost.

A Republic of Kurdistan should not include the city of Baghdad, since the Kurds were never the majority in those parts. But the Kurds definitely did get the shaft when that whole region was carved up into Syria etc. and Turks or no they deserve a place to themselves.
I would think that if the Kurds could somehow be provided with a space in what is now N. Iraq, the Turks could appreciate the fact that the Kurds they obsess over (in SE Turkey) have a place to go to. It's not like they would provide a military threat to Turkey if they suddenly incorporated. They would be the poorest country in the Mideast for generations.

------------------
your ad here! call BR-549

Alright Mr. America... Who appointed YOU policeman of the world?

The US is unpredictable and acts out of dubious interests, although I believe their intervention in Yugoslavia is about doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Such dubious attitude disqualifies the US for their tour of duty as world's good cop.

It saddens me to see such agreable acceptance of political propaganda. Do you know what it could be like to live in a country that isn't a superpower? How would YOU feel if the Russians decided to interfere with your country's business and started to lay down frontiers everywhere?

The USA don't support human rights or democracy; at least not consistently. Just look at the number of dictators they've supported out of economical interests. And that includes Saddam Hussein before 1989.

Yet you think you're in your right to accuse the likes of Milosevic and Hussein of being monsters. You're not making your own opinions, you're just yapping where the propaganda finger points.

Flame mode off.

Eli Hey, as Americans we have a moral duty to do monstrous things. We have the power to do whatever the heck we want; all we're lacking is a plan.
Of course, we haven't had a plan since the end of WWII, so maybe all we really need is one or two goals a little more solid than "stop the Reds."
As far as how I would feel if the Russians started messing around with the US...well maybe in another 200 years they'll be tough enough to do that. I don't know. I live in the here and now where Uncle Sam has the biggest set of sticks on the planet. Too bad US wants to be loved by all sides.
The way things are set, in five years or less, we'll be rushing back to Yugoslavia to recuse the poor Serbians from the hate-crazed Albanians. Unless we figure this one out now. Marshall Tito knew how to handle this mob. The blueprint is right in front of us.

This subject reminds me of the recent Doonesbury comics that have NATO issuing statements such as "NATO regrets startling the citizens of Belgrade with the latest shelling."



------------------
Tim
"My hovercraft is full of eels."

egospark: Marshall Tito knew how to handle this mob. The blueprint is right in front of us.

So what we should do is forcibly remove all the non-Serbian factions to scattered locations within the former Yugoslavia, making sure that, whenever possible, each region will have a Serbian majority? Gee, you're right! That would prevent a war from ever erupting in the region!

------------------
Tom~

Tom Actually I was thinking more along the lines of a ruthless repression of the entire region.
Some people only understand force. We should give them what they understand.

Egospark: get a grip. The United States held out for a diplomatic solution. 'Twas the other NATO countries which wanted this battle to start earlier than it did.

And for your information, the United States is a member of that alliance.

Tell us exactly how concerned you were about the entire issue until it hit home? You really remind me of those foolish individuals who didn't give a hoot about the Iraqi government occupying Kuwait with the loss of innocent lives involved but then decided that the United States was immoral for entering that conflict at the request of the governments in the region.

Monty No, I think air campaigns without a massive invading force of troops are a waste of time. Bombing campaigns have never worked, unless you're dropping nukes. I think having press releases on possible targets is stupid. I think we've given Slobodon more than enough slack and it's time to start yanking his chain with full force.
I think "Desert Storm" was a big waste of time too, and Saddam has proved me right on that one.

If we're going to give ourselves the role of World Leader via the shape of Policeman of the World, then we ought to be ruthless in our operations. In the Global Village, we can't be Officer Friendly, because that stance can't work. At least not right now.
Our "allies" are bit players. We control the game -- if we choose to do so. Right now, in the wake of the Chinese Embassy bombing, we look like Keystone Cops.

Look, I believe it is in the best interest of the planet to move towards a world government. Nationalism has been the greatest sin of the 20th Century. Through US leadership, (and lots of money and weapons and sheer stubborness), we can start taking some steps towards a world government. The Balkans are a fine place to start. Let's issue the warrent for Slobodon's arrest and do whatever it takes to carry out that warrent. Yes, innocents will suffer. Innocents always suffer. But if we can remove the Slobodon's and keep other pro-nationalist zealots from leaping into war for the greater glory of whatever freaking homeland they wish to expand, then perhaps, after years of bloodshed, a lot fewer innocents will have to suffer.

Guys, wake up.

Only because your country is the one calling the shots do you denounce nationalism as evil, and actually endorse a campaign of international policing over sovereign nations!

