Errr Ben exactly where are you getting your info?? 'Iraq bitch-slapped the UN til the US stepped in' or words to that effect? Dont make me larf!!! :lol:
Remember mate, it was the UK who got France onside in the negotiations over the weapons inspectors and even with US involvement, the UN is still being 'bitch-slapped' cos we have still had to drop many of the conditions that we demanded for the return fo the inspectors.
So there you have it....your most powerful man in the world had to bow to the Frogs in order to get a diluted mandate against Iraq.
Yeah, realllllly powerful ;)
Glas
Edited to note: Since you mention it, Kofi Annan in the strictest sense of the meaning is the most powerful man in the world. Why?? Despite your disdain of the UN, if it wants to impose sanctions against a country then the members follow and that country is completely crippled. So lets take the scenario that Bush nukes a country without any provocation (let's face it, to nuke anyone at all is the shittiest thing man could ever do, civilian casualties would cover about 99% of all casualties...you have figures for Hiroshima and Nagasaki??). After Bush takes the almighty step of proving he is above all and sundry, the UN (and the rest of the world) go to town on the US. As much as the US would be fairly self sufficient, it can only last so long. And to boot, your country loses every shred of international trade (Nike, Adidas, M$, GM Motors, etc, etc, etc) and the $ plummets (if it is worth anything at all). So, how long do you think the most powerful man on the planet (Dubya) would last then? And how much of your country would NOT be afflicted by radiation? Maybe the Russians cant hit shit with theirs (they only need a few to hit anyway remember) there is lenty of countries, UK included, who could reduce the US to ashes.
And thats a fact!
I shook hands with....
Moderator: RLG MGMT Team
-
GlasgowCelts
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 23 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: Glasgow
I agree with steel, conventional wars are the only way to die. The nuclear experiment failed. And the U.S. is sort of the only superpower currently in existence. So the U.S. has a monopoly on the rest of the earth. Nuclear war would only screw up the planet for a long ass time. I know very lilttle about the canadian military. The U.S. trains its troops well, China and Russia have sheer numbers, so it appears that if the U.S. would have to use nukes if it went to war with one of them.
During the cold war the U.S. forces in Europe in the event of war with the U.S.S.R., their purpose was to slow the Russians down. The U.S. didn't have enough military power to fend off the russians at that time unless they used nukes.
During the cold war the U.S. forces in Europe in the event of war with the U.S.S.R., their purpose was to slow the Russians down. The U.S. didn't have enough military power to fend off the russians at that time unless they used nukes.
"Live free, die well."
Best trained troops in the world:
U.S., U.K., Canada, Germany, Israel, France, Australia - none of those in any particular order... Russia is a close second, but they are hurting nowadays.
Did I miss any?
Training is highly dependant upon the individual soldier's ability to adsorb the training at hand. I do not think anyone can claim one nation's soldiers intellectual superiority over anothers. Most actions are dependant upon the officers and non-commissioned officers of the force, and I would dare say the natins mentiond put a lot of stock into the training of those folks - not just the everyday soldier.
I don't really see that there is a point to discuss...
U.S., U.K., Canada, Germany, Israel, France, Australia - none of those in any particular order... Russia is a close second, but they are hurting nowadays.
Did I miss any?
Training is highly dependant upon the individual soldier's ability to adsorb the training at hand. I do not think anyone can claim one nation's soldiers intellectual superiority over anothers. Most actions are dependant upon the officers and non-commissioned officers of the force, and I would dare say the natins mentiond put a lot of stock into the training of those folks - not just the everyday soldier.
I don't really see that there is a point to discuss...
Helmut
-
ELH~Lancer
- Posts: 406
- Joined: 11 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: 151 Recon, Black Adder Lines, England
- Contact:
Personally the Iraq quqestion should have been solved back in 91. It should have been "next stop, the Turkish border". We had the kit, the manpower and world backing then. Wasted opportunity.
I remember seeing footage of a US marine, who was digging in. He was asked by a reporter "why are you fighthing Iraqi?" His reply was "So my little brother does not have to fight here in ten years time". Sadly very prophetic.
I remember seeing footage of a US marine, who was digging in. He was asked by a reporter "why are you fighthing Iraqi?" His reply was "So my little brother does not have to fight here in ten years time". Sadly very prophetic.
[img]http://www.151recon.org/Lancers%20Sig.gif[/img]
ok, lets stop all this mud flinging.
Reality Check.
What is the State of Iraq's military. Answer, almost non-existent.
Has Iraq been linked with Al-Queda. Answer, the CIA and other intelligence agencies say No.
Is Iraq suffering under sanctions. Answer, Yes, as proven by the Red Cross.
Is Iraq capable of invading another country like it did to Kuwait. Answer, no because his military was decimated by the Gulf War and he dosn't have either the finances to rebuild it or anyone to supply him.
Is Iraq producing Nuclear Weapoins. Answer, extremely doubtful, Yes he probably knows how but anyone browsing the internet could learn how to do it.
Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction. Define mass destruction? yes he probably has chemical weapons (still) but the range and damage inflicted by these is limited. Dispersion depends alot on the weather and damage inflicted depends on the readiness of who they are aimed at.
Has Saddam threatened to attack anyone or been agressive since the Gulf War. Not as far as I'm aware (This being after the attempted uprising by the Kurds, who were promised US support in overthrowing Saddam but the support was never delivered).
What Reason does the U.S. have to attack Iraq. All this Root of all Evil crap aside (Makes Bush sound like Hitler) Iraq sits on the largest oil reserves in the world.
Is this area currently at peace? Yes, attacking Saddam has no benefits to World Peace that I can see and attacking him could trigger a wider conflict.
Debating this we are all overlooking one thing. The threat is from Al-Queda and Osma Bin Laden. The U.S. of A. should resolve this problem before it even considers Saddam because it's more likely an Al-Queda operative setting off a suitcase Nuke in Washington than it is for Saddam to do it.
This one thing pisses me off about the US, you don't solve problems but create them. Saddam was not a problem till all this posturing started, Al Queda is a problem, one which your goverment seems either inable or unwilling to resolve because whilst the Al-Queda threat exists you seem to think it gives you the right to decide who's good and who's bad.
Malin
Reality Check.
What is the State of Iraq's military. Answer, almost non-existent.
Has Iraq been linked with Al-Queda. Answer, the CIA and other intelligence agencies say No.
Is Iraq suffering under sanctions. Answer, Yes, as proven by the Red Cross.
Is Iraq capable of invading another country like it did to Kuwait. Answer, no because his military was decimated by the Gulf War and he dosn't have either the finances to rebuild it or anyone to supply him.
Is Iraq producing Nuclear Weapoins. Answer, extremely doubtful, Yes he probably knows how but anyone browsing the internet could learn how to do it.
Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction. Define mass destruction? yes he probably has chemical weapons (still) but the range and damage inflicted by these is limited. Dispersion depends alot on the weather and damage inflicted depends on the readiness of who they are aimed at.
Has Saddam threatened to attack anyone or been agressive since the Gulf War. Not as far as I'm aware (This being after the attempted uprising by the Kurds, who were promised US support in overthrowing Saddam but the support was never delivered).
What Reason does the U.S. have to attack Iraq. All this Root of all Evil crap aside (Makes Bush sound like Hitler) Iraq sits on the largest oil reserves in the world.
Is this area currently at peace? Yes, attacking Saddam has no benefits to World Peace that I can see and attacking him could trigger a wider conflict.
Debating this we are all overlooking one thing. The threat is from Al-Queda and Osma Bin Laden. The U.S. of A. should resolve this problem before it even considers Saddam because it's more likely an Al-Queda operative setting off a suitcase Nuke in Washington than it is for Saddam to do it.
This one thing pisses me off about the US, you don't solve problems but create them. Saddam was not a problem till all this posturing started, Al Queda is a problem, one which your goverment seems either inable or unwilling to resolve because whilst the Al-Queda threat exists you seem to think it gives you the right to decide who's good and who's bad.
Malin
this is not a come back, only temporary solution to a serious addiction problem
-
GlasgowCelts
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 23 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: Glasgow
As i said BB, your disdain of the UN is irrelevant. Whether you like it or not they are the most powerful body on Earth. If they say jump, the members say 'how high?'! The US has got no powers to force ANYONE to sanction other countries. You might want to sanction them all you want and you would be well within your rights to do so, but sanctions imposed by the UN carry much more weight and are adhered to more strictly. Also bear this one thing in mind. The US has very few allies right now. If the UN wanted to impose sanctions, there would be few countries who would argue with that point. With Iraq however, it is a case of 'well they are America's enemies, so they must be our friends' hence the reason why sanctions have not hurt them as much as they could have done. Regardless tho, the sanctions HAVE hurt. As Malin said, ask the Red Cross, i doubt they would lie about the situation.
As you say tho, good debate yet again with lots of good views and points made. Always an education!
Glas
As you say tho, good debate yet again with lots of good views and points made. Always an education!
Glas
NEVER get in to an argument with a stupid person......they will just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience
Well, for starters here is an interesting picture:
http://www.phpwebservices.com/helmut/pics/blindman.jpg
:oops: Wow, I gotta say the epitome of leadership there...
Now, the UN is quite a powerful world organization. The U.S. has a LOT of influence on/in the U.N., but everything is done on votes. There it becomes political, just like lobbying in the different legislatures... Countries do vote against the U.S., more and more have done so in recent history - but it is also dependant upon the referendum at hand and what political influence (read as money) different countries have on each other.
Also note that NATO can/will do things seperately from the U.N. and does not necessarilly need U.N. blessings, although NATO troops are often used by the U.N. as well. Now the U.S. also has a lot of influence in NATO as well - much more so than the U.N.
http://www.phpwebservices.com/helmut/pics/blindman.jpg
:oops: Wow, I gotta say the epitome of leadership there...
