World in terms of military spending and war deaths

Striking, the contrast between where the military spending is taking place and where the war deaths are occuring. Apparently, killing need not be expensive.

-Crow

First time I've been happy to note that NZ has been completely left off the world map.

Was the U.S. spending money wisely before the war?

Americans hate to lose, that's why it's taken four years to see the light. I can't remember the first year of the war, but know that something radically altered the direction of the war. Someone refresh this tired mind please, What was it?

And tell me a verifiable time in history that Earth has not been at war, in one form or another. Besides, it's a matter of perspective. My perspective is: it's the war within each human being reflected outwardly.
(go ahead revere, label me).

Americans believe the war is not winnable because of a few hundred lunatic thugs that dominate the picture. You fill in the blanks after that.

Lea: "Americans believe the war is not winnable because of a few hundred lunatic thugs that dominate the picture. You fill in the blanks after that."

I can't even fill in these blanks. I can't guess whom you are talking about. Care to be more explicit?

All in love revere, you're a smart guy, come on.

Not refering to our military.

What would it be like if the senseless acts of violence against the Iraqi people, were not happening?

Lea: Not referring to Rumsfeld? to Wolfowitz? to Bush? to Pace? to Kissinger for past deeds? And why not? No senseless acts of violence? No thuggery? The war was never winnable. Nor is the war in Afghanistan. Ask the Russians. The question of spending money wisely is an order of magnitude different than putting it in a pile and burning it.

When it comes to blame casting revere I take a different approach/outlook. Bush was voted for, something that the majority of walking dead Americans allowed. Now those same walking dead want to find a scape goat. They don't want to shoulder any part of the responsibility that they helped create.

If the American people weren't so easily lead none of this would be happening now.

Americans, have grown lethargic, possessing a welfare state-of-mind, easily lead into believing that possession's are what's important. Now, there's nothing wrong with possession's, it's just the retarded attachment to them that is tweaked.

It's just convenient to blame Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bush, Pace, and Kissinger instead of accepting some of the responsibility for ever allowing it in the first place.

Honestly, I'm all for a "different" U.S.A. Honestly, I'm all for peace, love and all that good stuff, but try to convince the radical minds in this world of that. They'll take advantage of us at the drop of a hat.

If there are to be any measurable changes in the U.S.A. then we need a cultural revolution revere. One that will stick.

There was an attempt at such a revolution in the 60's but the ball was dropped.

I say stay and finish the job, if not it'll come back and haunt us.

WWIV would occur I believe about not more than 3 years after a premature pullout. I dont disagree with Lea or Revere. I think the war has been handled badly and the Dems want us to handle it like its some damned police problem which it definitely isnt.

Revere, I say bomb Bushehr and take the head off the chicken in Teheran. Then we can leave. It would take the Iranians about 5-10 years to regroup and if the off the grid papers are right the radicals are about to take a header soon there. There is NO way that the US or NATO is going to allow Pakistan to fall or allow Iran to dominate Iraq. Its simply not going to be allowed.

The off the grids are also touting that Kuwait, Oman, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia are talking out both sides of their mouths. One that preaches the usual US hate, the other quietly starting to fund the US's efforts. I have no first hand knowledge that they are doing that, but its in their best interests to do so. If Iraq falls, then the Turks will go for Kurdistan in all likelyhood. If we pull out the Israelis wont wait to take the Iranian nuclear facilities off the map and they might go for Teheran. Does it make it right what any of them are doing? Not really but I want this march to the inevitable to stop and the only people who can stop it is the Iranians. They are headed pell mell into Hell and seem to be bent upon their own destruction. There are no level playing fields in the region and holding militarily Afghanistan and Iraq are very important. Finish the job Lea? Uh, that definition IMO is still ambiguous. I wouldnt have been near as nice to these people who are shooting at us. I would have done a Lebanon on them in Tikrit and Fallujah and much to the dismay of Revere. But you cannot fight a limited war. You fight it to win, you break their toys and walk away and say screw them.

Post of this little engagement, I think the whole War Powers Act should be revisited...again. This war by resolution shit is just that and it got us Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and now Iraq. Scuse my French... but fuck this mess. I want a declaration of war and then everyone gets their Geneva Rights and everyone is a combatant. I could house them in a john if I wanted to treat them badly and Lyndie England who was clearly a near retard wouldnt be doing the things they were doing.

Revere is right about much of what he says. I dont and didnt fight wars with one foot and hand behind my back. Prolonged police actions is what we are getting with the lead in always with a massive projection of air power. That means massive civ casualties even with the shot thru the outhouse window stuff we have now. You dont need a 500 pounder to take out the guy but thats all we have. So rather than saying that they are civs, you call them combatants and then you carpet bomb and the problem goes away... permanently. Our boys and girls come home and we wait until the next 9/11 or crossing of the 38th parallel or the goddamn Gulf of Tonkin resolution to start your next reach out and touch someone campaign. Doing it this way gets Revere what he wants which is a limited war, I get what I want which is a combatant body count and everyone gets happy because its done with it in under a six month period which is the NG original commitment time in drill periods and annual training (total of six months).

I will say this Revere, they screw this one up politically and more importantly militarily (eg carrier task groups forced out of the Gulf) we are going to be in deep, deep trouble and fast.

Randy,

I'd like to see your evidence that we aren't already in deep, deep trouble.

I consider it to be manageable right now Mel, if it gets any worse or Iran gets the bomb then Israel is going to react and likely not conventionally. April 7th is the dark of the moon.

It could get a LOT worse. One bomb in the west desert of Iraq from Iran would pollute the country in a week. It can get a lot worse. Varying degrees of deep, deep....the surge is helping.

