Icbm shield

[Prune]

I noticed in the papers the Americans are doing quite well with their ABM System.

Presumably the ABM Treaty does not apply to them any more. Are any of you worried this could spark another arms race (e.i. with China)?

Also, isn't it a big waste of money? The chance of nuclear attack is minimal. Meanwhile the 'intelligence' agencies lack people with the proper language skills. I think they need to get their priorities straight.

I agree that it is a tremendous waste of money. If 9/11 has shown something, it is that the threat doesn't come from countries with nuclear weapons.

[Antichrist]

ICBM shield is probably most useless thing US ever tried to do, it can only stop maximum of 90% of the nukes, so US gonna be fucked anyway

[Ex-RoNiN]

Apart from the fact that the shield would be sitting around doing nothing, it is actually quite difficult if not impossible to get it to work.

[Ruud van Nistelrooy]

maybe its just there in preparation of something much bigger. say america nuking the entire world for some reason eg to promote peace in taiwan and china or something, where retaliation may damage the states. Or it could be to discourage any attacks on america. either way its pretty stupid. Its probably just there to take up some funding and give some people something to do in their spare time.

[nordin dk]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Presumably the ABM Treaty does not apply to them any more. Are any of you worried this could spark another arms race (e.i. with China)?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That&#39;s is correct. Bush oficially announced the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty 2 days ago.

[Paratrooper]

The "misslie shield" only means that a vast number of warheads will be used to overwhelm the defence, making a catastrophic situation planet destroying&#33;

[Prune]

If any other country suddenly decided not to follow a certain treaty anymore, all hell would break loose.

However, as this is the US they can get away with pretty much anything. Mr &#39;Poodle&#39; Blair certainly doesn&#39;t care.

This programme has been going on for years. If the US had no intention of following the treaty, why did they sign?

[LordZach]

Bush didn&#39;t sign the treaty

[Renagade]

I DID,GODDAMMIT &#33;&#33;&#33;

Having a shield as such would unbalance the whole nuclear detterant thing if it proved to be effective unless the US decided that china was full of terrorists or whatever and blew the whole place sky high before they had a chance to launch an effective counter-attack

[Prune]

I didn&#39;t mention Bush. However, he could have honoured the treaty and stopped the programme. I do blame Reagan for starting it, though.

[LordZach]

Just pointing out that just because Bush decided to disregard it doesn&#39;t neccesarily mean the administration that signed it did.

[Prune]

The world would be a very dangerous place if agreements were ignored by successive regimes.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne]

This can be seen in a post cold war context (something perhaps you have missed), sure theres Chinas nukes, but as much as anything

The USA wants the nuclear option without having to sweat about the retaliation,
And this includes nuke retaliation to chemical/biological attack for added deterrant effect against the US &#39;axis of evil&#39;,

Bush wants to be able to use nukes if he deems it necessary for national survival (whereas now it would be detrimental to survival to use nukes)
He wants the deterrant effect for all opponents not just nuclear powers......

... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[RalphWiggum]

I really don&#39;t understand why Bush is letting the treatie go. The missile defense system that they are testing has failed mostly and don&#39;t see putting money into it as worthwhile project. basically the shield is supposed to protect you by hitting another incoming missile. very hard to do so i guess.

but i also see international communities&#39;s reason for criticism against the shield less than credible. they say that it&#39;ll unbalance nuclear power tug-of-war since if it suceeds, US will have better defense against nukes and that will make nuclear power shift unbalanced.

to me, it seems like they are more intersted in stopping US from testing cause they don&#39;t have resource to do same thing.

I think it is more a question of government intertia. It gives people work and supports the American defense contractors. They have already thrown away shitloads of money on that project and it would have really been a waste of money if they dropped the project now.

As for the strategic threat it is obvious that there is none from so called &#39;rogue&#39; countries like Northern Korea or Iraq. Buhs may not be the smartest fellow on the block but he has competent advisors that are not stupid. They know very well that the shield is useless but continue the development of it because of political & economical reasons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @<hidden> June 16 2002,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but i also see international communities&#39;s reason for criticism against the shield less than credible. they say that it&#39;ll unbalance nuclear power tug-of-war since if it suceeds, US will have better defense against nukes and that will make nuclear power shift unbalanced.

to me, it seems like they are more intersted in stopping US from testing cause they don&#39;t have resource to do same thing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That is the same thing as making it unbalanced. The logic goes like this: Russia is under domestic and international pressure to mirror USA&#39;s nuclear weapon capabilities. Now if USA takes one step further in the development, then Russia must follow. Russia can&#39;t afford, so they cut money that was supposed to be domestic support and give it for weapons research. Less money to the people = more upset citizens = more unstable country. Spice that with having a large amount of strategical nuclear weapons and you won&#39;t be in a happy place.

