11-02-2003 09:25									#61
	Re: Does the U.S. need to make a new global organization with like minded nations? Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen The U.N. and NATO are now both worthless, filled with petty squabling beurocrats......is it time for the U.S. to pull out of both, and found a new organization with those who are still friendly with it?

I wouldn't call the US, Israel and UK (until the next
election) exactly an organization. More like a Nation,
a colony, and a vassal.

	11-02-2003 09:27									#62
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ned is always overly dramatic.

Rule 1 of dealing with him is to ignore that (or to endlessly mock it)

	11-02-2003 09:34									#63
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Both of those were set in motion by the bosnians/serbians themselves, though.

How exactly does that stop those adventures from being aggressive acts? Is NATO only in the business of facilitating a limited number of aggressive wars?

	11-02-2003 09:44									#64
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

yes, and within a time limit too

	11-02-2003 09:47									#65
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The state of the US is actually more precarious than it appears. Among other things it is running a huge deficit and will have to borrow, thus making itself dependent upon the Europeans for whom it has such contempt.

Secondly, the US needs to exert military power over at least some of Eurasia if it is to remain in the role of global hegemon. In short, as Mr Brezinski argues, control of the Eurasian continent is the key to global primacy (there are various reasons for this: proximity resources, control of trade routes, population, etc. You can buy his book quite cheaply if you look around on the net - I recommend it).

If the US were to lose its allies in Europe and fail to make gains anywhere else on the Eurasian landmass it would be in a much weaker position than it currently is, since it would find it much harder to extert military control over the various Eurasian states. A US isolated in the Western hemisphere, as some Republicans envisage, would be finished as far as global dominance goes. Why? Just look at the map. If you've ever played Risk (which isn't as dumb a game as it seems) you will understand.

The problem for the US is that it has no politically justifiable reason for remaining in Europe; the Soviet Union is beaten and its successor states show no interest in returning to the Cold War model. Indeed they cannot, for their own populations would not stand for it. The US needs to remain in Europe to remain the global hegemon. Unfortunately, this is not the sort of reason you can parade to a democratic electorate, which is one reason why American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War looks so strange (what happened to the peace "dividend"). This is the problem they face with the Iraq war. The US would like to shore up its influence in the area to prevent other states (China, Russia) from doing so (again, look at the proximity of Iraq to China and Russia on the map), but it can't come right out and say that to the people. Hence the parade of ridiculous excuses for war currently being offered by Bush, Powell and co.

The problem for the US is that the "natural gravitational pull" of the EU is inexorably drawing all the nations in that area into a new superstate. A state that will have a larger economy and a better educated populace than the US. The Europeans have also managed to solve the problem of war - there will likely never be a war between European states again because of the experiences of the 20th century and it is doubtful that such a state will be excessively belligerent for much the same reasons.

I believe that the current situation is one of the first significant symptoms of the inevitable break of Europe with the US (Britain is an anomaly, but is slowly being dragged into the new order). In my view this is a good thing, since the European model represents a much kinder and less belligerent prospect than the US remaining as boss.

	11-02-2003 09:51									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Frogger I haven't heard it put that way, Duncan. What's your source? All the major media outlets are saying that what the countries have done is veto planning to defend Turkey in case of war with Iraq. That still leaves the fact that there's no realistic threat of Iraq attacking Turkey unless Turkey attacks Iraq first (or allows US troops to do so from its soil). Asking for aid in case of an attack in a war that you start is a hell of a stretch for a defensive alliance.

Get technical if you like. Technically, Turkey and the US are allies. How we got into this mess is a different debate. One side says that Saddam is the cause one side says that the US is at fault. The thing is the France and gang are not suppose to be Iraqs allies. They are suppose to be part of NATO. I hate to put it this way, but they SUCK!

They broke the alliance.

	11-02-2003 09:56									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Agathon, I for the life of me do not know why we still have a large deployment of troops in Germany. Do the Germans want us there because the bases help the local economy? I don't get it. They can't possible still fear the Russians, can they?

We should withdraw, and soon.

	11-02-2003 09:58									#68
	Inflate your Upload Space

As an aside, why is France even allowed to take part in the military decisions of the alliance given the fact that they aren't part of the military structure?

	11-02-2003 10:02									#69
	Got spare money?