Now, the UN is quite a powerful world organization. The U.S. has a LOT of influence on/in the U.N., but everything is done on votes. There it becomes political, just like lobbying in the different legislatures... Countries do vote against the U.S., more and more have done so in recent history - but it is also dependant upon the referendum at hand and what political influence (read as money) different countries have on each other.
Also note that NATO can/will do things seperately from the U.N. and does not necessarilly need U.N. blessings, although NATO troops are often used by the U.N. as well. Now the U.S. also has a lot of influence in NATO as well - much more so than the U.N.
Helmut
american diplomacy? Stability?
Read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/jou ... 52,00.html
NATO and Russia, Read this, page 20 section B http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/re ... 98-052.pdf also just type NATO and Russia in your Browser.
or more recently this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1986270.stm article relating to the formation of the new NATO, Russia council.
US controlling Nato, doubtful, NATO is formed of mainly European Union countries, with the formation of the European Union progressing quite nicely you may soon see NATO itself being disbanded and a formation of a European Armed Forces in it's place.
You talk about Bosnia, The European view of Bosnia and the US involvment there is quite different from your perception. Alot of US foreign policy is deeply unsettling to Europeans and Europe as a whole is beginning to work towards less dependence on the USA in terms of economics and armed forces. Bosnia is a classic case in point, following events there alot of European Countries sat down and considered what happened and where we as the EU went wrong so that in future times a repeat of the mistakes wouldn't happen. You must remember that whilst the EU basically screwed up in Bosnia and ended up calling on Nato it was the EU's first attempt at this kind of action, in the future the EU would more than likely take the leading role in dealing with these situations.
Lancer can give you specifics of the number of troops involved but the US was not the highest number, if i recall Britain had the most troops there somewhere in the region of 11,000.
Malin
Read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/jou ... 52,00.html
NATO and Russia, Read this, page 20 section B http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/re ... 98-052.pdf also just type NATO and Russia in your Browser.
or more recently this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1986270.stm article relating to the formation of the new NATO, Russia council.
US controlling Nato, doubtful, NATO is formed of mainly European Union countries, with the formation of the European Union progressing quite nicely you may soon see NATO itself being disbanded and a formation of a European Armed Forces in it's place.
You talk about Bosnia, The European view of Bosnia and the US involvment there is quite different from your perception. Alot of US foreign policy is deeply unsettling to Europeans and Europe as a whole is beginning to work towards less dependence on the USA in terms of economics and armed forces. Bosnia is a classic case in point, following events there alot of European Countries sat down and considered what happened and where we as the EU went wrong so that in future times a repeat of the mistakes wouldn't happen. You must remember that whilst the EU basically screwed up in Bosnia and ended up calling on Nato it was the EU's first attempt at this kind of action, in the future the EU would more than likely take the leading role in dealing with these situations.
Lancer can give you specifics of the number of troops involved but the US was not the highest number, if i recall Britain had the most troops there somewhere in the region of 11,000.
Malin
this is not a come back, only temporary solution to a serious addiction problem
Consider another reason for not signing the Kotyo agreement:
Now why would he want to go and tear down all your forests? and ruin all your wilderness by drilling it for oil?
Back to the Kotyo agreement, the UK signed up for it, we couldn't meet the requirements of it at the time, we still can't. But we're trying, my local dump that just used to be a hole in the ground is now a massive well organised Recycling centre, I have 3 different rubbish bins, one for paper, one for cans and one for normal waste.
If my fridge breaks, I ring the council and they come and collect it (albeit it ends up as part of the Fridge mountain).
The estimate is we won't comply with the agreement till 2012 but at least we're trying.
War on Iraq.
Look at the US economy, today the Federal reserve knocked off what half a point lowering interest rates to 1.25%. Your manufacturing industry is down to something like 2.77%, unemployment is up.
A war is always a good way to people to forget about the troubles at home and a war may just keep the US economy from crashing because Defense spending will rocket.
I do actually worry for you Benn, the US economy is in the pan and theres gonna be a big crash, you're already seeing it here in the forums, Banks downsizing? Thats always a real bad sign.
Malin
Now that he controls all the political institutions - House, Senate, White House - Bush can move to infiltrate the judiciary. Dozens of conservative federal judges with lifetime tenure await confirmation they can now expect to get. This will permanently reorient constitutional trends. The slashing of forests and the drilling of wilderness, by timber and oil interests newly let loose, will be still less reversible. The rich men's tax cuts of 2001 will be secured against revision, and other tax cuts added. The 40 million Americans without health insurance can expect to remain that way. Axioms of inequality will be engraved deeper into the pillars of American society
Now why would he want to go and tear down all your forests? and ruin all your wilderness by drilling it for oil?
A little difficult to use them there hunting rifles when someones gone and chopped down all your wilderness and turned it into a wall-mart.This was the week, however, when the US declared itself a different country. That's what will leave a historic mark. The capture of the Senate makes possible the advance of materialistic individualism on many fronts. State and community are in retreat. Corporate power, instead of being shamed by its recent crimes, can be expected to advance. This is the Republican way, which America has now undeniably endorsed. A truism often heard is that what happens in California today will quickly reach New York. Its sub-clause says that the political economy of the US will sooner or later make its way east to Europe. The 21st century is beginning quite differently
Back to the Kotyo agreement, the UK signed up for it, we couldn't meet the requirements of it at the time, we still can't. But we're trying, my local dump that just used to be a hole in the ground is now a massive well organised Recycling centre, I have 3 different rubbish bins, one for paper, one for cans and one for normal waste.