[RalphWiggum]

that gov&#39;t inertia is a part of explanation. they are testing craps just for the kick/job of doing it.

but unfortunately, North Korea is now capable of developing long-range missile. more like across pacific. just a few years ago, they tested a missile that flew over japan that outraged surrounding countries. if they study long enough they might reach alaska. so there is some threat factor involved in too.

Just because they have the capabilities doesn&#39;t mean that they have intent. And their dictatorship is one of the more stable regiemes in the world. UK also has Trident medium range missiles, and USA doesn&#39;t consider them a threat.

Countries that develop nuclear weapons have all reached a certain level of maturity. North Korea could never outgun the US, and they are not suicidal. It is for the same reason that the India-Pakistan conflict won&#39;t go nuclear. Just because those are not western countries doesn&#39;t mean they are stupid.

Naturally a complete ban of nuclear weapons would be the best solution, but I doubt that it will happen during our lifetime.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne]

Sure job creation/military-industrial finance complex has a role in this system, not to mention that its fashionable to invest in defense in the US at moment (for fashionable read popular) and in homeland defence measures etc

I dont really have a great problem with it to honest, although it would be a nice gesture if the US increased international aid by the amount invested in the anti missile shield. The message seems to be , we&#39;ll be safe so fuck the rest of you
(not too far off post sept11)

It seems like the US public has decided that international aid has failed as a tool of international relations
so turn to defence

(a mistake perhaps- i hope Bush decides to make a conciliatory gesture......not likely)

[Prune]

Is it worth reducing your international credibility and upsetting several nations just for some pet project?

It&#39;s going to take a lot more money to get the system anywhere near useable. Besides, countries may develop nuclear capabilities, but they will still be just as hesitant to use them. The so called &#39;axis of evil&#39; are incorrectly branded.

[Paratrooper]

A "missile shield" won&#39;t protect from an ICBM assault or from a suitcase bomb attack. It is an expensive waste, but it&#39;s Americas waste, so let them get on with it.

The problem is that it destabilizes Russia economically by forcing them to develop own countermeasures. That was a brilliant move by Reagan with the first Star Wars project. The cold war has however ended now and Russia is no longer the enemy. A destabilization of Russia is obviously not desirable.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne]

"Countries that develop nuclear weapons have all reached a certain level of maturity. North Korea could never outgun the US, and they are not suicidal. It is for the same reason that the India-Pakistan conflict won&#39;t go nuclear.  Just because those are not western countries doesn&#39;t mean they are stupid."


im sorry but that seems like a rather old fashioned and complacent view,   the idea that a country that has nukes has suddenly reached a level of &#39;maturity&#39; seems farcical to me,

all it means for North Korea, is that they squandered all resources for long enough on getting nukes to the exclusion of other tasks (eg feeding the population)
(not very mature if you ask me)

And how the fuck do you know what a Stalinist dictatorship will do in the future? (-Especially if when the great dictator dies there is chaos)


If Osama Bin Laden acquired a nuclear weapon (maybe purchased from a friendly Pakistani general)
would that make him &#39;mature&#39;?

Pah


i dont actually think Russia will try to create a missile shield of its own, Russia knows its not the USSR anymore and is now well aware of its limitations.(at least the upper echelons are)

i seem to remember there was actually some talk of the missile shild incorporating Russia~

[RalphWiggum]

international aid is not the answer to root out terrorism.

ideally that would work, but if you examine closely it is irrelevant if not counter productive.

just yesterday, i read from CNN that some aid workers in Afghanistan were robbed and a female aid gang raped in region controlled by Dosthum. So aid is doing realy a great wonder, huh?(ok..sarcasm off)

if you collect what those terrorists and anti-US supporters say, they all have one thread in common. &#39;Don&#39;t come to our country, US&#39;. They want to have US stay the hell away from their yard.

unfortunately, it&#39;s the same ppl that wouldn&#39;t mind going to McDonalds after protesting US&#39;s action. These ppl are having serious problem in hypocracy.

furthermore, from what I heard, detainees at Camp X-Ray were shocked to learn that there was a muslim cleric in US military. they had no idea that muslims were in US military. in other words they are prejudiced and has no understanding or narrow view of world.

is that going to be changed by giving more aid. No. they will see this as more diabolical scheme of US trying to come into their back yard.

in other word, US&#39;s isolation from rest of the world would be answer to this. but this will not happen thanz to the fact that when US conservatives herald isolation, world suddenly changes their stance and syas US should not exclude itself from international stage. see the problem here? they want US out of stage, yet they don&#39;t want that to happen.

this seems more like same hypocritical reaction that US is accused of if not greater. they want US not to do anything in international stage, yet when US wants out since it&#39;s not doing anything they yell that it&#39;s wrong, despite the fact that it was international community themselves that were isolating US.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">furthermore, from what I heard, detainees at Camp X-Ray were shocked to learn that there was a muslim cleric in US military. they had no idea that muslims were in US military. in other words they are prejudiced and has no understanding or narrow view of world.