I'm actually wondering at this point if it would have been so bad to let the Soviets have them.

	11-02-2003 10:06									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc How exactly does that stop those adventures from being aggressive acts? Is NATO only in the business of facilitating a limited number of aggressive wars?

Did you bother to read the rest of my post or not?

The adventures were not properly under the auspices of NATO, although at least more of a case can be made for them, since the integrity of nearby NATO members was threatened by the actions of outside parties, whereas Turkey's integrity is not threatened by Iraq except insofar as it chooses to participate in an attack against Iraq.

Duncan: I'm sorry you feel that way, but NATO is not obliged to facilitate its member countries in attacking nonmember states unless those states have attacked them. NATO is not an offensive alliance and should never be.

	11-02-2003 10:13									#71
	Increase Your PM Length

Agathon,

Our relationship with the European continent is surely breaking down. I think it's safe to say that WWII is the last time that we will save their ass.

I disagree that the US will be isolated and weakened from it. Europe is not the only game in town. British history shows us that. Well, actually American history shows us that. Europe has depended on us. We haven't depended on them.

Do you really think they are going to get along when we are gone. What basis in history do you have for this. France doesn't get along with anyone. They are the biggest cause of **** getting ****ed up in the world in the damn history of the world. Anyone who trusts them is seriously ****ed up. And yes that includes the Americans who ever joined in alliance with them.

	11-02-2003 10:15									#72
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Man, this Iraq **** just gets more and more twisted, doesn't it?

I never thought the diplomatic rift would have gotten this far. Now regardless of whether you see American or French/Russian/German etc. intransigence as the driving force behind this war of words, it certainly is amusing.

All the national leaders involved are beginning to act like spoiled brats, and personally I'm content to watch for now.

	11-02-2003 10:16									#73
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: but NATO is not obliged to facilitate its member countries in attacking nonmember states unless those states have attacked them

But NATO would just be setting up defences in Turkey, in case they are attacked as a result of a (hopefully) UN led invasion, or (hopefully not, but oh well) US led invasion. Turkey is an ally, and they should be protected like one.

	11-02-2003 10:19									#74
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: All the national leaders involved are beginning to act like spoiled brats, and personally I'm content to watch for now.

This is true, tho i think theyve always acted like this. When you really get down to it, world politics is sooo childish. Watching all the countries get along with each other is just a hyper complicated version of children in a daycare getting along with each other... the anlogy could be exteneded to women too... gah, the world is acting like such women

	11-02-2003 10:23									#75
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Did you bother to read the rest of my post or not?

Yes, I did. I considered it irrelevent to the issue.

quote: although at least more of a case can be made for them, since the integrity of nearby NATO members was threatened by the actions of outside parties,

How is that a military problem as oppossed to a border control problem? Or why intervene in what is for all intents and purposes an internal conflict instead of sealing your border with a problem area?

	11-02-2003 10:25									#76
	Support Apolyton

What don't you understand on this? Turkey is not under direct threat of attack until it chooses to make itself Iraq's enemy by letting itself be used as an invasion route. When and if Turkey is actually attacked by Iraq, the there's no question as to causes; NATO must come to its aid. Until then, NATO doesn't have the obligation to do so under article 4 (which Turkey attempted to invoke) by moving defenses in, because they aren't under an imminent threat from outside.

Kramer, imagine that there were a small country to Canada's north that was not a NATO member. Now imagine that the mighty Canadian military has decided to annex this insignificant little splot of a nation. Diplomatic pressure is stepped up, and invasion threats are aired by us.

Pointing at the tensions, we then attempt to invoke article 4 so that we can use other country's troops as our rearguard, freeing our army up for offensive action.

Under your interpretation this is a legitimate use of the NATO mandate.

	11-02-2003 10:26									#77
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc quote: Originally posted by Frogger Did you bother to read the rest of my post or not? Yes, I did. I considered it irrelevent to the issue. quote: although at least more of a case can be made for them, since the integrity of nearby NATO members was threatened by the actions of outside parties, How is that a military problem as oppossed to a border control problem? Or why intervene in what is for all intents and purposes an internal conflict instead of sealing your border with a problem area?

You again ignored the second part of the original post.

Read it again. I said it was an illegitimate extension of NATO's mandate, which is simply to protect the sovereignty and integrity of NATO member countries.

