The Dark Horse of the UN Security Council

[MRT144]

consitency, plain and simple. id like to see some consistency in what we do. sure we dont need to do the same to every country, but please, kim jong il causes suffering on his people, and threatens to use WoMDs without provocation. and to him we use diplomacy. he is more of a threat to the US yet somehow we can find it in our hearts to engage in diplomacy with him. i guess i cant expect consistency since we havent ever shown any in the past.

also youre right, western influence has had many benefits. i mispoke when i said influence, i meant direct intervention and meddling. that has not benefited the people in middle east. We divide up the land, we create israel, we support the shah, we support saddam, we support the taliban...and most of these come to bite us in the ass. the only "good" intervention was kuwait but then again their national soveirgnty was at stake. of course that was containing iraq, not changing their entire leadership.

[Usually Insane]

Velo: so, you admitt that it is a dirty little bullywar and that the US wants the rest of the world to fold up and accept that the US can go on with their little bullywars.

USA had the whole world support it for attacking afganistan.

USA does not have the whole world support for attacking Iraq.

if the US has a personal vendetta against iraq, fine by me. Just don't ask me to be in the same gang as the bully, because that is lame.

Bush shuold have finished saddam more then ten years ago, and before that, they shouldn't have supplied him with weapons. this is a US problem, a US war and US interests. don't try and pretend anything else.

Sikander: If the junk in the living room is that roommates I'll d@mn well tell him for NOT cleaning up his own sh!t.

don't compare reallife politics with a game, that comparision carries no credibility.
but if you really want to know, well, no. I tell france or india or whomever, that I want their little nice resources and I walk over and grab them. I don't ask all the other countries to join me in trade embargoes and military alliances.
unless of course I want to start a nice little "Mutual protection"-war

but civ is a game, and real life isn't

Edit: spelling mistakes

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Usually Insane

Sikander: If the junk in the living room is that roommates I'll d@mn well tell him for NOT cleaning up his own sh!t.

don't compare reallife politics with a game, that comparision carries no credibility.
but if you really want to know, well, no. I tell france or india or whomever, that I want their little nice resources and I walk over and grab them. I don't ask all the other countries to join me in trade embargoes and military alliances.
unless of course I want to start a nice little "Mutual protection"-war

but civ is a game, and real life isn't

Edit: spelling mistakes

So you'd only follow a suicidal path in real life, but never in a game?

[Usually Insane]

I can't see a suicidical path in real life really.

If you mean that the US should declare war against everyone, well that is your opinion. My belief is that they should stop complaining at the rest of the world that we don't cheer their invasion on like the brits and france did to hitler when he occupied theckoslovakian border provinces.

and as I said, your comparision has no credibility.
it is oversimplistic, and comparing reality with a game whose AI has been severly criticized...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MRT144
consitency, plain and simple. id like to see some consistency in what we do. sure we dont need to do the same to every country, but please, kim jong il causes suffering on his people, and threatens to use WoMDs without provocation. and to him we use diplomacy. he is more of a threat to the US yet somehow we can find it in our hearts to engage in diplomacy with him. i guess i cant expect consistency since we havent ever shown any in the past.

My favorite form of consistency is doing the wise thing every time. Sometimes the wise thing is to run, sometimes it is to complain loudly, sometimes it is instantaneous reaction, sometimes it is to negotiate. Even the U.S. can only do a little at a time to move the world toward a more ideal situation. But we can't use our inability to do everything at once as an excuse to do nothing. It's better to save one person than no one.

Originally posted by MRT144
also youre right, western influence has had many benefits. i mispoke when i said influence, i meant direct intervention and meddling. that has not benefited the people in middle east. We divide up the land, we create israel, we support the shah, we support saddam, we support the taliban...and most of these come to bite us in the ass. the only "good" intervention was kuwait but then again their national soveirgnty was at stake. of course that was containing iraq, not changing their entire leadership.

I agree with most of this btw. It's a legacy of the Cold War, and similar situations happened in every corner of the world. Since the end of the Cold War we have been able to afford to improve our average a bit. I'd like to dismantle the Cold War structures more completely, but it's going to be tough to do so until we can be sure that we don't leave dangerous power vaccums everywhere in our wake. Dealing with Iraq, NK and Iran will allow us to safely pull back from the ME and East Asia to some extent.

[MRT144]

God willing we will be able to pull back...and leave things like they are now in vietnam, but hopefully it wont come to the utter failure of diplomacy and war on our part for it to happen and we can do it gracefully.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Usually Insane
I can't see a suicidical path in real life really.

If you mean that the US should declare war against everyone, well that is your opinion. My belief is that they should stop complaining at the rest of the world that we don't cheer their invasion on like the brits and france did to hitler when he occupied theckoslovakian border provinces.

and as I said, your comparision has no credibility.
it is oversimplistic, and comparing reality with a game whose AI has been severly criticized...