[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Just as the americans were very much surprised that Al-Queda were not biggots as they thought when they found little Johnny Walker among them http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

As for the isolation vs international engagement thingie. You are misunderstanding it completely. The complaints come from the fact that the US gets involved in international affairs without giving a fuck what the rest of the world thinks. So the international involvement and the isolationism are two sides of the same coin.

[RalphWiggum]

speaking in terms of N.Korea

they have their own system called self-reliant ideology. i have no idea what that is, but it seems like it&#39;s close to dictatorship then whatever S.Korea has. theie initial leader died a few yrs ago, and it wasn&#39;t ater a few yrs that his son was able to gain control.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @<hidden> June 16 2002,18:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Osama Bin Laden acquired a nuclear weapon (maybe purchased from a friendly Pakistani general)
would that make him &#39;mature&#39;?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
good one http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

but there&#39;s difference btw a country and a lunatic. a country now opened up itself to international nuclear warfare upon developing its weapons, whereas a lunatic doesn&#39;t have to worry about loosing its citizens.

but looking at how Kashimere is causing headache in global scale rather than regional scale as it was b4 both India and Pakistan had nuclear weapons, you have a point there.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @<hidden> June 16 2002,18http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif4)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Countries that develop nuclear weapons have all reached a certain level of maturity. North Korea could never outgun the US, and they are not suicidal.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

it is not that simple. N.Korea sent a mini sub to S.Korea in 1997, which got stranded, and the crew of 22 or so decided to go into S.Korea and infiltrate back upto north. This resulted in a gigantic search for them in S,Korea and it ended with 20something S.Korean military soldiers dead during the search.(mostly from friendly fire, but the NKoreans did kill some SKoreans too.)

so NKorea doesn&#39;t have to attack US..it just needs to provoke SKorea which also stations US military

[IsthatyouJohnWayne]

Wiggum- &#39;aid not the answer&#39;

i disagree , the fact that an aid worker was unfortunatly raped proves/means nothing (except that they need more protection)

People ARE grateful for aid in countries that dont usually get it, but not so much grain/money-

social welfare/improvement schemes especially DO improve the name of the country that initiates them.

Denoir- right, thats where many Americans i have talkied to differ in their perception from mine
, they see it as a split
-isolationism or involvement-

whereas there are TYPES of involvement and shades of isolation

quite simply
noones going to be popular for long by supplying arms
to certain groups against others
(a long term negative involvement that the US has practised before)
it has unknown repurcussions in the future

but the vast majority of people in the world will be thankful to those who help build schools/supply food etc.
(a positive intervention that the US could make a massive contribution to if it chose)

Aid will not stop terroism alone , but it can completly undercut terrorist support

(who will want to harbour and supply food to an anti-US
terrorist when US aid workers have just fed their kid,given them medical aid and built a water well?)

These things do matter and do have an impact,
and i think the US is somewhat neglecting this area in the fight against terror.

IsthatyouJohnWayne:

You are making the mistake of unterestimating other countries. People are in general not suicidal. We have gone through many unstable governments with nuclear weapons since WW2, and we have not used the weapons.

ICBM&#39;s and MRBM&#39;s are not considered officially today as a major threat. During the Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations there has been a big change in policy and that was reflected around the world. Sweden was also one of the countries that radicaly changed it&#39;s policy after the US change.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne]

Actually i remember reading of a Pakistani general who made some suicidal comments about how poor his country is and that maybe it would be better to start from scratch and wipe out their enemies at the same time,

+ AS I SAID BEFORE

Bush wants Nuclear option in response to CHEMICAL-BIO attack (not just nuclear)

So N.Korea (or whoever)could release bio-warfare spores in the USA, then the USA has the nuclear response option/retaliation without worrying about enemy counter-response- get it?

The USA could strike first with nukes after bio attack, i believe there was talk of this recently.

But mostly
I agree its not the major threat it once was , though if i was the president of the USA i wouldnt necessarily want to rely of that indefinatly, it never hurts to have a shield as well as a sword, well thats the theory.

The USA doesnt need to spend more than half the worlds countries put together spend on defence either, but it does. Even if it stopped new spending initiatives now it would be ahead militarily for a decade or so at least , but thats not the way US policy works, its about infinite expansion of power

So in a way you were right about it being down to inertia ,
as soon as there is a slow down it is regarded as failure,
the US defence establishment plays up risks to keep spending inertia up- its not just about who IS a threat ,but who could be a threat.