"If the American people weren't so easily lead ..."

Americans are no more stupid than anybody else. They are just better trained and more ignorant.

Anybody can be easily lead. It only takes a decade of "school" and a lifetime of "edutainment". Leave the thinking to the experts. Obey authority. We know what you need to know.

Nice thing about a huge war budget, after you bomb their families and their families' families, some hothead among the survivors is going to stir up unjustified resentments, so you need a bigger war budget next year.

Well, it must be nice for somebody.

MRK: My definition of finish the job is very close to what you've said above, sorry, I don't possess the capacity to elaborate. And my definition has been stated before so I felt no reason to repeat it.

Greg: I agree with your first three sentences but, try to convince the millions of other people on this planet. Only a handful of people realize how misleading the "authorities" have been.

My explanations are simple, sorry that it's not enough for the readers and commenter's here. Intelligence is fine as long as it doesn't muck up the simplicity of the issue. Besides, my education is from a Community College, not a University. Even the simplist of folks can be of benefit.

A very dear friend of mine says: "There's always a pony in the poop pile".
Hard to understand if one isn't looking for the pony.

Who know that Russia was such an insane toy exporter? I see 2002 has Russian military per capita pretty darn small. I'm glad Condi Rice spent her PhD studying the now-ended Cold War as opposed to say, I don't know, up-and-comers like the Chinese or Koreans.

The U.S. is fat with the military spending. I get quite the ironic chuckle when we our 'lean, mean, fighting machine' gets represented by being chubby.

Lea, yeah, I knew you wouldn't accept the last part.

Don't sell yourself short. Even if you were as simple as you suggest (you are not), so few people are saying anything at all, that every new voice is noticable and effective. Besides, lots of people can't hear my voice, but they can hear yours.

Maybe it would help if you get on that pony and ride around. People who are afraid teacher will whup them upside the head for saying they can see the pony are going to be even more afraid to say that's empty air you're riding around on and having so much fun.

Looks like the more money you spend on your military, the fewer deaths you have. Peace through strength?

Hmmm: Of course that isn't the most plausible explanation. We aren't likely to be invaded -- by anyone. A land war in North America is a loser for an invader. It is more likely, "Bankruptcy through strenth."

Ladies and Gentlemen please take your seats the show is only just starting.

The Islamaphobic paranoia that has been generated has just got the ball rolling; it is now gathering speed. Dont worry about an Iranian bomb, no need, the pressure applied on Pakistan by the US to shift from being a pro-Taliban state to a leader in the war on terror has placed the Pakistani President and government way out of step with the majority of their population, particularly in the north. At present judicious use of the stick has kept some order but this will not last indefinitely and some fancy footwork will be needed to bring this mess down with a soft landing. In the horn of Africa the poor Somalis had just got some measure of order, after 16 years of chaos, under the UIC but as the state department saw this as a possible launching area for terrorists (think reds under the bed in old money) it had to go and friendly local despots (Ethiopia aided by Kenya) replaced it with a democracy without popular support. As the Ethiopians withdraw the African Union troops will face the same fate as US troops in Iraq but will not have the wealth of high tech equipment to hold their losses down. Somalia will just add to the instability already evident in the Ethiopia/Eritrea stand off which all just merges into the chaos of Chad/Sudan. Oh what fun to meddle in other parts of the world but in the end if you keep pissing people off you will have to pull up the drawbridge of fortress America because no one can beat you in a fair fight so terrorism is their obvious recourse. I am British and our track record is no better than yours we just dont have the muscle anymore. Look at our history (and yours) in Persia or yours in South/Central America (didnt Bush get such a warm welcome on his recent trip) and it becomes plain the ramifications of some of these foreign policy initiatives take decades (or centuries) to play out.

I noticed that China's bloated military spending wasn't pictured. How come?

Because Bruce, it doesnt fit that side of the fences agenda on war. They are spending 25% on their military and its all new stuff happily bought from the French and Germans, and believe it or not... the Israelis.

According to the CIA factbook the US only spends about 22% more than China at present but remember you are not comparing like with like. China has a 2 year mandatory conscription (all men and some women) and uses this army as a workforce for all kinds of public works projects, supporting this standing army gobbles much of the budget. They are also starting from a much lower technological base where as US expenditure has more to do with making sure no one else can reach technical parity. Again a lesson from history that the USSR taught to Germany in WW2 and the US taught to the USSR in the cold war and China or India will teach to the US: The country willing to spend the most will eventually have the most powerful army. Today the US has a GDP of ~$14billion and China ~10 both spend about the same proportion on their militaries.

Frm GlobalSecurity.org 3/2006

"China has rejected a U.S. national security report that criticizes Beijing's military buildup and trade policies. Beijing calls the remarks groundless and irresponsible. The U.S. report says China's military build-up lacks transparency and criticizes Beijing's trade relations with countries that have poor human-rights records. China's state media on Monday quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang as saying the report was an interference in China's internal affairs, and harmed relations between the two countries. At a Tuesday briefing, Qin dismissed suggestions in the report that China might pose a challenge to U.S. foreign policy. "China is resolutely following a path to peaceful development," he said. "China has made its due contribution to push forward mutual development of peace and stability in the world." The White House report, entitled National Security Strategy, was released last week. It says China needs to abandon "old ways of thinking," such as not revealing true military spending. Official Chinese figures show a double-digit increase in military spending over the past several years

But foreign experts say real military spending could be up to three times as high as the publicly released figures.