If my fridge breaks, I ring the council and they come and collect it (albeit it ends up as part of the Fridge mountain).
The estimate is we won't comply with the agreement till 2012 but at least we're trying.
War on Iraq.
Look at the US economy, today the Federal reserve knocked off what half a point lowering interest rates to 1.25%. Your manufacturing industry is down to something like 2.77%, unemployment is up.
A war is always a good way to people to forget about the troubles at home and a war may just keep the US economy from crashing because Defense spending will rocket.
I do actually worry for you Benn, the US economy is in the pan and theres gonna be a big crash, you're already seeing it here in the forums, Banks downsizing? Thats always a real bad sign.
Malin
this is not a come back, only temporary solution to a serious addiction problem
Ben not even going to argue over the Canada having the bigest militery base. I havebeen there ... I know the us fund a lot of it to do military training up here. And I know the us do a LOT of militery exercises with Canada. Why not we are one big land mass with reletivealy small population. Hell US would have loved to have Newfoundland and almost had it tell it joined confideration. Why it is the furthest eastern point of northamerica. Air, defence nuklear ... the list keeps going. Also the 4 british subs that canada just bought from england, gess who actualy helped get there here and lobied canada to get them. US. Why the us naey has NO dessial subs. But dessial subs when under water running on electricty are actualy quieter then nuklear subs. but have to surface I beleave ht enumber was 1 time a week to charge. Why did the US want canada to have them, to train against electric subs which a lot of non allied with US contries have. Truse me big ben, the US and canada do a HUGE amount of military training together, none of it related to nato/UN. Canada and the US are extreamly closealy related to say the least.
Ben sorry but UN is a xtreamly large / powerful bodey. It is done on a voting system, so hey the us could be the only cuntriey to vote for somthing. Such as a sanction. Say Cuba, the US have sanctions on cuba but the UN dose not. Canada here we can fly to cuba, especialy considering they have extreamly nice vacation centers there. That and dam man those cigars ROCK. Ben I am never going to say the US is not powerful or anything. Or one of the best militery organizations in the world. But hey Canada ranks Extreamly high in these areas as well,. And in all honesty Canada is Extramaly well respected in the world and in the UN. So is the states. That is life. I am not bashing you an but hey, there is a big world out there. Take UK, another extreamly infulencuale world power. Rihgt now if it was not for UK supporting US, the U would realy be haing a much harder time on its war on terisum. France and others right now do not want to hit iraq. I am not sure on canada' standings to be honest.
Aneway man, again you did shake hands with onw powerful individual. but in this world there are peoploe with huge amounts of infulance, but no one can be called top dog as of yet.
Ben sorry but UN is a xtreamly large / powerful bodey. It is done on a voting system, so hey the us could be the only cuntriey to vote for somthing. Such as a sanction. Say Cuba, the US have sanctions on cuba but the UN dose not. Canada here we can fly to cuba, especialy considering they have extreamly nice vacation centers there. That and dam man those cigars ROCK. Ben I am never going to say the US is not powerful or anything. Or one of the best militery organizations in the world. But hey Canada ranks Extreamly high in these areas as well,. And in all honesty Canada is Extramaly well respected in the world and in the UN. So is the states. That is life. I am not bashing you an but hey, there is a big world out there. Take UK, another extreamly infulencuale world power. Rihgt now if it was not for UK supporting US, the U would realy be haing a much harder time on its war on terisum. France and others right now do not want to hit iraq. I am not sure on canada' standings to be honest.
Aneway man, again you did shake hands with onw powerful individual. but in this world there are peoploe with huge amounts of infulance, but no one can be called top dog as of yet.
The quotes regarding President Bush's policies were taken from CNN.
The question on Iraq was: How is he a threat? and Why does he have to be "toppled" now?
As quoted previously the CIA have said he dosn't have links with Al Queda, The CIA also said he is not involved in training up terrorist groups (Unlike Libya in the 80's). As also previously stated, he may have some chemical weapons but the effects of these are limited (He dosn't have intercontinel missiles). He dosn't have Nukes but may have the knowledge (As does everybody, even I know how to make a suitcase nuclear weapon, they teach it in school).
Iraq is under sanctions which as stated previously are working. Everyday British and US planes destroy a little more of his armed forces (As reported as recently as yesterday in the press). Added to which he longer has the military power to invade another country.
So I put to you again. Why do we need to attack Iraq?
The question on Iraq was: How is he a threat? and Why does he have to be "toppled" now?
As quoted previously the CIA have said he dosn't have links with Al Queda, The CIA also said he is not involved in training up terrorist groups (Unlike Libya in the 80's). As also previously stated, he may have some chemical weapons but the effects of these are limited (He dosn't have intercontinel missiles). He dosn't have Nukes but may have the knowledge (As does everybody, even I know how to make a suitcase nuclear weapon, they teach it in school).