Any threat that can justify the massive levels of spending will be seized upon.

its like an ecomony where the supply justifies the demand.

[Paratrooper]

There is no country in the world that would willingly enter into a nuclear exchange.

The threat comes from nuclear terrorism which no "Missile Shield" can protect against.

[RalphWiggum]

the problem of US&#39;s stance in terms of international relations is that when US does something iwth its own resource, international community, most noticably EU, tends to scoff at it.

well if they want to claim that US&#39;s method won&#39;t work, then I guess they have better one, which they don&#39;t in many cases.

the question that needs to be addressed is that why does EU or anyother international groups want to use US resource to their wants? they always whine about US using their base and so on, but they also do the same thing

[Prune]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Osama Bin Laden acquired a nuclear weapon (maybe purchased from a friendly Pakistani general)
would that make him &#39;mature&#39;?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Presumably he would also have to acquire a launch silo and paraphernalia as well. Perhaps he will make a trip to US Army surplus http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif .

Anyway, Bush could never retaliate with nuclear weapons without would wide condemnation. This would probably happen regardless of what was done to them. Would a country which prides itself as being civilised, and is so opposed to these weapons, actually use these weapons of mass destruction? What would he use them against, cities? He would have to go for military installations, using aircraft or cruise missiles. Otherwise the collateral damage would be immense.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it never hurts to have a shield as well as a sword, well that’s the theory.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Theory indeed. I&#39;m sure this money could be better spent. For example on education, as I believe I read somewhere that a large proportion of high school children think the Sun orbits the Earth.

[RalphWiggum]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Prune @<hidden> June 16 2002,19:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Presumably he would also have to acquire a launch silo and paraphernalia as well. Perhaps he will make a trip to US Army surplus http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif .[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
rofl&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

now that&#39;s sooooooo true&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


but on serious note, they only need some of their guys to bring in a nuke to metropolis and set it off. when you see Osama&#39;s fanatics, they are not afraid to do that.

[Warin]

I think my problem comes not from the money being spent on the ABM concept..or who it is to protect the US from... it stems from President Shrub doing whatever the hell he wants with no concern for valid treaties.

It is of concern to everyone when the President of the most powerful nation in the world decides that he can arbitrarily break the rules.  Treaties are made in the expectation that their terms will be met by the parties who have agreed to it.

No one would play a game with someone who arbitrarily changes the rules when he sees fit...and if Bush continues to do that sort of thing (ABM Treaty, Kyoto) eventually people wont believe him when he does need to be taken seriously.

[Paratrooper]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Presumably he would also have to acquire a launch silo and paraphernalia as well[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No-one is going to launch a missile at the US&#33;
If Bin Laden want to use a nuclear weapon he&#39;ll get one of his men to walk accross the Mexican border, drive to Washington and &#39;Matyr&#39; himself.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne]

Prune-

I wasnt suggesting that Osama would launch an Inter-continental ballistic missile&#33;

Hes not the ICBM threat i was talking about-
i merely suggested that he could acquire a nuke or nuke materials (it was a different point i was making)

anyway he could just as easily stick it on a scud and launch it at India administered Kashmir....-



Of course there would be condemnation of a US nuke response to a ->Bio/Chem or suicide nuke<- attack (the point i was ACTUALLY making),
but if millions of Americans were contracting a deadly illness or whatever else then that would somewhat blunt criticism of a nuke counter-attack against enemy WMD development facilities or government control centres (presumed targets)

Of course there would still be massive outrage and its a tiny tiny likelyhood.


RalphWiggum-
"the problem of US&#39;s stance in terms of international relations is that when US does something iwth its own resource, international community, most noticably EU, tends to scoff at it."

So the problem with the US is the rest of the world?
LOL-Scoffing has no bearing on international relations between the US and EU
the US scoffed at the EU GPS system (Galileo i believe)
The EU scoffs at the ICBM shield?
SO WHAT?

"well if they want to claim that US&#39;s method won&#39;t work, then I guess they have better one, which they don&#39;t in many cases."

better method? this presumes that there is already a problem in the international approach to nuclear weapons(for instance)
which the ICBM shield will solve
something many countries would not agree with
Be more specific- what method?

it seems like this is the persecution complex which comes up again and again when i talk to Americans on the internet
(or see them in the news on TV etc)

-"everyone hates us ,but we dont care"

-"damned if we do , damned if we dont"
etc etc

I propose that most of this is down to misunderstandings of intent and cultural differences.

Its stupid , America and Europe dont need to quarrel, but it will no doubt only get worse.