OK, you butted in on a conversation that I was having with a fellow American and took his side, which was that consistancy was so important in international policy that he would rather the U.S. did nothing or everything. I don't find this argument compelling in the least, as it doesn't seem to be a useful policy in foreign relations or any other endeavor that I can think of. What I am asking is that someone show me how this rigid policy could possibly not lead to an end to one's state fairly quickly, as either you are trying to force everyone to toe your line, or you let everyone do what they want. Either way you are going to get slaughtered eventually. Hence the suicide comment.

I brought Civ in mainly as a hopefully unemotional example (though you are proving that the be a forlorn hope). If a policy is so bad that it borders on the suicidal against even Civ AI, what happens when you employ it in a the real world, populated with intelligent opponents and rivals? IMO it is worse, and only states with the luxury of having someone else defend them can afford to even adapt the passive form of it, ie do nothing. Even the most powerful state right now would collapse very quickly if it adopted a do everything approach.

All this just to refute an argument. My own thoughts are that we should do what we can do effectively. There is plenty to do around the world, and we have the luxury of choosing how (or whether) we want to tackle these problems, and in what order. This allows us to be much more effective, in that sometimes we can concentrate our efforts on really tough problems, or spread out and take on a lot of smaller problems at once. To cite an example, instead of rushing to invade North Korea (unleashing a probable nuclear war and pi$$ing off China, Russia, Japan and South Korea), we can instead prevent another similar situation by invading Iraq (where we have numerous Causus Belli, troops deployed nearby, a plan, and some allies). To me it would be stupid to leave Saddam alone and have a go at North Korea, and suicidal to try to take them both down at once.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MRT144
God willing we will be able to pull back...and leave things like they are now in vietnam, but hopefully it wont come to the utter failure of diplomacy and war on our part for it to happen and we can do it gracefully.

I agree. Perhaps a good showing in Iraq will convince some of the other hard cases that it's not worth their while to rock the boat. Iran is a sterling example of a country thay seems very close to becoming a very positive force in the region. The people seem to want this, but the Clerics are going to have to go, or at least stop sponsoring terrorists and thwarting democracy at every turn.

[Velociryx]

Agreed, Sik!

And Usually - I agree that Saddam was "our boy" during the cold war. We made him while facing the larger conflict of the Cold War vs. the Soviets, and now that the Cold War has ended, it is time to unmake him. Him, AND all the other little tin pot dictators sprinkled across the globe. We "interfered" with these nations when we installed these punks. What we're doing now amounts to putting things to rights, and the fervent hope is, that is exactly what will happen.

When doing that, yes...it is wise and proper to do so with the backing and support of the international community.

It is not wise and proper to declare war on them all at the same time.

-=Vel=-

[Usually Insane]

Sikander: Hmmm. that was a good summation with thoughts that was not readily apparent to me before.

if I may comment upon it?

first, I apologise for butting in. I was only overcome with emotion on reading your posts on how to deal with dictators and I felt that you wished for the community in general to agree with the US-Iraq crisis.

As I see it the US have it in for Iraq and not for the general dictatorships in the world.
But they claim that they have it in for all the dictatorships in the world, many of which they have or are supporting.
So this in my opinion is Hypocrisy, and I expect that they either pursue all dictarorships in the world, this by initaiting resulutions against individaul states as well as pursue the human rights to be elevated to law status over the world. which they aren't doing.
so they are either lying about their intentions, or they should be laying out plans of pursuing terrorists and dictators over the world. not single one out and bully him.

I do not believe the US would declare war on each and every regime on earth, but they have claimed that this what they are planning on doing. so the inconsistency lies in the hands of the US, and we are only questioning their reasoning.

about Civ, we have both used it as an example in our discussions, and I think we both have noticed that it is a double-edged sword. however I think I understand your point.

[Usually Insane]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And Usually - I agree that Saddam was "our boy" during the cold war. We made him while facing the larger conflict of the Cold War vs. the Soviets, and now that the Cold War has ended, it is time to unmake him. Him, AND all the other little tin pot dictators sprinkled across the globe. We "interfered" with these nations when we installed these punks. What we're doing now amounts to putting things to rights, and the fervent hope is, that is exactly what will happen.

When doing that, yes...it is wise and proper to do so with the backing and support of the international community.

It is not wise and proper to declare war on them all at the same time.

-=Vel=-

Vel, If you have read my posts, I do wish that he be unmade as well as anyone. but he shouldn't be portraited as a selfraised bullyboy who the good old USA is bringing in. USA raised him, USA should admit It's fault and stop demanding our blessings for removing their own filth. what they are busy doing now is hypocrisy and outright lying.

and on the war declarations. I don't believe that to be a wise course of action. but I expect the US to have and present a plan against the other countries. just as they have against Iraq.

[Velociryx]

Then we largely agree. Where we differ is this:

I do not see the USA's current course of action as "trying to get everyone's blessing" to go in and haul off what is essentially their own garbage.