The U.S. report also expresses concern about China's trade strategy, saying Beijing is trying to control markets instead of opening them up. The report says Beijing is acting as if it could "lock up" energy supplies around the world. It criticizes China's dealings with governments regardless of how they treat their people or behave internationally. The Chinese spokesman also rejected a report by a U.N. torture investigator calling for extensive changes to China's police and court systems, in order to reduce what it called the "widespread" use of torture. The U.N. report urges China to release political prisoners and to eliminate vague offenses such as "subverting state power," which are often used to prosecute political and religious dissidents. Qin said much of the U.N. report's content was based on facts that had not been verified. He also said it exceeded the scope of the U.N. investigator's authority. "

Indeed, the Chinese tried to buy Unocal a few years ago. Like Japan at the beginning of WWII they're in a pickle energy wise. The Russian sources are not reliable. Iran if they meddle could cause a confrontation and any supply disruption could harm their economy tremendously. That includes supplying arms to the Iranians (remember the first missile to hit Kuwait was a Silkworm). To cover this they are increasing their naval presence by buying used equipment such as an aircraft carrier, several surface boats from the Russians along with older fast attack diesel boats. They have a strong contingent in the S. China Sea right now and could be into Indonesia in a hot fast hurry. So its all about perceptions.... Shut off the oil supply to the West, use your military might to instill fear of what might happen by placing them in places you havent. Reminds me of that idiot Clinton putting a carrier battle group within 70 miles of China when there were taunts of the Chinese taking Taiwan, INSIDE of the Formosa Strait. Sure, we might have been able to fight off an attack...But would you want to? The day the Chinese stare us in the eye we had better be ready for a long stand off because to blink would mean the loss of a nation over there or a nuke confrontation. The Chinese cant convert from oil and continue their political/geophysical plans...costs too much. That means they have to secure a clear source of oil, refining, and redundancy. They have a huge strategic petroleum reserve area... problem is that its not anywhere near capacity...too expensive.

Randolph, why am I not surprised at your posting back.

I have taken the report and edited it a little.

The US has rejected Chinese criticisms at American Naval presence in the East Pacific basin and at US trade policies. Washington calls the remarks groundless and irresponsible. A military build-up has no reason to take place in our region where the US has no business and criticizes Washington's trade relations and arms sales to countries that have poor human-rights records. China's state media on Monday quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang as saying the US report was an interference in China's internal affairs, and harmed relations between the two countries. At a Tuesday briefing, Qin dismissed suggestions in the report that China might pose a challenge to U.S. foreign policy. "China is resolutely following a path to peaceful development," in contrast to US naked aggression in many parts of the world he said. "China has made its due contribution to push forward mutual development of peace and stability in the world." The White House report, entitled National Security Strategy, was released last week. The US needs to abandon "old ways of thinking," such as intervening militarily in other parts of the world despite overwhelming international condemnation and an inability to gain support for its military adventurism in the UN. Official Chinese figures show a double-digit increase in military spending over the past several years in line with its growth in GDP.
But foreign experts say US military spending is rising sharply to cover the cost of its attacks around the world, the main increase to cover its costly and disastrous war on Iraq.
The U.S. report also expresses concern about China's trade strategy, saying Beijing is trying to control markets instead of opening them up. This is in direct contravention of stated US policy where only it can control global commodity markets. The report says Beijing is acting as if it could "lock up" energy supplies around the world which is the sovereign right of the US. It criticizes China's dealings with governments regardless of how they treat their people or behave internationally, again the US exclusively reserves the right to extraordinarily kidnap other nations citizens and torture them on no US soil with the option of bringing them to Guantanamo bay for a quazi-trial. The Chinese spokesman also rejected a report by a U.N. torture investigator calling for extensive changes to China's police and court systems, in order to reduce what it called the "widespread" use of torture claiming they were just trying to standardize on US policy in this regard. The U.N. report urges China to release political prisoners and to eliminate vague offenses such as "subverting state power," which are often used to prosecute political and religious dissidents. China counter claimed that the US had infringed its intellectual copyright in copying these laws and practices citing Guantano bay and the patriot act. Qin said much of the U.N. report's content was based on facts that had not been verified. He also said it exceeded the scope of the U.N. investigator's authority. " Once more China was following US in disregarding the UNs authority as and when it suited it to do so.
Indeed, the Chinese tried to buy Unocal a few years ago. Like Japan at the beginning of WWII they're in a pickle energy wise. The Russian sources are not reliable. Iran if they meddle could cause a confrontation and any supply disruption could harm their economy tremendously. That includes supplying arms to the Iranians (remember the first missile to hit Kuwait was a Silkworm and much of the other armaments in the area came from the US or EU). China warned once the grip of the despotic Saudi royal family is broken it will be a US equipped mujahdeen the US puppet government in Iraq will be fighting. When the STo cover this they are increasing their naval presence by buying used equipment such as an aircraft carrier, several surface boats from the Russians along with older fast attack diesel boats. They US have a strong contingent in the Pacific right now and could be into Indonesia in a hot fast hurry. So its all about perceptions.... Control the oil supply, use US military might to instill fear of what might happen by placing them in places you haven't. Reminds me of that idiot Clinton putting a carrier battle group within 70 miles of China when there were taunts of the Chinese taking Taiwan, INSIDE of the Formosa Strait. Sure, we might have been able to fight off an attack...But would you want to? The day the Chinese stare us in the eye we had better be ready for a long stand off because to blink would mean the loss of a nation over there or a nuke confrontation. The Chinese cant convert from oil and continue their political/geophysical plans...costs too much but then why should they are an emerging economic superpower with the balance of payments surplus to buy what they need. The US on the other hand has a national debt that scares everyone and means the rest of the world watch in fear to see if they will use their military strength to take what they want if they can not get it in a fair open market.