"the question that needs to be addressed is that why does EU or anyother international groups want to use US resource to their wants? they always whine about US using their base and so on, but they also do the same thing"

again this is a great misunderstanding, for one thing &#39;they&#39; dont "Always want to use US resources"
ITS NOT TRUE&#33;
the EU has MASSIVE wealth and resouces (+foreign aid etc)
Sure your planes went in in kosovo ,but Bill Clinton Volunteered the US for that.
As far as aid etc the US is not so head and shoulders above the rest as you seem to think, its not the end of the second World War anymore- the GDP of Europe is vast.

And who whines about the US &#39;using their base&#39; what do you mean?

you deny the right of people in a democracy to protest at foreign troops on their soil (as if americans wouldnt)?
Because i assure the governments are still not protesting.

Be more precise in your statements.


Of course different people around the world say different things, but this seems to have confused the american public.

[Paratrooper]

Why does America think all these "Rogue States" are out to get them? Paranoid and conceited.

[Paratrooper]

And all this "defending Democracy" rubbish, the American political system isn&#39;t even democratic, as both parties are bought and sold.

[advocatexxx]

When you have about an hour of spare time, listen to this broadcast, courtesy of Democracynow.org.  This speech is made by Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT, a leading scholar and a critic of US foreign policy.  I find his speech to be a sharp view behind the scenes. He looks at the recent treaty that Bush signed with Putin as well as the whole deal about the topic you guys are discussing.

Real Audio Stream (http://stream.realimpact.org/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20020524.ra&start=6:44.8)

[IsthatyouJohnWayne]

paranoid because theyre the biggest and so feel like everyones trying to pull them down

crashing planes into buildings didnt help that situation either,

as for the &#39;defending democracy&#39; stuff yes thats just for the voting public ,
it goes down well like a Hollywood script .Sorry for the Hollywood cliche but this really has been Hollywoodised beyond the belief of people outside the US.

And the whole of Hollywood couldnt have created a better stereotyped &#39;bad guy&#39; than OsamaB (which the US media played up to magnificently)

And now we have -what was it &#39;Americas Army&#39; or somesuch,
turning the war against terror into fun packed episodes of democracy defending goodness.
good grief.

It sounds harsh but
minus the loss of civilian life
This is just what America was looking for in so many ways.
(a new &#39;manifest destiny&#39; extended to the whole world)

[RalphWiggum]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @<hidden> June 16 2002,21:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">RalphWiggum-
"the problem of US&#39;s stance in terms of international relations is that when US does something iwth its own resource, international community, most noticably EU, tends to scoff at it."

So the problem with the US is the rest of the world?
LOL-Scoffing has no bearing on international relations between the US and EU
the US scoffed at the EU GPS system (Galileo i believe)
The EU scoffs at the ICBM shield?
SO WHAT?

"well if they want to claim that US&#39;s method won&#39;t work, then I guess they have better one, which they don&#39;t in many cases."

better method? this presumes that there is already a problem in the international approach to nuclear weapons(for instance)
which the ICBM shield will solve
something many countries would not agree with
Be more specific- what method?

it seems like this is the persecution complex which comes up again and again when i talk to Americans on the internet
(or see them in the news on TV etc)

-"everyone hates us ,but we dont care"

-"damned if we do , damned if we dont"
etc etc

I propose that most of this is down to misunderstandings of intent and cultural differences.

Its stupid , America and Europe dont need to quarrel, but it will no doubt only get worse.



"the question that needs to be addressed is that why does EU or anyother international groups want to use US resource to their wants? they always whine about US using their base and so on, but they also do the same thing"

again this is a great misunderstanding, for one thing &#39;they&#39; dont "Always want to use US resources"
ITS NOT TRUE&#33;
the EU has MASSIVE wealth and resouces (+foreign aid etc)
Sure your planes went in in kosovo ,but Bill Clinton Volunteered the US for that.
As far as aid etc the US is not so head and shoulders above the rest as you seem to think, its not the end of the second World War anymore- the GDP of Europe is vast.

And who whines about the US &#39;using their base&#39; what do you mean?

you deny the right of people in a democracy to protest at foreign troops on their soil (as if americans wouldnt)?
Because i assure the governments are still not protesting.

Be more precise in your statements.


