Why won't anyone else take the lead?? (1 Viewer)

[WI Crippler]

I wasn't really sure where to locate this thread, but I figure it is pertinent to the war on terror in ways. So if it needs to be moved, mods move to appropriate section please.

My question is

Why does America have to lead the way in every situation??

This comes up in my mind, as on another board I am engaged with a suprisingly large number of canadians, who are very anti-bush, anti-iraq war. Which is fine, but they always bring up Darfur, or Rwanda and bitch about "Why didn't America do something there??"
If the people of other countries are really so damn upset about the human rights around the globe, why don't they pressure their own governments, or be critical of their own governments for not sending a military presence into these areas. Why is there never a headline of "Canada to send mass amounts of troops to quell violence in Darfur"?? Why aren't other governments, who by all accounts have decent troop level strength and technology, fighting the people who are violating all these human rights around the globe??
Even our Allies in the war in Iraq, and on Terror are usually just tagging along with US forces. Why does it seem we always have to shoulder the burden, while everybody criticizes us for another atrocity taking place somewhere else, without taking any action themselves??

 

[MSgt]

Why does America have to lead the way in every situation??

This is an answer that tends to piss people off.

From my experience and readings, it has become quite clear that most of the world is more than comfortable not lifting a finger to do what they know America will do for them. Some of this is our fault, because of our roles in the world since the beginning of the 20th century. After crossing the ocean to deal with Europe's mess, then crossing the ocean again to deal with another European mess while facing our own threats in the Pacific, we recognized that only our presence will deter a WWIII. We accepted that our presence in Asia would suffice for the military power we denied them and we accepted the burden of remaining in Germany to allow western Europe it's time to heal as we chased down the communist threat every where we saw a poor man reaching out his hands. Our actions during the Cold War (while our friends across the Atlantic sea stood by and safely watched) brought with it a black eye for which our friends thouroughly enjoy embracing. At the end of the Cold War, we were faced with a very different world. A world where Radical Islam had gone on the rise and all those third world nations that technology forgot and were legacies of some European colony became the threat. While dealing with the Soviet Communist threat, Radical Islam was making an appearance unmolested. It was during this time that many were slowly recognizing this and trying in vain to report to purposefully very deaf and blind American administrations until 9/11 ("Peace in the Middle East" always meant "stability" at all costs for oil.)

What we see today is the world's resentment that we have blown past the shams that have traditionally maintained concrete destinies in the old orders. Every time those "damn upstart Americans" across the ocean go on another mission, it makes our friends uneasy and it shames them. They are faced with the truth that while America is addressing the very thing the Global Left claim to believe in, they have done nothing and they even go as far as to sum our actions up into packages of selfishness and deceit. They were even deliberating when American troops crossed the ocean, yet again, to deal with European Bosnia.

As the sole Superpower, the world has every intention on casting us bad grades for everything we do (as long as it doesn't save Europeans from something). It is always the position of the failed to blame all woes on the successful. And we are successful on many levels. We have developed a nasty habit in the world. America has assumed that all duties will be upon her shoulders with the help of our truest allies and the world has assumed that we will be perfect in their absence.

You see, with all the silence that comes from Europeans about our roles during both world wars and Bosnia, we would assume that all American treasure and blood is to be saved for the defense of Europeans only and not to be used to help anybody else. Why else are they so fond of pointing out civilian deaths during all wars but those in Europe? Why do they attempt to destroy all virtue of American actions and replace it with sole selfish interests? Why did Germans cling to the Mai Lai massacre so tightly that we were to think that it washed away their historical sins? Why are they so quick to pass out bad grades and pretend that all activity today is about oil, but remain silent on their roles during the Gulf War? Why did it take a UN mandate to push people into Somalia and then after the mandate ran out, they all left? Why are U.S. Marines deployed in Chad alone as President Bush diplomatically deals with the Sudanese without any real help from all those nations that used Darfur as an exhonerating stage? Why does it take a simple rumor of a Koran being flushed in a terrorist prison to bring those who care about humanity to speak out? - Of course, find a Bible in any Muslim prison at all.

The answer is simple jealousy and shame. The world isn't angry for what we do to others, but for what we do for ourselves. Everytime America goes through another social revolution of some sorts, they have to reflect upon their traditions and stagnations. Everytime a humanitarian effort is spotlighted and it becomes clear that America is getting involved, others begrudgingly give the bare minimum to protect their true wishes. The higher the civilian body count, the happier our slothful friends are. Of course, many will attempt to be more honest, by stating that they don't have the economy base or the ability to reach out and help as America can. What they dismiss is how young we are and how all those stagnate traditions of theirs is precisely why they haven't the ability to do what a nation of 231 years can do.

By waiting on America to do everything and simply standing by and criticizing, many of our friends have wordlessly agreed to let the rest of the world rot. For some, it takes a Nazi army to invade before recognizing a threat. Even today, we have Americans in our own country that wish to wait for millions of Americans to perish in a nuclear blast before accepting that Radical Islam is the new threat to humanity. We faced the Nazi threat with our friends, because they were immediately impacted. We faced the Soviet threat largely alone, because our friends were licking their wounds. We now face the Islamic threat alone. Perhaps things will change when Islamic riots in France become more continental wide.