It is neither the right nor the responsibility of the US or of NATO as a whole to determine the course of sovereign nations. The word SOVEREIGN is in there for a good reason. I'm not saying the US shouldn't interfere in a bloody conflict in order to stop a genocide, but they're not doing this as a policeman but as a sovereign nation interefering in an amoral situation.

We'll see how smug and confident you are in the required ruthlessness of NATO's methods when the CIA screws up again and the Chinese decide they've had enough. They're a superpower too, and they've got intercontinental nukes. By your logic, it means they have the right to play supercop too, and they seem pretty intent on giving the US and the other countries of NATO the spanking they deserve.

Only because your country is the one calling the shots do you denounce nationalism as evil, and actually endorse a campaign of international policing over sovereign nations!

Got any insight on the Quebec situation, Lije?

<<they're not doing this as a policeman but as a sovereign nation interefering in an amoral situation.>>

I should think that genocide qualifies more as a "immoral" situation, rather than an "amoral" one, don't you?

The question of morality, however, is the salient point, is it not? America, NATO or any ethical body interferes oneself into the doings of less ethically bound others, not simply because they should, but because they must. Simply put, America becomes the policeman for the world because it *can,* when others simply cannot.

Reduce the question to one of individual morality: If I view two individual citizens of equal rights, (soverigns bodies, if you will,) and the larger of the two decides to pummel the smaller into silly-putty, am I not eithically and morally bound to intervene as long as I am physically able? One might suggest that I have no such responsiblity, both combatants being equal and soverign individuals, but Lockean morality eschews such ethical isolationism. It is encumbent upon me, being sound and fit, to maintain peace and allow no harm to my fellows, despite my other-ness.

Such it must be with nations that consider themselves moral. Certainly, it is not within our purview to impose political or social systems upon others, but it is our duty to see that no nation commits atrocities against another.

We have promised ourselves to establish justice and insure tranquilty within our nation. We made this pledge when we were a fledgling body. Now that we have attained at least a physical maturity, should we not bestow the same on others who cannot yet gain it for themselves? Of course we should, and we must--because we can.

Got any insight on the Quebec situation, Lije?

Well, it's nothing like Kosovo, of course. But I definitely would be pissed off if NATO decided to interfere in the Canada/Quebec business and decide wether Quebec should stay in Canada or not.

Nationalism is a Bad Thing when it is used to justify acts of atrocity against other nations. Dixit 1939 Germany. But I think that national, cultural and political identity is legitimate as long as it is conducted peacefully and with respect for human rights.

Also, a people's right to self-determination is an inalienable right recognised by the chart of Human Rights. In the case of Kosovo, it is the Kosovar's right to claim independence.

I've heard many Americans who think everything should be one huge government. Yet, I seem to recall a certain superpower, the USSR, whose goals were exactly that. Why did America fight so hard? Hmm?

No one has a right to impose their systems on another. If something resembling World Government is to be built, it has to be done respecting nations' individual rights, without affecting the diversity of cultures found on this planet.

In this regard, the European Union is the most successful model.

The question of morality, however, is the salient point, is it not? America, NATO or any ethical body interferes oneself into the doings of less ethically bound others, not simply because they should, but because they must. Simply put, America becomes the policeman for the world because it *can,* when others simply cannot.

I agree with that. I do believe it is the responsibility of the world's powers to interfere in matters which are unethical, such as ethnical cleansing. I do not condemn the intervention of NATO in Yugoslavia.

What I find particularly irritating is the sentiment you get from many Americans that they feel they can do whatever they want simply because they can. It's stupid to say levelling the region and building a McDonald on top is going to solve the problem.

Furthermore, there are many, many instances in which the US did not interfere in matters of importance. The US has a long history of complicity with dictators, including Saddam Hussein before 1989. The rationale is, it's easier to deal with a dictatorship, because the guy in power stays there longer. It's Democracy for the US and dictatorship for everyone else.

Likewise, for Yugoslavia, the Americans seem to be the good guys in that they're doing what must be done. But they're doing this awfully late; why didn't the US interfere during the elections of Milosevic? He got elected by rigging the votes, but no American gave a damn.

So now it's boiling down to military conflict because it's too late to do anything else. The US has vested interests in the stability of the region, and that, their own interests, and not the fate of the Kosovars, is the mobile of NATO's intervention.

The rest is propaganda.

Just to prove my point: who heard of Milosevic before this year?

Who hears about terrorist acts by Kosovars against the Serbs? I would personally endorse terrorism in such a dire case, but the US has been struggling against terrorism so hard they don't want to raise any hairy questions by covering that aspect of the conflict.