Of course different people around the world say different things, but this seems to have confused the american public.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
seems like you are getting hotheaded as much as i am. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

about the base reference.
US holds numerous base in many countries, German and Korea is a good example. PHilipines used to have one but they managed to get the land returned.

what you see everytime US steps into international ring is that countires are not willing to let US use at least some of their facilities in foreign countries. for example, during Kosovo crisis, Italy was not happy that US was using its(US&#39;s) base located there. Italy gov&#39;t expressed unhappiness over it. ppl can protest infront of the base, but gov&#39;t saying it is also a big factor.

you seem to be misunderstanding of how much of imporatnce alliance has on US&#39;s foreign action. when Gulf war started, US had to solicit help from international community. when US went to Afghanistan, not many international community members objected. that&#39;s why Us could go in so easily.

on the other hand, Bush&#39;s idea to attack Iraq is stalled thanx to EU&#39;s commitment to oppose it.

what does this all mean? in international scale, US needs support, and without it, it goes bad. US has the most power, but not enough to do whatever it wants.

and scoffing at ICBM and GPS does not meet the criteria i made. When I say scoffing at, the object that is scoffed at is US&#39;s intervention.

and speaking of better method, it was not just confined to ICBM, but more on general policies like sending peace forces. EU tried so hard to solve Kosovo crisis, but it wasn&#39;t until US stepped in that started downfall of Miloshevic. ICBM is a great method and I support it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
it seems like this is the persecution complex which comes up again and again when i talk to Americans on the internet
(or see them in the news on TV etc)

-"everyone hates us ,but we dont care"

-"damned if we do , damned if we dont"
etc etc

I propose that most of this is down to misunderstandings of intent and cultural differences.

Its stupid , America and Europe dont need to quarrel, but it will no doubt only get worse.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

it&#39;s not a persecution complex. it&#39;s a fact. as soon as fat elephants in capitol hill wants US to stop intervening in world affairs, international communities start criticizing US for being isolationist. as soon as US gets into world matters, US gets branded as a bully.

and there is no confusion about intent and cultural differences. if someone is getting shot in the head and executed becuase of born indifferent race, it&#39;s not cultural difference. maybe intent, but no cultural difference. so Serbs are now systematically killing Albanians. Fine. go say to an Albanian that it&#39;s only cultural difference. He&#39;ll reply that for him, it&#39;s matter of survival.

and when I say about resource, I&#39;m not talking directly using it, but it also envelopes indirect assitance. for example, during Kosovo crisis, French mishandled some info and it was given to SErbs and helped them evade airstrike. the mission plan(resource) was shared, but it was French military that mishandled it.

and when US uses it&#39;s resource(military), ppl whine about how it&#39;s inefficient and will have no impact. did it? Miloshevic is now out of power, Osama no longer has resource to plan big attacks, only small ones.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as aid etc the US is not so head and shoulders above the rest as you seem to think, its not the end of the second World War anymore- the GDP of Europe is vast.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
yes, but EEU is not a coherent group. it&#39;s more of confederation, meaning all countries talk and talk with little action at the end. US might not have the vast advantage incomparing foreign aid, but then EU is no better.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @<hidden> June 16 2002,22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EU tried so hard to solve Kosovo crisis, but it wasn&#39;t until US stepped in that started downfall of Miloshevic.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Boy, you guys make long posts http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on this little detail. The NATO intervention didn&#39;t start the downfall of Milosevic. It actually slowed it down by about 9 months (Special KFOR Inteligence Estimate anno 2001). The whole Operation Allied Force and the following Operation Allied Harbor were total disasters in every way:

1) NATO killed more Albanian civilians then the Serbs did.
2) The Yugoslav military was unharmed
3) Many Serbian civilians were killed.
4) It unified the Serbian people around Milosevic and that kept him in power longer then he would have otherwise.
5) It screwed up NATO relations with Russia
6) Milosevic could finish off his ethnic cleansing and then withdraw

But anyway it is true that the EU has shown that it is completely impotent from the start of the Yugoslav crisis.

[RalphWiggum]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @<hidden> June 16 2002,21:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">paranoid because theyre the biggest and so feel like everyones trying to pull them down[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
seems to me, it is so. ther are Arab ppl who wouldn&#39;t mind some liltants taking US down, there are protestors in Asia who want US to be punished for its &#39;economic crisis&#39; conspiracy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
as for the &#39;defending democracy&#39; stuff yes thats just for the voting public ,
it goes down well like a Hollywood script .Sorry for the Hollywood cliche but this really has been Hollywoodised beyond the belief of people outside the US.

And the whole of Hollywood couldnt have created a better stereotyped &#39;bad guy&#39; than OsamaB (which the US media played up to magnificently)

[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

well, i don&#39;t want to live under mulahs and strict islamin rule either. at least in democratic ountries i get to vote lesser eveil from a group of idiots.

and Holywood is now entering the scene heh? I remember an asshole who said that black hawk down was amde to boost US&#39;s patriotism after 911 and so was that movie where a pilot gets rescued.

those are idiots who thinks movies are made in a month. movies that are made after 911 are now coming out. Wind talkers was made after 911(most of it) and any movie made after that is coming out now. not earlier, but now.

