Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

onetime2 · 10-04-2004, 05:02 AM

My thoughts on the subjects raised in this thread:

The financial cost of the war in Iraq is minimal. The only thing that will throw a wrench into the financing of the rebuilding efforts is the mistaken belief that the war in Iraq can not be won. It's only a matter of time before Iraqis tire of the fighting and begin helping to stabilize their own country. Perhaps the planned election will help them to feel that it is their own country they are fighting for instead of the ridiculous belief that America is only looking to expand its "empire". Certainly they have reason to think that since through their history there have been many claims of liberation and doing what's best for the people. In almost every case it lead to consolidation of power and a pronounced class system with the ruling party operating outside of almost any boundary. But the US does not take over countries. If that were the case we'd have already added Kuwait, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, and a host of other countries to the rolls of our territories.

I do not think Kerry will cede command to the UN. That's utterly ridiculous. He will, however, find it very difficult to act independently given his platform. France and German will gain a high level of say in foreign policy decisions involving using US military force since their abstention will carry cries of "unilateralism" or a failure to build a coalition. He will become exactly what he decries Bush for. Any coalition he puts together with France and Germany will almost certainly be one of the "coerced and bribed" because they will have greater bargaining power than they have now.

A struggling US economy will impact every country in the world. While the EU was formed to help mitigate the effects of the US economy, that was not its primary purpose. It's primary purpose was to consolidate economic power in the face of the growing importance of Eastern nations' economies and continued strong US economic influences in the world.

The UN is almost pointless in resolving world conflicts. Korea was probably the biggest UN effort and where does that stand today? A tenuous peace at best with decades of threats, massing weapons, and millions suffering under the power of a few. The entire process of UN actions is filled with opportunity for delay, manipulation, corruption, and failure. Countries can go for decades under sanctions which are supposed to force compliance to UN resolutions. Forces are only sent when absolutely everything else has failed multiple times and even then, in most cases, member countries require that there is little real combat involved before they go that route.

10-04-2004, 05:02 AM	#33 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	My thoughts on the subjects raised in this thread: The financial cost of the war in Iraq is minimal. The only thing that will throw a wrench into the financing of the rebuilding efforts is the mistaken belief that the war in Iraq can not be won. It's only a matter of time before Iraqis tire of the fighting and begin helping to stabilize their own country. Perhaps the planned election will help them to feel that it is their own country they are fighting for instead of the ridiculous belief that America is only looking to expand its "empire". Certainly they have reason to think that since through their history there have been many claims of liberation and doing what's best for the people. In almost every case it lead to consolidation of power and a pronounced class system with the ruling party operating outside of almost any boundary. But the US does not take over countries. If that were the case we'd have already added Kuwait, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, and a host of other countries to the rolls of our territories. I do not think Kerry will cede command to the UN. That's utterly ridiculous. He will, however, find it very difficult to act independently given his platform. France and German will gain a high level of say in foreign policy decisions involving using US military force since their abstention will carry cries of "unilateralism" or a failure to build a coalition. He will become exactly what he decries Bush for. Any coalition he puts together with France and Germany will almost certainly be one of the "coerced and bribed" because they will have greater bargaining power than they have now. A struggling US economy will impact every country in the world. While the EU was formed to help mitigate the effects of the US economy, that was not its primary purpose. It's primary purpose was to consolidate economic power in the face of the growing importance of Eastern nations' economies and continued strong US economic influences in the world. The UN is almost pointless in resolving world conflicts. Korea was probably the biggest UN effort and where does that stand today? A tenuous peace at best with decades of threats, massing weapons, and millions suffering under the power of a few. The entire process of UN actions is filled with opportunity for delay, manipulation, corruption, and failure. Countries can go for decades under sanctions which are supposed to force compliance to UN resolutions. Forces are only sent when absolutely everything else has failed multiple times and even then, in most cases, member countries require that there is little real combat involved before they go that route. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant. Last edited by onetime2; 10-04-2004 at 05:05 AM..