Who heard of Saddam Hussein before the Gulf War?

And yet, once the US decides it's time to kick some ass, everyone hears about the new bad guys on the block. And boy, do the Americans hate and make fun of Hussein and Milosevic.

I bet Americans didn't hear about Adolf Hitler much before the US decided it was time to kick his ass. And by then, I'm sure the Hitler jokes flew.

Make your own opinions. Don't accept the fact, verify them. Always watch for altenrate sources of information. Don't swallow the propaganda. Think on your own.

Just to prove my point: who heard of Milosevic before this year?

I sure did! I remember when he invaded Slovenia! I remember when he invaded Croatia! I remember when he sent weapons to Sebian paramilitary units in Bosnia! I remember when he tried to justify ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, mass executions, the shelling of Debrovnik and Sarejavo, and the bloodbath in Sebrinicia!

You'd think a guy needs to invade Poland to really get anybody's attention, these days.

Eli Nope, the US supported Saddam because at the time we were upset with Iran who was at warring with Iraq.

The US always supported despots who were "anti-communist" (read "fascist") and we wouldn't worry a fig about 'human right violations' in China if they weren't those filty <font color=red> REDS!</font>

But all of that is besides the point. The US has already conquered most of the planet through TV and movies. All that's left now is to get rid of the notion that borders actually mean anything.
To this end, the US can pretty much do whatever it feels like. For instance we could draw a line through a country and declare the south end a free and happy "democracy" and the north end a den of godless commies. We could then place huge economic sanctions on the north in order to bankrupt and starve them. Which would be okay, since they're Evil.
But why bother playing such games in the first place? As you alluded, there's a market for McDonalds in even far off commie countries. Not to mention the cigarette and toilet paper sales!
It would be easier to just order these so-called "sovereign" nations into line, and quash anyone who got uppity, like Quebec.
And why should we do this? Because we can. We can always claim that we had the best interest of the planet in mind.

I'm glad to hear that, Papa Bear. I wish more people followed international events, and that the media were more concerned about what goes on in our world, instead of paying attention to these events when the body count reaches selling figures.

I read an article to the effect that the portion dedicated to international news in American media has fallen in the last ten years, and now only occupies a small portion of the overall news. It's everybody's planet, and it's not because the people concerned are Muslims or Chinese or Albanian that we shouldn't pay attention. Such a closed mentality can only lead to callousness and disaster.

I wish North American media started paying attention to the events in the Balkans earlier; even though bombs were exploding and ethnic cleansing was taking place last year, I had to watch European news to get a glimpse of what transpired there.

Eli Nope, the US supported Saddam because at the time we were upset with Iran who was at warring with Iraq.

Yeah, I know the story. The US were upset at Iran because its people toppled a known dictator, the Shah, who controlled 90% of the country's resources. So they sided with the other dictator who was dropping chemical weapons on them.

egospark. I just happened to glance at this thread and it's my moral duty to say something.

I've never in my life heard such nationalistic rubbish. I'll bet you that somewhere in Nazi Germany, 60 years ago, some guy was saying to his frineds,

" As we move slowly toward a World Government and the various forces of the Nationalism continue to rear their ugly heads...blah, blah, blah...We don't need to take crap froom anyone -- that's one of the perks of being a SUPERPOWER! It would be easier to just order these so-called "sovereign" nations into line, and quash anyone who got uppity."

This is the sort of thing that make me sad. They say history repeats itself, but oh boy I did not think it would be so soon.




------------------

Elijah--you made the comment earlier that you bet no one in the US heard of Hitler before they decided it was time to kick his ass (i.e., 1941). That's not even close to being accurate. Hitler had been leader of Germany since the early 30's, and all the leaders of the free world were aware of him. Some actually endorsed his government, because he claimed to be anti-communist (he was actually anti-anything not him). Germany's moves into Austria and Czechsolvakia were watched passively by the rest of the world, because the free world didn't want to get involved in local events.

Well, I'm taking my chances giving my opinion here. I'm not a great follower of international events so don't ping me; I'm just going to give my opinion on the topic as asked.

If we, as the world superpower, are going to play policeman, don't go in and dink around trying to get everyone to "share the love" or "do unto others". If they were doing these things or wanted to do these things, we wouldn't be there. Go in, kick butt, discipline the children that refuse to behave (not according to our standards but to world standards), and then get out. Desert Storm was a mistake in that we didn't finish the job. Don't tell me that Navy Seals or Green Berets couldn't go in and find Saddam and finish him. Of course, I know, that begs the questions, "would the next government be better than him." Maybe not, but it would be a chastized one. Anyway, don't fiddle-fart around. Stop trying to be diplomatic about anything vaguely militaristic! There's the old saying, "war is hell"; I think we've tried to make war too civilized, if you can do such a thing. I'm not saying "let's go in and take over and make them do what we want." I mean, make them behave according to the world's standards (peaceful discussion, votes for all, etc etc).