Rather, I see it as getting the ok from the world body, and that's an important distinction, because it carries with it the assurance that "hey....we're not out to rape and plunder the world, and we're not gonna put YOUR country on the block next (unless you're another member of the "tin pot dictator's club"), we're just takin' out the trash.

IF we do not take the steps to get general approval for our actions, then we are accused of "acting unilaterally" and this makes most other nations very defensive and nervous. So....it is a necessary step if we're gonna do it right.

-=Vel=-

[Usually Insane]

Velo: Aye, you are right. but what I'm hearing at home is that of USA saying they are doing us a favor and that we should back them up whereever they go. not:

getting the ok from the world body, and that's an important distinction, because it carries with it the assurance that "hey....we're not out to rape and plunder the world, and we're not gonna put YOUR country on the block next (unless you're another member of the "tin pot dictator's club"), we're just takin' out the trash.

And unless the US governemnt makes this statement (in flowery speech) admits their guilt in saddams elevation and several others, and promises to correct it.

well, then I'll disaprove of any action the US are doing because I don't feel they are playing straight

this is of course my personal opinion only.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Usually Insane

As I see it the US have it in for Iraq and not for the general dictatorships in the world.
But they claim that they have it in for all the dictatorships in the world, many of which they have or are supporting.

Well they actually don't claim to have it in for every dictatorship, but they certainly hope that the Western world will buy that implication. Obviously this sort of policy explicitly detailed would lead to immediate and large scale trouble for the U.S. in the dictatorial portions of the globe, trouble I might add that the U.S. probably couldn't handle for very long.

Originally posted by Usually Insane
So this in my opinion is Hypocrisy, and I expect that they either pursue all dictarorships in the world, this by initaiting resulutions against individaul states as well as pursue the human rights to be elevated to law status over the world. which they aren't doing.
so they are either lying about their intentions, or they should be laying out plans of pursuing terrorists and dictators over the world. not single one out and bully him.

Again, I don't think it is wise to start in with more than we can handle at once. Hitler announced the formation of the "Thousand Year Reich" and otherwise tipped people off about his grandiose plans, and his Reich came to an abrupt halt 988 years early. In other words, such an ambitious policy cannot be pursued openly without absolute surety that you have the power in your hands to carry it through. Because you are basically declaring war on a good chunk of the globe, and can expect some stiff resistance.

As for Sadam, I don't think we are bullying him. We want him dead, but have been willing to settle for him living up to the obligations he and his country have incurred, some of which were payed for with a little Allied and a lot of Iraqi blood over the past decade. This is merely the continuation of the first war, necessary after the armistace was broken by Iraq. If we don't stand up here, we negate both our military strength as well as the credibility of the U.N.

Originally posted by Usually Insane
I do not believe the US would declare war on each and every regime on earth, but they have claimed that this what they are planning on doing. so the inconsistency lies in the hands of the US, and we are only questioning their reasoning.

If you can point me in the direction of anyone in any administration who has said this I would appreciate it. Bush's foreign policy is certainly ambitious, but this would be crazy ambitious. We'd certainly like for the world to be populated by democracies, but in many peoples opinion this is not completely realistic for quite some time. Certainly countries like Guinea (25% literacy rate) have a long way to go before their electorate is capable of even filling out a ballot, not to mention taking part in an intelligent and educated discussion of issues at hand.

Our policy is (very roughly) to tackle geopolitical problems that allow us to get out of numerous bilateral defensive arrangements put into place because of the Cold War and the Carter Doctrine (no one will be allowed to dominate the Persian Gulf and hence most of the world's oil). The regimes which seem to be the biggest stumbling blocks to this policy constitute "The Axis of Evil". They also happen to actually be evil for what that's worth. Amongst our weaponry are fear, surprise and an almost fanatical devotion to smart bombs.

Elsewhere U.S. policy is a great deal more mellow, even when the regime in question is pretty damn bad. We do encourage democracy though, but rarely do we think it worth forcing on someone who isn't otherwise creating tons of trouble for others, particularly us.

Oops, time for me to go. Have a good weekend.

[Willem]

Originally posted by MRT144
consitency, plain and simple. id like to see some consistency in what we do. sure we dont need to do the same to every country, but please, kim jong il causes suffering on his people, and threatens to use WoMDs without provocation. and to him we use diplomacy. he is more of a threat to the US yet somehow we can find it in our hearts to engage in diplomacy with him. i guess i cant expect consistency since we havent ever shown any in the past.

Diplomacy is the best approach with NK, that's why Bush and Co. is taking that stand. They aren't threatening anyone, they're just looking fo a bargaining chip. Right from the first they've been trying to get the US to sit down and discuss the situation, and offer some concessions.

In the meantime, the process of reunification with the south has begun. The two sides have been making contact, easing tensions, developing trust. It's just a matter of time before NK ceases to exist, in the same way that East Germany ceased to exist. To go in now with guns blazing would seriously undermine that process.