"A land war in North America is a loser for an invader."

The most recent invaders of NA used disease and dishonesty as their principal weapons. Our government and consumer institutions will actively assist the next invaders.

Randolf as you so rightly say it is all a matter of perception. Who should I fear? China buying up old fast attack boats who have not tried to project military power outside their immidate region or the US building up a military that can easily defeat any other nation and by your own example is quite capable of risking a major war by steaming across the globe to park a carrier battle group in the Formosa straits. Add to this its foreign policy initatives over the last few administrations which have left the world a much more polarised and far less safe planet.

Actually, the war was won in something like 3 weeks -- which was less time than it took Janet Reno to take out the Branch Davidians in Waco back in -- what, '93? What we've been doing over there isn't war, but something else. As observed in Harpers magazine a month or two ago, what we're doing is a misuse of military power, and we don't seem to be able to come up with better ideas. What we are in fact doing is preventing a religious civil war. Maybe we should ask Ms. Reno how to win in Iraq. In the meantime, being in Iraq does position us relatively well for any possible problems with Iran.

j. harmon: Actually . . . not. Your vision of what the "war" was is what got us into the greatest foreign policy debacle in US history. It was easy to foresee and lots of us foresaw it and said so. Your vauned "victory" put us in an untenable position. Thanks. As for "preventing" a religious civil war, neither I nor the Pentagon agrees with you. When you prevent something, it doesn't happen. Take a hard look.

I just read my earlier post and the GDPs should be in Trillions of $ not Billions. Sorry to have short changed you a bit.

In the meantime, being in Iraq does position us relatively well for any possible problems with Iran.

Is "being positioned relatively well" a genteel circumlocution for "leaves us with a good chance to lose"? That I would agree with.

What the commitment in Iraq has done, definitively, is to break the Army and the USMC. Even if no new war breaks out, it'll take ten years of generous budgeting to fix the damage incurred by the land warfare branches.

Note that the odds of the nation being able to afford said decade of generous budgeting are decidedly slim ones. The political history of the next ten years in the US will begin with the words, "And they went to the larder, but the larder was bare."

--

JJ I say this only in passing and that is that we are marching towards an inevitable showdown with Iran unless something major changes in the near future. You can change my posts around anyway you want and feel free to do so. It wont change a thing. I see only a major conflict opening up and very soon. Didnt need a surge for anything less than invasion. We could pacify the areas of Baghdad in about 10 seconds as J. Harmon posts. What I fear is that we dont do something about it and allow these groups to fall under single control then you have the Saracens marching west again. Revere can posture all he wants about an invasion of the US being a no win. I wonder how he would feel if suddenly all of the Muslims in Europe rose up and were able to take even one country in NATO?

I also would like to know what his thoughts were on 9/11. That day, that particular hour. Not so much about the demolition, but the facts are that we were attacked under Carter, Bush 1, Clinton 1 and 2, and now Bush 1a and 2a. Hundreds of people were killed and regardless of what anyone thinks right here and now I think we are going to get hit again and soon. UHC isnt going to stop a guy that thinks you are an infidel. They did the same thing when they marched west and took all of S. France, a large chunk of Italy, and S. Spain. Its happened before and maybe he is right about an invasion not working. But a couple of well placed suitcase weapons would more than take care of the US. We are strung out to every country in the world and our manufacturing is done somewhere offshore. If BF came in and took the young, they would simply only have to sit and wait us out.

So lets see, it wasnt Muslims that attacked us across the years? Dont remember bombing anyone until Reagan took over. We just dont fight wars anymore. We negotiate them into political rambles. The Dems are pushing the lose at all costs agenda, the Republicans well they aint pushing for a win either and to win we have to kill a bunch of people. Maybe we should just pull out and conduct an experiment. If nothing happens to us for say 10-15 years the lefties get a win. If not and say New York goes up in a puff, then well we all lose.

I still submit that the best way to do this is not to negotiate a thing. Just roar in there and level Teheran's leadership complexes. If it pisses them off, so what? They are already motivated enough to go for a WTC twice and Marine barracks, and Army barracks, and Embassies. They sure as hell dont care what we think now do they?

Randolf
Again I fear you are right we are in serious danger if the United States continues in its policy of trying to start a war with Iran. I disagree that you could pacify Baghdad in 10 seconds, unless by pacify the mean destroy in which case you would merely shift the problem to another area by aggrieving yet another population. The problem is not the Saracens marching west, but the Crusaders marching east. I see no invading Muslim armies, I see a Christian nation, attacking Muslim countries. The Muslims in Europe are not trying to change our governments. The majority of them are trying to stop the minority who are fighting back. at what they see as an attack upon their Muslim brothers, despite agreeing in a large part with the injustices, which they feel as well. The attacks of 9/11 are a terrible stain upon the Muslim people, and on the whole severely condemned. However, if you wish to prevent further attacks, major changes in US foreign policy are required, not military interventions around the globe. In your earlier post you pointed out that it was a silkworm missile that landed on Tel Aviv, if that post had been written by a Muslim (or anyone other than an America) he would probably have pointed out that the children dying in southern Lebanon were and are being killed by US made and supplied cluster bombs, and that during the course of Israel's attack upon Lebanon the US was re-supplying the Israelis with more bombs. If you really wish for a military victory, and I suggest you best option is to completely depopulated all the other nations of the Earth, because if you continue to try and pick them off one at a time you must expect this to mobilise the rest of us to fight back in any way that we can before you get to us. Build your missile shield and build it fast because one of the other nuclear powers will have to attack you before, it is completed as their only chance of long-term survival. I am a white Anglo-Saxon British male of no strong religious or political association, and I fear you. How much more strongly do you think you are feared by non-Christian nations or nations that are not democracies?