Hollywood-ized? puhlease&#33; Life imitating art and art imitaing life is what entertainment biz is all about. Hollywood is pretty much the only sector that specializes in that imitation between art and life, while most Europian directors end up talking about something extremely theoretical.

it is no surprise that Hollywood is looked upon as the center of brain wash. ppl can&#39;t seem to understand that there are differences between correlation and causal interaction. just becuase reality resembles Hollywood, it doesn&#39;t mean that Hollywood is writing scripts for international affairs. any average person would know how international affair is revolving if they read newspaper long enough. the reason why Hollywood and reality seems so connected is becuase they are both composed of human interaction. it&#39;s not like hollywood is thinking of some abstarct thing and make movie about it, but they take real life examples and try to progress it in logical fashion.

then ppl start seeing that correlation and guess that hollywood is behind all these. yeah right. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif And is it wrong to vilinify your enemy?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
And now we have -what was it &#39;Americas Army&#39; or somesuch,
turning the war against terror into fun packed episodes of democracy defending goodness.
good grief.

It sounds harsh but
minus the loss of civilian life
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
again, America&#39;s Army was dev-ed for 2 yrs, well b4 911, so your comment just lacks in rationality since you claim that that game is turining war on terror into a fun game.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is just what America was looking for in so many ways.
(a new &#39;manifest destiny&#39; extended to the whole world)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
yeah right. like US let Osama plan to do it despite knowing he would. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[RalphWiggum]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @<hidden> June 16 2002,23:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Boy, you guys make long posts http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on this little detail. The NATO intervention didn&#39;t start the downfall of Milosevic. It actually slowed it down by about 9 months (Special KFOR Inteligence Estimate anno 2001). The whole Operation Allied Force and the following Operation Allied Harbor were total disasters in every way:

1) NATO killed more Albanian civilians then the Serbs did.
2) The Yugoslav military was unharmed
3) Many Serbian civilians were killed.
4) It unified the Serbian people around Milosevic and that kept him in power longer then he would have otherwise.
5) It screwed up NATO relations with Russia
6) Milosevic could finish off his ethnic cleansing and then withdraw

But anyway it is true that the EU has shown that it is completely impotent from the start of the Yugoslav crisis.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
muhahahahahaha&#33;&#33; new spamming-longer posts&#33;&#33;

any way let me be devils advocate and make rebuttal on some points.

1) NATO killed more Albanian civilians then the Serbs did. human shield could be a factor. yes, US is incapable of getting things dropped correctly but it&#39;s also the other end&#39;s action that would lead to this. Serbs purposely put themselves among civilians, thus creating un-wanted human shields around them

2) The Yugoslav military was unharmed
the objective of airraid was to push serbia out of Kosovo, not kill every serbian army.

3) Many Serbian civilians were killed.
and many more Albanians were killed by Serbs.

4) It unified the Serbian people around Milosevic and that kept him in power longer then he would have otherwise.
i doubt it. they had numerous elections where they could have sent Milosevic out of office, but Serbian voters were not willing enough to do that. i.e. let Milosvic do what he wanted to do.

5) It screwed up NATO relations with Russia
It was russia that said it won&#39;t intervene, yet decided to take charge of an airport when Serbs decided to move out. Russia had history of doing irritating things to piss of US afer cold-war. This is a good exampl of Russia doing nothing but to irritate US. now that Putin is in they reduced it considerably, acknowledging that such action leads to nothing.

6) Milosevic could finish off his ethnic cleansing and then withdraw
if Milosvic didn&#39;t withdraw he would have continued ethinic cleaning.