On the question of nationalism, I, for one, don't think nationalism is a bad thing. My definition of nationalism is the spirit of support/love/pride felt by a group of people that share a culture heritage (for example: American Culture, Italian Culture, etc) for their country. However, nationalism becomes wrong when we try to impose our culture on others without their permission. This does get a bit sticky when you consider how much of American culture (some of dubious quality) we've exported. I'm not a great believer in a one-world government and yes, I am an American and former military. I don't see what benefit one-world government now would provide that national governments cannot provide. I think it would be like inviting your entire extended family (aunts, uncles, third cousins, etc) to come live with you in the same house.

There's my .02

------------------
Carpe Diem!

Keeping in mind that this is the BBQ pit:

. Desert Storm was a mistake in that we didn't finish the job. Don't tell me that Navy Seals or Green Berets couldn't go in and find Saddam and finish him. Of course, I know, that begs the questions, "would the next government be better than him." Maybe not, but it would be a chastized one.

If you are really former military, then you fucking well know it is illegal for the U.S. to assassinate foreign heads of state, according to our own laws. I'm glad you are "former."

On the question of nationalism, I, for one, don't think nationalism is a bad thing. My definition of nationalism is the spirit of support/love/pride felt by a group of people that share a culture heritage (for example: American Culture, Italian Culture, etc) for their country.

Nationalism ---> exclusion ---> intolerance ---> war.

PL, excuse the hell out of me! Come on, be realistic! When the hell did it matter what the law said when it comes to war? Ask the CIA-I think you'll get a different answer. At least I served. Did you? Oh, I forgot, that would mean you were a nationalist. God forbid you should be considered part of the scum-sucking nationalist group called the US Military.

If you had taken the time to read the rest of my post, you would have seen that I feel it is wrong to impose a culture (again, see my definition of nationalism) on another nation against their will. Or did you only read the parts you wanted? Nationalism only leads to exclusion when you deny others the right to join your culture; Gee, I remember something about "give me your tired, your poor...." ring a bell? Nationalism on America's part, it's belief in adding the culture of different nations to it's own, has made it what it is today.

------------------
Carpe Diem!

PL, excuse the hell out of me! Come on, be realistic! When the hell did it matter what the law said when it comes to war?

Since making a habit of assassinating heads of state makes your own a legitimate target.

Ask the CIA-I think you'll get a different answer.

Good thing the CIA isn't in charge of military policy, huh? Please.

At least I served.

Bully for you. Really.

Did you?

Only vicariously, like through my father getting his ass shot at in Southeast Asia the day I was born. He stayed in for 28 years, BTW, and tends to be ashamed of jingoistic, gung-ho fuckheads.

God forbid you should be considered part of the scum-sucking nationalist group called the US Military.

I spent the better part of my youth on military bases, shithead. Don't make presumptions; you only look stupider.

If you had taken the time to read the rest of my post, you would have seen that I feel it is wrong to impose a culture (again, see my definition of nationalism) on another nation against their will.

So, like, assassinating their leader? Does that count? The Iraqis in general tend to be find of Hussein.

Nationalism only leads to exclusion when you deny others the right to join your culture; Gee, I remember something about "give me your tired, your poor...." ring a bell?

You do know we've actually had immigration quotas for nearly our entire history, right? Didn't the military teach you that?

Nationalism on America's part, it's belief in adding the culture of different nations to it's own, has made it what it is today.

Actually, America is more adept at cultural elimination than cultural assimilation, as evidenced by the threatened posture Mr. and Mrs. America assume when confronted with anything "different."

"I spent the better part of my youth on military bases, shithead. Don't make presumptions; you only look stupider."

And once again, the dickhead known as pldennison comes off looking like the "fuckwad"* that he is. For some reason, Mr. Dennison has the inability to argue without calling someone a ridiculous name. Yes, I stooped to the fuckwad's level, but only for a moment.

*pldennison's favorite putdown!

Gee PL, your use of vulgur words has completely caused me to rethink my position and I bow before greater intellect.

Immigration quotas doesn't mean we are accepting people. It means we aren't getting overrun at one time.

You are right: the CIA isn't in charge of the military. Come to think of it, who actually knows what they do. Scary, huh?