JJ-I make no assertions here other than we are all caught up in the middle of something that started lterally almost with the birth of Israel. Preconceived notiions that weaponology is a root of all evil.... It was by the way a missile that hit Kuwait and not Israel.

LIsten if you think that pulling back is the answer now then I submit that the time for that is long past. We are infiltrated in the US and you are more hugely so. I fully expect to see something major happen in London very soon, just as I do in one or more major cities. Regardless of whether they are radicals or not, the governments of the world do nothing until they do something horrific. Spain got hit and bailed on the coalition. So its a case of do what I want on both sides or I will terrorize your or from our side, bomb you into small pieces. I also submit that if that be the case then it goes back to what I have said before, we might just have to kill them all. It doesnt matter whether we are out negotiating with terrorists or not. A dead terrorist whether he has a Bush sticker on the back of his car or a Osama is a great guy Fatwah in his head dress. The results on both sides are the same. It ends in death. Now that being equal, the way to the end is that one or the other kills and eliminates their "problem." Then the winner of that debate gets to write history any old way he wants to. Its not right, its not moral its just the way of the world and it has repeated itself over and over again since we swacked the first caveman against the head for taking his food, his woman, his whatever.

Will we prevail? I dont know. The Israelis just gear up to kick the Palestinains asses every couple of years. Maybe we should just do that. Just declare world domination, if you raise your swords up we will use that as an excuse to whack you down.

You also are presenting the case that was offered up as part of a class in battle staff training. When is it justified to kill civilians that are harboring combatants? The answer to that question was put forth as part of the Dresden, Bremen raids in WWII. Since nearly everyone in the cities were part of the German war machine, killing those civilians made the targeting of the cities justified. Right ? I dont know but that is and was the question that we are facing today. Take Tikrit or Fallujah off the map? Personally I would with regrets, but with conviction. No one here has the balls to do it even though they are thinking it every day. Politically correct during a war.....it results in our casualties. To stop this war, we have to make the cost of it in human lives so high that they wont contemplate it any further. Not going to get that here. Its Vietnam again. Either win it or pull out and be prepared to fight a nuclear battle in under five years.

I do not advocate pulling out now. The cost, monatary and human, that we are now paying is our punishment for our hubris in illigally making war on Iraq. We now have a moral obligation to stay until we can with draw leaving a viable state. I am less gloomy than you on the chances of reaching an equitable peace. We now enjoy good relations with Japan & Germany and in Northern Ireland the situation is more stable than at anytime in generations. The Palastinians have legitamate grevences, and these are felt keenly by the rest of Islam, until they are addressed there is little chance of peaceful cohabitation. With the military, and actual, domination of Isreal over the occupied teritories there is little chance of peace as the Palastinians are have no chips with which to negatiate. The US is never likely to be trusted as a peace broker, by anyone apart from Isreal, as it universal viewed as anything but neutral.

JJ: I do advocate an immediate pullout. No one knows what will happen, but I could argue things will be better with us gone. We have no business there. The way we can discharge our responsibilities to repair the damage we have caused is through massive financial reparations funneled through international aid organizations. If the US gets out of the middle east altogether, everyone will be better off. We know the main reason for our presence there has three letters: oil.

I completely agree we have no business there and also think that a major withdrawal of US influence and military hardware over time (not too much time) would calm things down considerably. If a multi-national, predominantly Muslim force paid for by us, could be persuaded to step into the breach I am with you. If the force is too weak (more NGO than military) then it would only make matters worse; some faction be it Shia, Sunni, Kurd or externally sponsored would seize the opportunity to consolidate power. Any attempt to leave behind a government of US choice would also fail being tainted by association. I love the theory but am having difficulty with the implementation: that said I have equally large problems with any other form of implementation given our stating point. Which ever way you cut it, it is a SNAFU of our own making and it is our responsibility to bring it to a safe conclusion for the civilian Iraqi population. We must not just go home and leave a failed state.

JJ: I look at it this way. It is currently a failed state, in every sense of the word. If one of the factions "seizes power" (we should think carefully what that phrase really means) it would likely be an improvement over the failed state we preside over now. I don't think any of the neighbors wants a chaotic free for all bloodbath, the bogeyman of those opposing an immediate withdrawal. and would take steps to prevent it, steps we are powerless to take. Better to end it now. It will still take months to withdraw and in the interim the neighboring states will have time to arrange a transition. The likely winner will continue to be Iran, thanks to to George W. and his neocon thugs. Everybody else loses except for the Iraqi Shia theocrats.

JJ: Sorry, but to my perception, MRK has it mostly right. About 50 years ago, when the British Empire was well into it's decline from a position as a first rank military hegemony, Lee Kwan Yew was quoted on his opinion on US troops supplanting the British in the (Singapore) region to the effect that "the Brits might be imperialistic, but they had been around a long time, they are predictable, and he preferred them to the unknown of the new US imperialism any day."

On balance after 60 years, the US does a lot of bad. Chile & Noriega are prime examples. But it is not the US people who initiate the bad, it is a rampant bureaucracy acting from (I believe) misguided idealism, patriotism, call it what you will. The US in 20th Century has always proven generous in victory, compare with the USSR or, um, come to think of it, who else has had a total international conquest victory in the last 100 years? Whoever, they mostly been smacked down by the US with UN help.

What scares me more than anything else is if the US isn't in charge. I would rather trust the ultimate humanity of US voters than the humanity of a Chinese or other despot.

