Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Isn't that what the 5 permanent SC members are supposed to be?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
The day Nixon took the oath, in January of '69, there were 600,000 Americans in Vietnam and he had nothing to do with sending any of them there. We had an election in '64. One candidate said (I paraphrase) "We're in a shooting war in Vietnam, and we should do whatever's necessary to win it or get out." He was universally denounced as a "war monger." Instead, we elected the "peace" candidate (and gave him massive veto proof majorities in Congress). Do da Gulf of Tonkin Resolution ring a bell?
One of the great unanswered questions is what would JFK have done in Vietnam if he'd lived. The Oliver Stone perspective is that Kennedy would have ended the war. And maybe he would have. But there's no conclusive evidence on that point. The "Stoners" suggest that JFK's plans to withdraw 1,000 troops support the "end the war" scenario. He would have had to withdraw far more than 1,000. On the day he took the oath the number of Americans in Vietnam was in the hundreds. On the day he died, there were 13 or 14K Americans in Vietnam. He had authorized the creation of the Green Berets, to fight counter insurgency warfare in Vietnam. And even authorized them to wear their unique headgear.
The day Nixon took the oath, in January of '69, there were 600,000 Americans in Vietnam and he had nothing to do with sending any of them there. We had an election in '64. One candidate said (I paraphrase) "We're in a shooting war in Vietnam, and we should do whatever's necessary to win it or get out." He was universally denounced as a "war monger." Instead, we elected the "peace" candidate (and gave him massive veto proof majorities in Congress). Do da Gulf of Tonkin Resolution ring a bell?
One of the great unanswered questions is what would JFK have done in Vietnam if he'd lived. The Oliver Stone perspective is that Kennedy would have ended the war. And maybe he would have. But there's no conclusive evidence on that point. The "Stoners" suggest that JFK's plans to withdraw 1,000 troops support the "end the war" scenario. He would have had to withdraw far more than 1,000. On the day he took the oath the number of Americans in Vietnam was in the hundreds. On the day he died, there were 13 or 14K Americans in Vietnam. He had authorized the creation of the Green Berets, to fight counter insurgency warfare in Vietnam. And even authorized them to wear their unique headgear.
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
We could call it the League of Nations.
We could call it the League of Nations.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Nice concept but there is no fix for this particular problem. You cannot fix people that want to live in the 12th century, and the more you kill them the more they reproduce new ones. Dingbat (Bush II) completely blew off the pottery barn rule and we are stuck in this crap for the next millennium.
Nice concept but there is no fix for this particular problem. You cannot fix people that want to live in the 12th century, and the more you kill them the more they reproduce new ones. Dingbat (Bush II) completely blew off the pottery barn rule and we are stuck in this crap for the next millennium.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Pretty good solution. The hope is that you set up a select/broad set of global rules that most everyone can agree on...i.e., strict regard for international borders...get buy in from global citizens, have joint financing, and then have an international organization with enough credibility globally to win the hearts and minds both on the ground and globally.
Pretty good solution. The hope is that you set up a select/broad set of global rules that most everyone can agree on...i.e., strict regard for international borders...get buy in from global citizens, have joint financing, and then have an international organization with enough credibility globally to win the hearts and minds both on the ground and globally.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
The thorny problem for any solution of this kind is enforcement. It would be wonderful indeed to "set up a broad set of global rules that everyone agrees on." But then what happens when someone violates those rules? Is the penalty for a violation also "set up and agreed upon" in advance?
Inside any one country's boundaries, their internal police force and judiciary system enforce the rules and apply penalties for violation. However, in the international sphere, who supplies the police and their equipment? Who pays for it?
That's where these "global agreements" always break down, no?
The thorny problem for any solution of this kind is enforcement. It would be wonderful indeed to "set up a broad set of global rules that everyone agrees on." But then what happens when someone violates those rules? Is the penalty for a violation also "set up and agreed upon" in advance?
Inside any one country's boundaries, their internal police force and judiciary system enforce the rules and apply penalties for violation. However, in the international sphere, who supplies the police and their equipment? Who pays for it?
That's where these "global agreements" always break down, no?