Iraq is under sanctions which as stated previously are working. Everyday British and US planes destroy a little more of his armed forces (As reported as recently as yesterday in the press). Added to which he longer has the military power to invade another country.
So I put to you again. Why do we need to attack Iraq?
this is not a come back, only temporary solution to a serious addiction problem
-
ELH~Lancer
- Posts: 406
- Joined: 11 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: 151 Recon, Black Adder Lines, England
- Contact:
Iraq does have missiles capable of reaching Cyprus and a next generation capable of reaching as far as Greece. Iraq proved it could hit Israel back in 91. With chemical warheads you do not need to be accurate. The main problem would not be the actual death toll but the destabilisation of the Middle East. The Israelis would react and Saddam would then have what he has always wished for, the Arab world united.
Another problem, even with the lack of ICBM's, is it is quite easy to deliver a nuke to any western country. One simple method is to place the weapon in a legitimate ship carrying a legitimate cargo destined for a legitimate western port and just sail it into the harbour. The crew does not even have to know what its carrying.
Another problem, even with the lack of ICBM's, is it is quite easy to deliver a nuke to any western country. One simple method is to place the weapon in a legitimate ship carrying a legitimate cargo destined for a legitimate western port and just sail it into the harbour. The crew does not even have to know what its carrying.
[img]http://www.151recon.org/Lancers%20Sig.gif[/img]
one thing with the iraq situation. WHY the hel was it not taken care of inn91. The UN troops where 100 miles out side of bagdad. You had not engaged iraq's elete military forces (they had retreated to the north east). that was a mina objective, elimate the eletes. And hey why did you not go all the way and well take sadam out.
Now this is where I could get flamed a bit but be nice just a consparcery theory. One reason I keep hearing he is in power is because the Us like him there. Think about it, US want to get a budget increase in the military. Hey look iraq is moving towards the border send more troops .... Get the idea. He is well US whiping boy. Even tho the world would be better off without him he is still in power possably so the Us can use him. 
Now this is where I could get flamed a bit but be nice just a consparcery theory. One reason I keep hearing he is in power is because the Us like him there. Think about it, US want to get a budget increase in the military. Hey look iraq is moving towards the border send more troops .... Get the idea. He is well US whiping boy.
Even tho the world would be better off without him he is still in power possably so the Us can use him. Hey guys how did this turned from a post about BB shaking the VP's hand and the EU, US, UN d*** measuring contest?
My view on some of the things said here:
About the best trained soldiers...well we US soldiers are the best trained using out weps and equipment but out infantry kinda uses WW1 tactics(Slam correct me if i am wrong here). On the other hand i saw some of you dissmissing the chinese...well a chinese infantry units along with vietnamise units are considerd the best infantry in the world and their war doctrine of manuver if far better than our atrition base doctrine...thats noe me saying it thats military analists(read William Lind's "Manuver Warfare Handbook" or John Poole"Shadow Soldier"...you will be surprised).
About president Bush being the most poweful man on earth...well he is the president of the only remaining SP(for now) but he is an elected leader in a republic not a dictator so a lot of the power he has is shared(as we all know right??)
About the EU...well the EU is good for Europe and a stabilizing force that can only benefit the world. I do have some...not issues but questions...what happens to the individuality of nations in the EU?..you speak of something like a european army mal?...will the UK leave the wellbeing of its youth to say a french general(i would not...hehe)...waht about natinal interest?...will you have to consult everithing with the rest of the EU before taking action?...in the extreme...will you stop being an independent nation...stop being british and start being european?
The UN...well the UN i have always seen it as the poormans forum a place were the opinion of lets say Sierra Leone will be heard...as for the power it has... it depends on wether the ones passing the resolutions have it in their national interest to see them implemented...i see the UN as a scial club...a propaganda outlet were you can officialy send messeges directly to the rest of the member nations. Like i said the UN has power as long as the resolution it passes are in the national interest of the nations members...if France doesent like something they just ignare it...just like the UK,US, Germany etc,etc...whats the UN gona do...pass another resolution???...please. In an ideal world the UN would work...in the real world were nations are driven by their goals and particular views and needs its just what it its right now...and as long as humanity is human it will be that way.
Oh by the way i jst got back from whereever i got to and desapear from time to time(damn aliens always abducting me).
cheers all :salut:
My view on some of the things said here:
About the best trained soldiers...well we US soldiers are the best trained using out weps and equipment but out infantry kinda uses WW1 tactics(Slam correct me if i am wrong here). On the other hand i saw some of you dissmissing the chinese...well a chinese infantry units along with vietnamise units are considerd the best infantry in the world and their war doctrine of manuver if far better than our atrition base doctrine...thats noe me saying it thats military analists(read William Lind's "Manuver Warfare Handbook" or John Poole"Shadow Soldier"...you will be surprised).