So let the US do it's torturous soul searching. It's what stops us (the rest of the world) minding it's hegemony (too much:).

Revere COULD be right that pulling out might be a good idea. Its either a good one or bad one. There will be no middle ground after we did. The results would be immediate and one side would be proven right and the other wrong in VERY quick order. Look I dont make personal attacks except on the battlefield and on orders. I am absolutely hell on wheels when they give me and my little group the toys to go and play with. Illegal war, what friggin war is legal any more? Resolutions here and I think its kind of the same in the UK. t

The UN would sanction this war the second we started to pull out. All of the oil poor countries would be screaming rape IMO. The Strait of Hormuz would be blocked and locked and just as SOON as we pulled out they would move nukes into the area and push our carrier battle groups out about 1000 miles from the defensive zone. Worse, we would see guided missile frigates with SPRO (special rules of engagement) which under fire could lock and load a nuke in under 5 minutes. They toss a nuke, we toss several. They hit us, and we hit them multiple times. Going to hell in a fireball on bothsides and then the Rus and Chinese would surely get involved and target our carrier groups. Think not JJ? Do you want to bet your life on it. On the ground in Iraq gives them a lighting rod to hit and with conventional weapons. We move out of the Gulf and they get what they want by default and likely WWIV without so much as a how do you do. They would march to the west and cross the straits into Saudi Arabia. Thus they would control about a 3rd of the worlds oil. So is it control that Revere focuses on? Is it the "illegal war" ? Is it the fact that we wont, cannot and will not have a nuclear tipped Iran government. How we get there is up to the politicians for the time being. They pop one and then it goes right into the "IN" box at the Pentagon, the Royal Navy, the German Navy, and the Indian Navy. Dont ask how I know they are there, but yes the Indians are there too. So you get this many guns into a tight bathtub and something is going to bump and the Iranians damned well know it. I dont want to kill anyone. All they should be doing is just pumping oil and helping their people and yes because we say so. NATO will likely take over the UN role in five years as they have slipped into being inconsequential, corrupt, and above all not taking care of business. It will be pushed by the fact that the Muslims are moving into their countries and taking over. There is no difference between Mexicans and Muslims except they are separated by a few thousand miles. I can see a fall of Christianity in my lifetime in at least five NATO nations, maybe more. Invasion by pregnancy. We call it a melting pot. I call it a tossed salad. Lots of things are going to happen.... All bad JJ. You can take it for what its worth but I am glad we have an ocean here else we would have Muslims and Mexicans to deal with. Bet you money... The rhetoric is about to go up and we will hit Iran before Bush leaves office. Right or wrong, we need to hit them and reduce their nuke facilities to rubble. Teheran too if they fire one shot at us. Regime change? Hell just kill them, tear down the town and let them pump oil to pay for building it back up on their own. Even if we are wrong, then I want the society thats left standing to be one of NATO and Judeo-Christian values, not necessarily the religion.

MRK
Where to begin?
Illegal war OK I give you that one. There is no real international law; those with the muscle seem to be able to get what they want and if they have the power of veto in the Security Council there is little point in bringing a resolution that you know is going to get squashed.
The UN would sanction this war the second we started to pull out I think not. This intervention is so unpopular it would not be given retrospective legitimacy.
The Strait of Hormuz would be blocked and locked and just as SOON as we pulled out they would move nukes Who are they? Who do you think has these nukes? The US, China, UK, France all want the oil to flow. Russia might like an oil price hike but are not going to risk a stand off by blocking gulf oil exports. India, Pakistan, N Korea, S Africa & Israel dont have the global reach. Unless you are thinking about Iraq or Iran who only have nukes in the minds of the neocons and would not want to block oil exports from their Arab brothers anyway.
Mexicans How on earth did you manage to bring them into this series of posts?

Bar
I would rather trust the ultimate humanity of US voters My concern here is that the average US voter has little interest or understanding of foreign affairs; what they do know comes from a few seconds on Fox news. They vote on domestic issues and get the foreign policy that happens to be attached to that parties domestic agenda. Foreign policy is aimed at supporting the interests of US business which then keeps the populace employed, earning, happy. This then encourages business to contribute to party funds for the next round of elections and the party can go on. This cosy cycle can not be broken without major campaign finance reform. I does not matter what the average Joe would like in terms of foreign policy they can only vote for those on the Presidential ticket, you cant be on the ticket unless you have major financial backing, you cant get that backing unless the corporates give it to you and they wont give it to you unless your ticket supports their objective.

JJ-You have illegals in the UK, we have them in the US for Chinese, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans. Pick your group and insert it here ___________. Bottom line is that they get what they want by birth.

You also grossly underestimate the Indian Navy which is nuclear tipped. They have a lot of Harriers and blocking the flow or running the cost of oil up so high that its unobtainable would force a showdown. The Indians have a very capable aircraft carrier group and over the horizon capability. They are a regional power for sure but married up with one or two other navies would create a situation that would be out of control fast. Why in Hell do you think that Reagan went on the offensive when the Bridgeton was hit? There was a spike in oil prices in just one day that equated to 25c at the pump.

The big factor? This is NOT a muslim navy. They would happily nuke the Paki's who might if they topple Musharraf gain yet another point to push on. The Russians would also gleefully supply them with weapons along with the Chinese.

We are hippity-hoppity down the bunny trail here JJ and we can live in the La-la land of peace at all costs or we can do something about it. One thing is sure, I have NEVER, EVER seen diplomacy work and get anyone to do anything except temporarily. The rumor is that the Chinese told the Koreans to back off and stop or THEY were going to do something about it. I dont know that for sure but they are mighty concilliatory right now.