As far as Hussein, my only thought was that "he started it, we'll finish it". I don't see where we were trying to make them "little America". That's an imposition of culture. Taking out a genocidal, invasion-oriented, dictator is different. And as far as the Iraqis liking Hussein, of course that's what they say. All the ones who have said anything against him are dead or exiled. Wasn't his son-in-law or son part of that group?

I'm glad you're dad made it back from Asia. Mine did too. He also happened to be there the day I was born. I don't believe I was being "jingo-istic". I never said "America-right or wrong". However, as a superpower, we have a responsibility and I don't feel we've exercised that responsibility well.

And were did you find that I assumed you hadn't served? I was right, wasn't I? I don't believe being a military brat and being on a base qualifies you as having served in the military. Sorry you're so bitter about. Obviously, it's been an issue for you.

This is my final post. You don't wish to debate. You wish to argue. There's a difference. Enjoy yourself. I won't be part of it.

------------------
Carpe Diem!

Gee PL, your use of vulgur words has completely caused me to rethink my position and I bow before greater intellect.

Immigration quotas doesn't mean we are accepting people. It means we aren't getting overrun at one time.

You are right: the CIA isn't in charge of the military. Come to think of it, who actually knows what they do. Scary, huh?

As far as Hussein, my only thought was that "he started it, we'll finish it". I don't see where we were trying to make them "little America". That's an imposition of culture. Taking out a genocidal, invasion-oriented, dictator is different. And as far as the Iraqis liking Hussein, of course that's what they say. All the ones who have said anything against him are dead or exiled. Wasn't his son-in-law or son part of that group?

I'm glad you're dad made it back from Asia. Mine did too. He also happened to be there the day I was born. I don't believe I was being "jingo-istic". I never said "America-right or wrong". However, as a superpower, we have a responsibility and I don't feel we've exercised that responsibility well.

And were did you find that I assumed you hadn't served? I was right, wasn't I? I don't believe being a military brat and being on a base qualifies you as having served in the military. Sorry you're so bitter about. Obviously, it's been an issue for you.

This is my final post. You don't wish to debate. You wish to argue. There's a difference. Enjoy yourself. I won't be part of it.

------------------
Carpe Diem!

Immigration quotas doesn't mean we are accepting people

Whoops! That should be "aren't accepting people"

Sorry for the double post, all.

------------------
Carpe Diem!

(Looks up at Forum title) This is the BBQ pit, right? I guess some people can't handle it. If you can't stand the heat, boys and girls, stay out of the pit.

Oh yeah, BTW, anyone who would ask "When the hell did it matter what the law said when it comes to war?" deserves to be stripped of any military rank and record they ever had. There are international laws and accords governing the conduct of war, and participants are expected to abide by them; and countries determine their own internal policies on what is legal and what is not when waging hostilities, and are expected to abide by those as well.

BunnyGirl, my apologies for being so harsh; I should have conveyed my content more meaningfully.

First, it matters a great deal what is legal and what is not in wartime, or else the Geneva Convention and concepts like "war crimes" would not exist. Furthermore, the U.S. has decided that it is not in its interests to target foreign heads of state for assassination, and we therefore do not.

We had an identifiable goal in the Gulf, and we acheived it: Remove the Iraqi army from Kuwait. We had no reason to enter Iraq, drive towards the capital, and target Hussein personally for elimination. That isn't how the military conducts its business and you know it.

As far as my experiences as an army brat, "bitter" is the farthest word in the world to describe it. In fact, that part of my youth was much more enjoyable than the part after my parents' divorce. I got to travel, and I got to live in Europe for three years. Of course, as soon as my parents divorced, my father got stationed at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii--go figure.

I do, however, resent the implication that those who serve in the military are superior citizens. That isn't true, and you know that, as well. The military isn't for everyone.

Finally, if I am venomous on the subject of nationalism, it is because I throw it into the same category as religion and race--it is ultimately divisive rather than unifying, and the last thing the world needs is more division and more reason to be hostile.

Again, my apologies for the attack.

PL, thanks for the apology. I guess if I had stopped to think about what I wrote instead of giving just an emotional response, things wouldn't have gotten messy. Like I said in my e-mail to you, my response was emotional: I always think of nationalism along the lines of the "warm-fuzzies" and not the hateful exclusion that some people use it for.

You're right. The military isn't for everyone. I'm just very proud of having served and so enjoyed the experience that I get a little puffed about it at times. Sorry to come off as "Ms. USA!USA!"

More in the e-mail for you if you haven't read it yet.
See ya!

------------------
Carpe Diem!

[[And were did you find that I assumed you hadn't served?]] Bunnygirl

You didn't?

[[ I was right, wasn't I? ]]

You did?