About president Bush being the most poweful man on earth...well he is the president of the only remaining SP(for now) but he is an elected leader in a republic not a dictator so a lot of the power he has is shared(as we all know right??)
About the EU...well the EU is good for Europe and a stabilizing force that can only benefit the world. I do have some...not issues but questions...what happens to the individuality of nations in the EU?..you speak of something like a european army mal?...will the UK leave the wellbeing of its youth to say a french general(i would not...hehe)...waht about natinal interest?...will you have to consult everithing with the rest of the EU before taking action?...in the extreme...will you stop being an independent nation...stop being british and start being european?
The UN...well the UN i have always seen it as the poormans forum a place were the opinion of lets say Sierra Leone will be heard...as for the power it has... it depends on wether the ones passing the resolutions have it in their national interest to see them implemented...i see the UN as a scial club...a propaganda outlet were you can officialy send messeges directly to the rest of the member nations. Like i said the UN has power as long as the resolution it passes are in the national interest of the nations members...if France doesent like something they just ignare it...just like the UK,US, Germany etc,etc...whats the UN gona do...pass another resolution???...please. In an ideal world the UN would work...in the real world were nations are driven by their goals and particular views and needs its just what it its right now...and as long as humanity is human it will be that way.
Oh by the way i jst got back from whereever i got to and desapear from time to time(damn aliens always abducting me).
cheers all :salut:
Biobod
"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as
night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt"
Sun Tzu
The Art of War, Standard year circa 500 B.C.
"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as
night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt"
Sun Tzu
The Art of War, Standard year circa 500 B.C.
-
GlasgowCelts
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 23 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: Glasgow
Nice of them aliens to give you a wee holiday back with us Bio
As to your points, most of them are outwith my knowledge/interest, but you said some things in such a way i can only agree. The US is the most powerful nation in the world, that i can accept. But as you pointed out, it's a power-sharing assembly i.e a democracy, therefore as so many have pointed out before, it's not that wacko Bush who has his hands on the trigger (as a side note, interesting that Bush only JUST scraped the election (we ALL know what a tosser he is really ;) ) and yet America goes to war and his popularity rises....hmmmmm says alot about Yanks imho) but it is a decision that must be agreed by many people (i dont know, or care to know how political decisions such as this are made in the US) suffice to say tho, you are not that thick that you would let 1 man have his finger on that all-important trigger. Or is that what you have been trying to say all along BB?? If so, then your argument has just been blown out of the water, so far as the most 'powerful' person on Earth being the person who can cause most damage. He can't do it alone....IN FACT.... to go down your road of most important person being the one who can cause most damage, then a dictatorship is most DEFINITELY the person who is the most powerful in the world. He answers to NO ONE. So by that reasoning, i would reckon the madman himself Saddam is probably the most powerful person in the world. Cos he is truely the one man who has his finger on the trigger!!
As to the EU, it is kinda like a power sharing assembly. The UK will never give up its sovreignty (at least i hope) tho i do admit that in relation to things like the Human Rights legislation and also things like industry (fishing) etc we have been hardest hit. I guess that just goes with the territory of being the lead nation in the pact. As long as the people of the UK want to keep their nationality, then the fact we have an election every 4 years is enough surety that should any party ever attempt to give up the UK sovreignty to Europe, they would first have to go to a referendum to do it, and if they decided to go their own way and not consult the public, they would be booted at the next election and steps would be taken to rectify the situation. And just as a side note in case anyone wants to argue that point, the will of the British people will ALWAYS prevail. History proves it and commonsense confirms it. We can also be self-sufficient and live outside of a 'European State'!
Glas
As to your points, most of them are outwith my knowledge/interest, but you said some things in such a way i can only agree. The US is the most powerful nation in the world, that i can accept. But as you pointed out, it's a power-sharing assembly i.e a democracy, therefore as so many have pointed out before, it's not that wacko Bush who has his hands on the trigger (as a side note, interesting that Bush only JUST scraped the election (we ALL know what a tosser he is really ;) ) and yet America goes to war and his popularity rises....hmmmmm says alot about Yanks imho) but it is a decision that must be agreed by many people (i dont know, or care to know how political decisions such as this are made in the US) suffice to say tho, you are not that thick that you would let 1 man have his finger on that all-important trigger. Or is that what you have been trying to say all along BB?? If so, then your argument has just been blown out of the water, so far as the most 'powerful' person on Earth being the person who can cause most damage. He can't do it alone....IN FACT.... to go down your road of most important person being the one who can cause most damage, then a dictatorship is most DEFINITELY the person who is the most powerful in the world. He answers to NO ONE. So by that reasoning, i would reckon the madman himself Saddam is probably the most powerful person in the world. Cos he is truely the one man who has his finger on the trigger!!
As to the EU, it is kinda like a power sharing assembly. The UK will never give up its sovreignty (at least i hope) tho i do admit that in relation to things like the Human Rights legislation and also things like industry (fishing) etc we have been hardest hit. I guess that just goes with the territory of being the lead nation in the pact. As long as the people of the UK want to keep their nationality, then the fact we have an election every 4 years is enough surety that should any party ever attempt to give up the UK sovreignty to Europe, they would first have to go to a referendum to do it, and if they decided to go their own way and not consult the public, they would be booted at the next election and steps would be taken to rectify the situation. And just as a side note in case anyone wants to argue that point, the will of the British people will ALWAYS prevail. History proves it and commonsense confirms it. We can also be self-sufficient and live outside of a 'European State'!