JJ-Your comment about American voters is very assumptive. I wont call it insulting because you are in the UK and dont likely understand our way of thnking... Tell you what, if a Hitler shows up on the doorstep again over there and threatens to subjugate nearly a billion people then feel free to make the call. I think that only the answering machine will be on though. Please leave a message.

JJ: I all too well aware of the "bundling of policy" problem that comes with a representative democracy. btw my comment you quoted was comparative, not preferential.

I believe that the preferable solution is a reversion to direct democracy, where (via the internet) voters can exert control at policy (rather than representative) level.

Your offhand comment about Fox reveals both your political orientation and (I believe) your failure to grasp an evolutionary change that even Rupert Murdoch has commented on: viz. the old media is dying. The internet and blogsites (like Revere's) are the primary information diseminators of the internet age.

When voters can affect an outcome, they inform themselves. It is this lack of voter control that is destroying European democracies. It is the presence of such control that makes the Californian Democracy so vibrant.

Greg: My pony is already being ridden, just needs more refining as to its direction. And it's a completely different color than say, 98% of the population.

JJ: "The Muslims in Europe are not trying to change our governments". What are you smoking honey because I sure could use some right now. In fact the entire global population could stand a good hit or two to calm everyone down.
The Muslims in America are certainly trying to change our government. And if America falls into its passive thinking mode again they'll win. Then everyone is standing around scratching their behind and saying, "we didn't want it to turn out this way".

The plate of life and events around the globe is just too full right now and something has to fall off eventually, in large quantities.

It's the past passive nature of America that has gotten us into this pickle to begin with.

No one is content with anything right now, anywhere.

bar: "So let the US do it's torturous soul searching".
This has got to be one of the most profound statements I've read here thus far.

Revere and most of the commentators (sic) here need to take a few lessons in military history that do not come from reading Wikipedia entries.

AF, have you any suggestions?

MRK
I am still mightily confused as to how the illegal aliens got into this debate and what baring they have on it.
As to the Indian navy and Indias position. They are currently on the US Christmas card list and have no interest in blocking the straights of anything. One of the lessons learnt by Britains experience in the Falklands war was that Harriers based on pocket aircraft carriers are not a match for planes like the Tomcat when supported by the AWACs you can fly from Nimitz class carriers. We recently had the extraordinary visual of President Bush standing next to the President of a nation (India) who had developed the bomb outside the nuclear non proliferation treaty rewarding them with an exchange of nuclear technology while condemning another state (Iran) which is in the treaty and claims that they have no ambitions in that direction.
I did not mean to be insulting regarding the level of knowledge of the average American, I feel the same comment would apply to the average British vote whos knowledge of foreign affairs is gained by reading the Sun (big circulation British tabloid best known for its page 3 girls and football coverage).
I was not expecting anything but an answering machine unless there was an independent US imperative. Big scary right wing countries trying to change the global map to their liking, let me think who could that apply to.
We are never going to win each other over to the others point of view but I enjoy debating the issues with you. We each, hopefully, learn where the other is coming from.

Bar
As a Brit I have been brought up on BBC journalism and I do now get Fox news & Al Jazeera English news. I find the Fox News hilarious in the level of partisanship and bias. The sight of a moderate feeding soft questions to one side and basically heckling the other on a news program is very strange to British eyes; ours are vicious to both. I referred to it because of its high viewing figures.

Lea
Aways happy to share my stash.
Our Muslim population is trying to influence our foreign policy and, like yours, is very unhappy with the governments position on Israel/Palestine and Iraq. The vast majority are doing so within the political process. I am interested in this past permissive nature of America, when was that I seem to of missed it.

AF
I dont know if the Wikipedia comment was aimed at me, and I assume it is pejorative, but I have not read any of their of their historical entries; I have however found some of the scientific pages a clear starting point on subjects I did not know much about. What is it that I or other posters have written that makes you thing thats where we are quoting from? If we have said anything that is untrue please do tell.

JJ-No matter my friend. I think that you'll always find yourself in the mnority in the UK on your position. The Pale Horse is being ridden. Doomsday? Well they'll have to work HARD to get me.

JJ-Quit smoking that stuff too, its cooking your brain on a slow simmer. The Indians depend heavily on oil from the Gulf. They would use their power to keep it open and while Pakistan isnt at war with them, they are close enough to close it via air.Certainly with the Iranians they could close it for several weeks and or months. It could start WITH a closing that would require them to act. I have no idea how much oil they have in storage but it cant be much and there's a flash point. I am monitoring the movements of three navies right now not to mention the Royal Navy and the US. A three week closure resulting from Teheran getting a nuke and threatening to use it would force the hand of the NATO nations. Even Japan would likely send ships to break that. Then there would come the dare. Someone would start into the Strait and they would blink or bomb. Then all Hell would break loose.

There is no difference between Mexicans and Muslims. They get in illegally or legally. Then they breed and by birth start to take over. They use the uterus at the ballot box. And we all make it legal for "humanitarian reasons"

Thats about to change all over this planet.

MRK: This is where we disagree, "its cooking your brain on a slow simmer". Propaganda to the max. Alcohol is far more devastating, yet allowed. And quite frankly people need something natural to bring about a state of relaxation.
But let's not change the subject here.

JJ: Glad to read your thoughts.
The permissive behavior has mainly been through the constructs of religion. The manipulation has been enormous in the hearts and minds of individuals. Has there been one war that hasn't been fought for a religious reason? I don't know but would suspect that religion has Always been the motivator by the priest craft instilling fear in the "righteous".
In addition, believing that a government, any government, is going to keep its word and strive to do what is best for the majority of its people. Utter hogwash now, and the citizens of the U.S. have allowed it to go so far that it appears there is no turning back.
Very masterful has the government been in getting people attached to their attachments. Leaving no room for concentrating on what is happening around them.