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
PS
While I was quite dissatisfied with the manner in which the Iraq occupation was conducted, I was surprised and impressed that something like 30 nations contributed funds, people, and material to that effort (plus an additional 15 countries that wished to remain anonymous that also contributed "overflight rights" and "supply chain permissions", according to the BBC article), just as I was surprised when both Russia and China agreed not to oppose the Security Council resolutions to authorize the UN as the body that would oversee the invasion and occupation.
Just imagine how different things would be if France had not vetoed UN action, and it was a UN force and not a US force that invaded and toppled Saddam!!
I was not very surprised to find out that France's opposition at the Security Council turned out to be mainly to keep hidden the fact that so many people in the French government were being bribed by Saddam Hussein.
PS
While I was quite dissatisfied with the manner in which the Iraq occupation was conducted, I was surprised and impressed that something like 30 nations contributed funds, people, and material to that effort (plus an additional 15 countries that wished to remain anonymous that also contributed "overflight rights" and "supply chain permissions", according to the BBC article), just as I was surprised when both Russia and China agreed not to oppose the Security Council resolutions to authorize the UN as the body that would oversee the invasion and occupation.
Just imagine how different things would be if France had not vetoed UN action, and it was a UN force and not a US force that invaded and toppled Saddam!!
I was not very surprised to find out that France's opposition at the Security Council turned out to be mainly to keep hidden the fact that so many people in the French government were being bribed by Saddam Hussein.
Last edited:
Foxton
Banned
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Just imagine if the US hadn't lied about the reasons to invade Iraq or if they happened to find ANY of the claimed WMDs.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Everyone is a genius in retrospect, eh?
Funny, if I think that something is true, and it turns out that I was mistaken, is that a "lie"? I thought that a "lie" included a deliberate attempt to deceive, and if I thought I was telling the truth but I was relying on erroneous information, that was a "mistake" but not a "lie."
The whole pretext for the invasion and occupation was that Saddam was refusing to comply with multiple UN resolutions. Saddam himself could have short-circuited the whole process merely by saying, "welcome, UN weapons inspectors. I have no WMDs, and you have full and unfettered access to any place you want to look to prove it."
If it was a "lie" then Saddam himself did plenty to perpetuate that "lie" as well.
Everyone is a genius in retrospect, eh?
Funny, if I think that something is true, and it turns out that I was mistaken, is that a "lie"? I thought that a "lie" included a deliberate attempt to deceive, and if I thought I was telling the truth but I was relying on erroneous information, that was a "mistake" but not a "lie."
The whole pretext for the invasion and occupation was that Saddam was refusing to comply with multiple UN resolutions. Saddam himself could have short-circuited the whole process merely by saying, "welcome, UN weapons inspectors. I have no WMDs, and you have full and unfettered access to any place you want to look to prove it."
If it was a "lie" then Saddam himself did plenty to perpetuate that "lie" as well.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Plus, Hussein was a repeat offender in the use of WMD. Anybody remember the crudely hand lettered sign outside of a WMD manufacturing facility "baby milk factory?" It's an interesting phenomenon, this "idiot" George W. Bush, was able to convince the world's intelligence agencies (including Mossad) that Hussein had WMD. How could this "moron" have pulled that off? It's a wonderment.
Plus, Hussein was a repeat offender in the use of WMD. Anybody remember the crudely hand lettered sign outside of a WMD manufacturing facility "baby milk factory?" It's an interesting phenomenon, this "idiot" George W. Bush, was able to convince the world's intelligence agencies (including Mossad) that Hussein had WMD. How could this "moron" have pulled that off? It's a wonderment.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Kind of. Whatever the intent, all they've been up until now is a way to veto any action that goes against one of the big guys' interests (for example, the US always vetoing any censure of Israel, or the PRC always shooting down any attempt to define human rights). They were a negative check but not a source of positive action. That's no so much the fault of the big guys as of the limitations of the UN itself. Metternich didn't call for a vote before stomping on Venice or Sardinia, he just wrote to the Czar and the Prussian King to make sure they weren't unduly alarmed by it. I'm thinking of an arrangement like the latter. The "price" of the rival powers looking the other way when you wanted to "clean the yard" was they in turn would more or less heavy handedly do their own local laundry. We want to finish IS off? Fine -- but no complaining when Ivan has to rush "emergency medical supplies" to Donetsk.