But anyway it is true that the EU has shown that it is completely impotent from the start of the Yugoslav crisis.
then why criticize US? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @<hidden> June 16 2002,23:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) NATO killed more Albanian civilians then the Serbs did. human shield could be a factor. yes, US is incapable of getting things dropped correctly but it&#39;s also the other end&#39;s action that would lead to this. Serbs purposely put themselves among civilians, thus creating un-wanted human shields around them[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not true. Most civilians were killed during the bombing of the infrastructure and by stray bombs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) The Yugoslav military was unharmed
the objective of airraid was to push serbia out of Kosovo, not kill every serbian army.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No, the objective was to stop the ethnical cleansing in Kosovo. Instead what happened was that when the bombing begun the Serbs stepped up the ethnical cleansing. In combination with NATO bombing this led to a massive exodus of Albanians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3) Many Serbian civilians were killed.
and many more Albanians were killed by Serbs.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Not quite true. The Serbs didn&#39;t kill that many people in Kosovo. It was far far less then they did in Bosnia. Estimates say that about 1500-2000 Albanians were killed. About 1000 of them from NATO bombs. Between 1000-3000 Serbian civilians were killed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4) It unified the Serbian people around Milosevic and that kept him in power longer then he would have otherwise.
i doubt it. they had numerous elections where they could have sent Milosevic out of office, but Serbian voters were not willing enough to do that. i.e. let Milosvic do what he wanted to do.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The first set of elections were directly after the bombings (parliamentary elections). Milosevic&#39;s party won with a land slide. Without the bombings he would have lost. This is not me theorizing, but these are official KFOR/NATO estimates.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5) It screwed up NATO relations with Russia
It was russia that said it won&#39;t intervene, yet decided to take charge of an airport when Serbs decided to move out. Russia had history of doing irritating things to piss of US afer cold-war. This is a good exampl of Russia doing nothing but to irritate US. now that Putin is in they reduced it considerably, acknowledging that such action leads to nothing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary, I would say that it was NATO that messed with Russia. The deal was division of territory. NATO then instead proceeded and took territory that was supposed to be under Russian control. This finally culminated in Russian paratroopers occupying the Pristina airport, seizing it by force and refusing to let any NATO troops to enter. Big mess.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">6) Milosevic could finish off his ethnic cleansing and then withdraw
if Milosvic didn&#39;t withdraw he would have continued ethinic cleaning.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There was nothing more to be done. Most part of the Albanians were over the border in refugee camps. The worst part is that relatively few have returned.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But anyway it is true that the EU has shown that it is completely impotent from the start of the Yugoslav crisis.
then why criticize US? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I never criticized the US. I criticized NATO with all it&#39;s countries and with USA spearheading it. On the whole it was a disasterous military operation. Sure, the intentions were good, but the result was not.

[RalphWiggum]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, the objective was to stop the ethnical cleansing in Kosovo. Instead what happened was that when the bombing begun the Serbs stepped up the ethnical cleansing. In combination with NATO bombing this led to a massive exodus of Albanians.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

so we should have let Serbs continue ethnic cleansing by not intervening? the ppl who were conducting ethnic cleansing has to be stopped to stop ethnic cleansing. so pushing the perpetrators was the logical thing to do.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the contrary, I would say that it was NATO that messed with Russia. The deal was division of territory. NATO then instead proceeded and took territory that was supposed to be under Russian control. This finally culminated in Russian paratroopers occupying the Pristina airport, seizing it by force and refusing to let any NATO troops to enter. Big mess.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Russia never seemed to be interested in taking part of having Milosevic out of power. They steadily took time off and off to just drag coordiantaion with NATO, reducing their credibility in terms of how much they want as a peace maker. They refused to turn of if any militants weer caught within their territory.

furthermore, Russia didn&#39;t fire a single round to take over airport. They just drove in w/o getting fired upon by Serbs. doesn&#39;t that mean something? I think so. Russia never wanted to stop Serbs, let alone intervene. But when NATO started to push back Serbs, they wanted a piece of glory despite not being helpful.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There was nothing more to be done. Most part of the Albanians were over the border in refugee camps. The worst part is that relatively few have returned.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

think how much fear those Albanians have to not return to their lands. Serbs did great job of rooting out Albanians that they are not returning.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The first set of elections were directly after the bombings (parliamentary elections). Milosevic&#39;s party won with a land slide. Without the bombings he would have lost. This is not me theorizing, but these are official KFOR/NATO estimates.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I doubt if he had lost either way. Yugoslavia had rules of having who as president between parts. Milosevic never kept promise of stepping down and rotating persidency. Serbs didn&#39;t vote him off any way. I doubt if they were going to do so without NATO&#39;s action.

and the last sentence about US cirticism(why criticize US?) was geared towards anti-US ppl. if you think you are one, whatever. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Indychuck]

Denoir is right. The primary objective was to stop the ethnic cleansing. They failed terribly in that aspect. They didn&#39;t directly engage enough Serb troops in the right manner to stop anything. Even with the withdrawal they burned and destroyed everything that was left. The whole of NATO command stunningly fell flat on their face in this operation as they&#39;ve done in the Balkans for the most part.

[Prune]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as for the &#39;defending democracy&#39; stuff yes that’s just for the voting public ,
it goes down well like a Hollywood script .Sorry for the Hollywood cliché but this really has been Hollywoodised beyond the belief of people outside the US.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed. It is not really the films that he is talking about, as they do take a very long time to make. The scripts would have been written a few years before.

Anyway, it&#39;s all about spin. Very clever subtleties and aspects to a speech/press release can help bring the public to your cause. Bush&#39;s scriptwriters have taken great care to use this opportunity to strengthen Bush&#39;s standing. It happened in the Falklands, old Maggie was hailed as a hero even though we damn near lost it. I don&#39;t know if you get much spin in your lands but we certainly do in the UK. I thought this weeks Private Eye was very amusing.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/images/cover/1056on.gif