Lea, I see. A different colour indeed.

Lea: Interesting. To my Oz eyes the BBC has the inverse of the bias that you accuse Fox of having. Like yourself, I consider myself to be politically centreist.

A question for you. When you see a BBC moderator viciously question both sides on the Iraq war, is it usually the liberal interviewee who responds reasonably, the other side that usually responds incoherently? (That would be natural, wouldn't it, because the war is totally illegal, unreasonable & unsupportable to any sane mind.)

As I understand US media, Fox supports the Republican political interpretation of events, the other two networks support the Democrat interpretation. Fox is a relatively recently formed network, & has only very recently surpassed those other networks to become the most watched US network.

Being prejudiced does seem to be part of the human condition. Those who suffer economically at the hands of Hispanic immigrants are prejudiced against Hispanics. As a retiree I am interested in sufficient workers being available to provide cheap goods and services, so tend to be pro-immigration and free trade.

And yet, I would bet, nearly everyone (including myself) thinks s/he is unprejudiced:)

bar,

Your interpretation of US media is not quite correct. Fox is stridently conservative, MSNBC and CNN somewhat less so. All of the "liberal media" in this country has been extremely uncritical of the Bush administration and the Iraq misadventure. There is only one television "news" program on any of our channels which is willing to report on reality.

bar: O.K., your comment sent me for a loop. Where did I mention Fox news? Maybe you're addressing someone else that posted here.
As far as the BBC goes, rarely watch it. What would be a good comparison is Hannity and Colmes, hate those two, love the show. And yes I realize that statement is an oxymoron.
I don't agree with a liberal interviewee who responds reasonably, your term; because it's too hard to interpret what is really being said. (There's usually a hidden, unspoken reason for their stance). The other side responding incoherently? No bias in that statement aye?
Yes, Fox is Republican, CNN is Democrat. So what? What else is new in this wonderfully confused world of ours?
Won't respond to the Hispanic comment, my views have been shared already and this thread is not the place to discuss the topic.

Read Victor Davis Hansen. The overwhelming majority of "war" deaths since 1950 have been due to small-arms fire at close range. That is, soldiers killing civilians using cheaply-available equipment. Oh, and those civilians are largely in the same country as the soldiers.

JJackson and Lea: Abject apologies to Lea. My (March 19, 2007 05:16 PM) was intended as answer to JJackson (March 19, 2007 09:19 AM). Lea, regarding your earlier comment (March 18, 2007 04:48 PM) thank you - I am flattered.

Bob: Except that in Iraq I believe the data show it is aerial bombardment that is killing people. Hansen is also a well known apologist for the war in Iraq, although that is another issue.

Adding in to what Revere said. In Iraq the pre-land engagement and ground war killed basically a shit load of Iraqi's both civilians and military. I understand their Army lost almost 200,000, civilian collaterals was estimated at 15,000.

Since then, very few aerial bombardments have taken place. There have been surgical attacks by fighter bombers in areas that are considered hostile along with helicopter gunship activity. Those numbers I am also told have resulted in about 25,000 additional deaths. None of them were wearing uniforms so you can call them hostiles. Nearly all have been carrying weapons or ammo when hit. E.g. the wedding party in year one was firing AK's into the air and they were engaged and taken out. So were they bad guys? I dont know and we will never know but the media portrayed them as minding their own business when we took them out. Apache's in whisper mode at 3000 feet are almost undetectable in the dark and most of us have seen the video of the guys planting the roadside bomb where they were engaged and killed.

Small arms was addressed by the former UN Secretary. He was pomp. His son who was using the garb of his old man was selling weapons to both sides of the coin in Ethiopia. He also sold them to the conflict diamond traders. How nice. But those same weapons that we were not allowed by Clinton to be destroyed when we were there. This was INCLUDING what was described as the largest bomb depository in the world in Somalia. Literally hundreds of bunkers with all sizes of weapons for a government whose military had been shot out of the sky long ago. So like all good little Koffi's he bought them up and sold them to Iran. How nice.

Unfortunately for him, we recorded every serial number on them and the head of bombs generally dont break up very easily as they need to be harder so the fuse casing doesnt disintegrate on impact. Time delay and all of that. Anyway, those small arms are in Iran and Iraq now. So are the 500 pounders that had the serial numbers. Several dozen have gone off (500 pounders) and the car bombs are being made with the 100-250's. We have locked up all of those bombs that were in Saddam land, so those bombs are coming from....Iran!

Revere-FYI, airstrikes requiring a fighter drop are now brigade and division level requests. You need an airstrike against some guy firing an AK at you when you have M-1's and Bradleys and you will be a pinger lieutenant in charge of sanitation for making the request. You can call at will the CAP which is now helicopter gunships on hot standby in each area. But no more heavy bomb drops without a full colonel signing off on it. A 1000 pounder if you dropped it in Central Park in NYC would pretty much eliminate the park as an example. They simply are not needed any longer. There are alert fighters in case Iran does something stupid and they are flying picture taking runs near Syria, Lebanon and Iran but thats about it.

Militarily we own the country. Its the political game thats still in play. We are actually taking fewer casualties than we did in Japan in post WWII for the first two years.

"We have locked up all of those bombs that were in Saddam land"

Not true. Even some US media wondered why we secured the Interior Ministry (secret police, torture, rumors) and the Oil Ministry (oil), but left the Museum, electric and water plants, armouries, and alleged chemical/biological weapons labs open for looting.