Glas
NEVER get in to an argument with a stupid person......they will just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience
Roger that Glas...it would shock me to c the UK a nation with so much history and so much influence in the world surrender that for the sake of econimics and political correctnes...as you said you have proved that you can live outside a european state and be self-sufficient.
Maybe i am wrong or paranoid but in a way i see the EU as a vehicle for France and Germany to some degree get what neither of then could do with wars...dominance of european trade and politics(is a much more civilized way...nobody gets killed) but the end result is the same. Maybe is not bad...but i have to wonder if France...as independent in international politics as a nation can get...goes with this EU thingy so willingly. Germany i can understand it...the memory of WW2 still lingers somewhat so the EU is way to rise in power and influense without atracting to much attention...after all is the EU is it not not germany. My point is that like i said in an earlier post nations dont do things out of the goodnes of their harts, they do it because they can get something out of it and when you see my two examples going at this with so much eagernes it makes me wonder.
Anyway im rambling now lol. Oh BTW yes its weird how thing work out here in the states with politics and the war...me being a latino-yank sometimes get confuse...but its all good.
:salut:
Maybe i am wrong or paranoid but in a way i see the EU as a vehicle for France and Germany to some degree get what neither of then could do with wars...dominance of european trade and politics(is a much more civilized way...nobody gets killed) but the end result is the same. Maybe is not bad...but i have to wonder if France...as independent in international politics as a nation can get...goes with this EU thingy so willingly. Germany i can understand it...the memory of WW2 still lingers somewhat so the EU is way to rise in power and influense without atracting to much attention...after all is the EU is it not not germany. My point is that like i said in an earlier post nations dont do things out of the goodnes of their harts, they do it because they can get something out of it and when you see my two examples going at this with so much eagernes it makes me wonder.
Anyway im rambling now lol. Oh BTW yes its weird how thing work out here in the states with politics and the war...me being a latino-yank sometimes get confuse...but its all good.
:salut:
Biobod
"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as
night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt"
Sun Tzu
The Art of War, Standard year circa 500 B.C.
"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as
night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt"
Sun Tzu
The Art of War, Standard year circa 500 B.C.
BB i have to disagree with you in some points about the chinese and vietnamise. I dont know where you got that bit about the NVA coping US tactics in vietnam, in fact the SEAL's and LLRP's were based on how the NVA worked. Their tactics were influenced a lot by the chinise but not the soviets(exept in air combat and air defense), yes some of the officer corps was trained in the USSR but for technical reasons not because the soviets could teach them anything about infantry combat...that would be like the french trying to teach the germans about armor warfare .
Also the chinise dont use attrition warfare...thats what we do...basicaly we stand in line dress our intervals,call in the artillery and planes and use lots and lots of firepower to destroy and kill the enemy in large numbers(or we just make up the bodycounts so that they favor us) and roll forward, thats attrition warfare the preferance of firepower in the place of manuver...a marine or soldier from WW1 or WW2 would feel right at home in a modern US infatry unit bacause we do the same thing we did back then.
The chinise and vitnamise (and the germans BTW) use manuver warfare were u attack by infiltration with limited use of force and stealth.
Lets just say that i would not put my money on a US infantry division against a chinise one, if our division has lots of arty, airforce and navy suppor(and i mean a lot) then ok...but withuot those its an univen match in favor of the other guys...its not easy for me to say this because after all i am a soldier but reality is reality. Just because we have a lot of hightech gizmos doesent mean we win always. Look at what happened in Afganistan in Opeartion Anaconda for example.
Again i invite you to read William S. Lins's "Manuver Warfare Handbook", John Poole's "Phantom Soldier" and "One More Bridge To Cross" and John English's "On Infantry", also Bruce Gudmundsson's "Stormtroop Tactics" these are no nonsense book that honestly look at our military doctrine and tactics and those of our adversaries. They are great reads and eye openers, and the end is to inform about a serius deficiensy in our armed forces that has not been openly seen bacause we havent fought first rate armys in a long time(the last time being Vietnam).
Ok...now why are we talking about this?(not that i dont like military subjects mind you)?? LOL.
:salut:
.Also the chinise dont use attrition warfare...thats what we do...basicaly we stand in line dress our intervals,call in the artillery and planes and use lots and lots of firepower to destroy and kill the enemy in large numbers(or we just make up the bodycounts so that they favor us) and roll forward, thats attrition warfare the preferance of firepower in the place of manuver...a marine or soldier from WW1 or WW2 would feel right at home in a modern US infatry unit bacause we do the same thing we did back then.
The chinise and vitnamise (and the germans BTW) use manuver warfare were u attack by infiltration with limited use of force and stealth.