Kind of. Whatever the intent, all they've been up until now is a way to veto any action that goes against one of the big guys' interests (for example, the US always vetoing any censure of Israel, or the PRC always shooting down any attempt to define human rights). They were a negative check but not a source of positive action. That's no so much the fault of the big guys as of the limitations of the UN itself. Metternich didn't call for a vote before stomping on Venice or Sardinia, he just wrote to the Czar and the Prussian King to make sure they weren't unduly alarmed by it. I'm thinking of an arrangement like the latter. The "price" of the rival powers looking the other way when you wanted to "clean the yard" was they in turn would more or less heavy handedly do their own local laundry. We want to finish IS off? Fine -- but no complaining when Ivan has to rush "emergency medical supplies" to Donetsk.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Really that's not what I was suggesting. I'd prefer that as a solution, but it would never fly now because for better or worse the big boys would never cede sovereignty -- even in symbolic form -- to an international organization, and of course such an organization would always be compromised because it would so wildly flaunt democratic norms by only listening to 5 or 6 of the 200 nations of the planet. What I was suggesting was to have no formal international entity at all, but an informal conspiracy among the major players to each police their own sector and not object when the others do the same. This of course does happen, but as we've seen it is often trumped by other geopolitical considerations. The trick, in this hypothesis, would be to make the suppression of terrorism (but with it, of course, legitimate striving for local sovereignty) explicitly paramount. Jockeying for relative advantage between the great powers would still take place, but only in the marginalia left over after questions of global security were settled.
At some point we may evolve to the point where international actors are more of a community and less of a gang of wild dogs, but we're not there yet -- heck, there are a huge number of people among us who can't even wrap their heads around the concept of law within, let alone between, nations. And none of that is even considering the potentially healthy effect of decentralizing power and authority as much as possible throughout the world to avoid a dystopic future, be it German, Chinese, or Herpa-derp.
Really that's not what I was suggesting. I'd prefer that as a solution, but it would never fly now because for better or worse the big boys would never cede sovereignty -- even in symbolic form -- to an international organization, and of course such an organization would always be compromised because it would so wildly flaunt democratic norms by only listening to 5 or 6 of the 200 nations of the planet. What I was suggesting was to have no formal international entity at all, but an informal conspiracy among the major players to each police their own sector and not object when the others do the same. This of course does happen, but as we've seen it is often trumped by other geopolitical considerations. The trick, in this hypothesis, would be to make the suppression of terrorism (but with it, of course, legitimate striving for local sovereignty) explicitly paramount. Jockeying for relative advantage between the great powers would still take place, but only in the marginalia left over after questions of global security were settled.
At some point we may evolve to the point where international actors are more of a community and less of a gang of wild dogs, but we're not there yet -- heck, there are a huge number of people among us who can't even wrap their heads around the concept of law within, let alone between, nations. And none of that is even considering the potentially healthy effect of decentralizing power and authority as much as possible throughout the world to avoid a dystopic future, be it German, Chinese, or Herpa-derp.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Today in der-- wait, what? Huh? Are you currently under the care of a physician?
Today in der-- wait, what? Huh? Are you currently under the care of a physician?
Foxton
Banned
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm
Keep on truckin, trying to continue your parties eternal attempts to revise history.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
We get the W. Hemisphere; the others can fight over the EH.
We get the W. Hemisphere; the others can fight over the EH.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
This is nice cover, but ignores reality. You can cloak the real reasons we invaded behind a shield of busted UN resolutions if it makes you happy, but anyone interested in more than trying to win the internets would treat such rhetoric like the plague. It's childish, ignorant, dangerous and dooms us to a future in which we continue to languish in a cycle of failed decision making. Cheney and his merry band of crooks aren't going to prison and only an incompetent sycophant would buy a history book that tells a different tale, so the time to start actually doing the citizens of this country a favor is now, but starts only when we come clean. The knuckle-drsggers in the US need NWAA (New World Orders Anonymous) in the baddest of ways, time to take the step of admittance.
Want the Pope to draw the lines? Worked once, sort of.
Aren't bomber pilots combat troops?
- Status