	11-02-2003 10:29									#78
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Then why are you even argueing with me over this?

	11-02-2003 10:30									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'm not. You're the one who's insisting on arguing.

	11-02-2003 10:33									#80
	Full PM-box? Change here!

BTW, if the US is just playing the brinksmanship game on this then they're doing an excellent job, though I question the benefit they are receiving for the diplomatic cost they are paying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2746349.stm

	11-02-2003 10:35									#81
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Especially because if they are, then there's been so much talk of war by US politicians that any peaceful resolution which leaves Saddam in power will leave the US looking like it backed down (even if that was their intention in the first place)

	11-02-2003 10:37									#82
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Frogger I'm not. You're the one who's insisting on arguing.

Oh well. You wouldn't happen to know the answer to the other question I asked, would you?

	11-02-2003 10:38									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Until then, NATO doesn't have the obligation to do so under article 4 (which Turkey attempted to invoke) by moving defenses in, because they aren't under an imminent threat from outside.

*sigh*, im sry, but this doesnt make any sense. Why would NATO wait for Turkey to be attacked (and possibly many, many Turkish killed as a result) when they could just always have a presence there, potentially detering a counterattack before one is ever made.

quote: Pointing at the tensions, we then attempt to invoke article 4 so that we can use other country's troops as our rearguard, freeing our army up for offensive action.

ok, first of all, Canada in this case is actually invading. Turkey, will not be. It is just a country that Forces will use as a stagin point. I see this as a major flaw in the anlogy. Also, your view on the war with Iraq is diametrically apposed to mine, which, to my point of view, brings another flaw to your analogy. You assume that A US led invasion of Iraq is expansionist, and unjustified. I see it as a neccesity. This is why I am so upset by NATO's (france, belgium and germany, in particular, i believe) refusal to aid Turkey in defence from a possible counter attack. You think the US has no right to invade in the first place, so NATO shouldnt have to protect what shouldnt be protected, or somethn to that effect.

	11-02-2003 10:38									#84
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Which one was that? I've been busy rebutting this horribly gauche crowd of yankees and have sort of lost track of things...

	11-02-2003 10:39									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Frogger, Turkey would be in the line of fire even if it did not permit a US attack from its borders. It has allowed the US to use its airbases for the no fly zone for twelve years.

	11-02-2003 10:45									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: It is just a country that Forces will use as a stagin point. I see this as a major flaw in the anlogy

I don't. Same thing to use your own forces or let other forces use your territory. Either you're colluding with them or you have lost de facto sovereignty over the ground in question. Either way, the territory being used for the attack is in the possession of a nation at war with the enemy.


Secondly, you're attempting to say that helping Turkey is necessary because the war with Iraq is justified whereas the war with Northlandia isn't. Doesn't matter. They're both offensive wars (this doesn't mean wrong or expansionist, merely what it says: that the point of the war is to go on the offense into enemy territory rather than defend your own territory against invasion).

	11-02-2003 10:46									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogger What don't you understand on this? Turkey is not under direct threat of attack until it chooses to make itself Iraq's enemy by letting itself be used as an invasion route.

This is where I believe that you are wrong frogger. Letting your allies use your territory is not an act of war. The very thought is ridiculous. That is what allies do. Other allies have US troops there too. If someone were to attack them should not NATO defend that country.

	11-02-2003 10:49									#88
	Re: Re: Does the U.S. need to make a new global organization with like minded nations? Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ozz I wouldn't call the US, Israel and UK (until the next election) exactly an organization. More like a Nation, a colony, and a vassal.

which is which?

JonMiller

	11-02-2003 10:49									#89
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Frogger, Turkey would be in the line of fire even if it did not permit a US attack from its borders. It has allowed the US to use its airbases for the no fly zone for twelve years.

And were the US to attack Iraq and Turkey wanted to remain neutral, it would be well advised to withdraw permission for these sorties.

Turkey has all the choices here; it can attack or not. Is there anybody here who thinks that Iraq is currently poised to attack Turkey if Turkey chooses not to participate in a war against Iraq?

If so, then you should have made the case before NATO.

	11-02-2003 10:49									#90
	Re: Re: Re: Does the U.S. need to make a new global organization with like minded nations? Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller which is which? JonMiller

I'd call Israel a colony and the UK a vassal.