Lets just say that i would not put my money on a US infantry division against a chinise one, if our division has lots of arty, airforce and navy suppor(and i mean a lot) then ok...but withuot those its an univen match in favor of the other guys...its not easy for me to say this because after all i am a soldier but reality is reality. Just because we have a lot of hightech gizmos doesent mean we win always. Look at what happened in Afganistan in Opeartion Anaconda for example.
Again i invite you to read William S. Lins's "Manuver Warfare Handbook", John Poole's "Phantom Soldier" and "One More Bridge To Cross" and John English's "On Infantry", also Bruce Gudmundsson's "Stormtroop Tactics" these are no nonsense book that honestly look at our military doctrine and tactics and those of our adversaries. They are great reads and eye openers, and the end is to inform about a serius deficiensy in our armed forces that has not been openly seen bacause we havent fought first rate armys in a long time(the last time being Vietnam).
Ok...now why are we talking about this?(not that i dont like military subjects mind you)?? LOL.
:salut:
Biobod
"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as
night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt"
Sun Tzu
The Art of War, Standard year circa 500 B.C.
"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as
night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt"
Sun Tzu
The Art of War, Standard year circa 500 B.C.
Hi Bio, nice to see a fresh input into the thread with some well thought out queries.
I'm going to expand a bit on Glas's thread on the EU,
Basically the long term strategy for the EU is to form Europe into sonething similar to the United States (OMG!). To explain:
These are some of the goals the EU either has in mind or already controls:
One single Currency, the Euro which has been adopted by most of it's member nations and those countries not yet currently using it are under immense pressure to do so (The subject of the UK adopting the Euro comes up weekly over here in politics).
Centralised Goverment, similar in some ways to your own, the only difference being where each member State in the US is self governing and reporting into the Federal Goverment, in Europe each country would remain self governing but the Federal Goverment would decide overall strategy. The central goverment is almost in place, the most you tend to hear about it though is on the Human Rigths issue which is the most highly publisized, But the EU currently decides, wieghts and measures (We are no longer allowed to use lbs and ounces for measurements), Human Rigths laws, Overall Law (The British Judicial system is now below the EU Justice system and you can appeal and have a UK sentence overturned by the EU Court of Appeal). Theres lots more but to stop from boring you the only other points of interest are that the EU means you can't buy Green Banana's or a Cucumber that is curved.
About the only advantage I've seen so far from the EU is that you basically don't need a passport to travel between member states, oh and thanks to the EU I can live and work anywhere in Europe without having to get a work permit.
Tony Blair it is said has his eye on being the 1st President of the European Union.
The only point I would disagree with Glas on is the subject that if the Goverment implemented something like the Euro without the public's agreement, Yes we would boot them out of Goverment but the next Goverment that went into power would just say "HoHum, can't change it back now, cost to much money, to much disruption etc, and really it is a good idea" Afterall I think we can all agree (Brits that is) the Privatising of the Railways and other National Industries by the Tories back in the late 80's early 90's was a disaster that cost them control, but the new Labour goverment hasn't exactly reversed the situation in fact they are just continuing with it but calling it "Private Sector Financing of Public Sector Services".
Malin
I'm going to expand a bit on Glas's thread on the EU,
Basically the long term strategy for the EU is to form Europe into sonething similar to the United States (OMG!). To explain:
These are some of the goals the EU either has in mind or already controls:
One single Currency, the Euro which has been adopted by most of it's member nations and those countries not yet currently using it are under immense pressure to do so (The subject of the UK adopting the Euro comes up weekly over here in politics).
Centralised Goverment, similar in some ways to your own, the only difference being where each member State in the US is self governing and reporting into the Federal Goverment, in Europe each country would remain self governing but the Federal Goverment would decide overall strategy. The central goverment is almost in place, the most you tend to hear about it though is on the Human Rigths issue which is the most highly publisized, But the EU currently decides, wieghts and measures (We are no longer allowed to use lbs and ounces for measurements), Human Rigths laws, Overall Law (The British Judicial system is now below the EU Justice system and you can appeal and have a UK sentence overturned by the EU Court of Appeal). Theres lots more but to stop from boring you the only other points of interest are that the EU means you can't buy Green Banana's or a Cucumber that is curved.
About the only advantage I've seen so far from the EU is that you basically don't need a passport to travel between member states, oh and thanks to the EU I can live and work anywhere in Europe without having to get a work permit.
Tony Blair it is said has his eye on being the 1st President of the European Union.
The only point I would disagree with Glas on is the subject that if the Goverment implemented something like the Euro without the public's agreement, Yes we would boot them out of Goverment but the next Goverment that went into power would just say "HoHum, can't change it back now, cost to much money, to much disruption etc, and really it is a good idea" Afterall I think we can all agree (Brits that is) the Privatising of the Railways and other National Industries by the Tories back in the late 80's early 90's was a disaster that cost them control, but the new Labour goverment hasn't exactly reversed the situation in fact they are just continuing with it but calling it "Private Sector Financing of Public Sector Services".
Malin
this is not a come back, only temporary solution to a serious addiction problem