 

[PrimBabUB]

What really pisses me off is listening to a commercial or Oprah Whinefry, on the genocide going on in Darfur.....etc. while they, she, and her hollywood buds refer to the people committing the genocide as 'rebels'.

The same people whining over Darfur are the same people who are criticising taking out Sadamn who everyone knows did the same thing.

I also think our Asian neighbors should step up to the plate. They have as much to lose as we do.

I would really love to see another country suck it up and do the right thing.

I just don't see why we Americans are being condemned instead of those that are screaming that they want the death of others.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by WI Crippler:
I wasn't really sure where to locate this thread, but I figure it is pertinent to the war on terror in ways. So if it needs to be moved, mods move to appropriate section please.

My question is

Why does America have to lead the way in every situation??

This comes up in my mind, as on another board I am engaged with a suprisingly large number of canadians, who are very anti-bush, anti-iraq war. Which is fine, but they always bring up Darfur, or Rwanda and bitch about "Why didn't America do something there??"
If the people of other countries are really so damn upset about the human rights around the globe, why don't they pressure their own governments, or be critical of their own governments for not sending a military presence into these areas. Why is there never a headline of "Canada to send mass amounts of troops to quell violence in Darfur"?? Why aren't other governments, who by all accounts have decent troop level strength and technology, fighting the people who are violating all these human rights around the globe??
Even our Allies in the war in Iraq, and on Terror are usually just tagging along with US forces. Why does it seem we always have to shoulder the burden, while everybody criticizes us for another atrocity taking place somewhere else, without taking any action themselves??

That's not the issue! The issue is why do you turn your head away from the atrocities by your own government? Why is your voice silent when our government commits un-provoked, illegal armed aggression on a sovereign nation that had done nothing to us first! Why do you pretend not to see the Crimes against Humanity the US is committing under orders from the President? Why do you condone the torture of 10 year olds in front of their parents by US interrogators at Abu Ghraib?

Iraq’s Child Prisoners
By Neil Mackay
The Sunday Herald
Sunday 01 August 2004

A Sunday Herald investigation has discovered that coalition forces are holding more than 100 children in jails such as Abu Ghraib. Witnesses claim that the detainees - some as young as 10 - are also being subjected to rape and torture.

Journalists in Germany have also been investigating the detention and abuse of children in Iraq. One reporter, Thomas Reutter of the TV programme Report Mainz, interviewed a US army sergeant called Samuel Provance, who is banned from speaking about his six months stationed in Abu Ghraib but told Reutter of how one 16-year-old Iraqi boy was arrested.

“He was terribly afraid,” Provance said. “He had the skinniest arms I’ve ever seen. He was trembling all over. His wrists were so thin we couldn’t even put handcuffs on him. Right when I saw him for the first time, and took him for interrogation, I felt sorry for him.”

“The interrogation specialists poured water over him and put him into a car. Then they drove with him through the night, and at that time it was very, very cold. Then they smeared him with mud and showed him to his father, who was also in custody. They had tried out other interrogation methods on him, but he wasn’t to be brought to talk. The interrogation specialists told me, after the father had seen his son in this state, his heart broke. He wept and promised to tell them everything they wanted to know.”

You want to answer that?

 

[Tashah]

That's not the issue! The issue is why do you turn your head away from the atrocities by your own government? Why is your voice silent when our government commits un-provoked, illegal armed aggression on a sovereign nation that had done nothing to us first! Why do you pretend not to see the Crimes against Humanity the US is committing under orders from the President? Why do you condone the torture of 10 year olds in front of their parents by US interrogators at Abu Ghraib? You want to answer that?

The OP topic inquires about the shortcomings of the global community vis-a-vis global problems. It is a valid and distinctly targeted line of inquiry. Clearly, the OP is intended to exclude a discussion of either the merits or demerits of US involvement in global affairs.

Why do you always feel the necessity to hijack threads with anti-American rants? This sort of reductionism is anathema to constructive dialogue and retards thematic development and topical exchange. I realize that you have your idiosyncratic view of what ails the world, but this does not entitle you to foist your precepts where it lacks tangential relevance. I'm asking you nicely to address a targeted topic and nuture its development with kindred contributions.

 

[WI Crippler]

That's not the issue! The issue is why do you turn your head away from the atrocities by your own government? Why is your voice silent when our government commits un-provoked, illegal armed aggression on a sovereign nation that had done nothing to us first! Why do you pretend not to see the Crimes against Humanity the US is committing under orders from the President? Why do you condone the torture of 10 year olds in front of their parents by US interrogators at Abu Ghraib?





You want to answer that?

Not really since it doesn't pertain to the question I asked in the beginning of this thread. If you want to have an aswer to that question, start your own thread with that question and I am sure you will get the answer. Otherwise quit hijacking other threads for the sake of expressing your hatred for our imperfections. What I am asking is, why do we have to be the burden carrier in every conflict around the globe, while everyone else sits back(and criticizes us) and waits for war to come knocking on their doorstep before they look out the window and see wtf is really going on. This thread has nothing to do with anything you posted.

PS where did I say I approved or condoned anything you said. You find my thread and show it to me.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by WI Crippler:
Not really since it doesn't pertain to the question I asked in the beginning of this thread. If you want to have an aswer to that question, start your own thread with that question and I am sure you will get the answer. Otherwise quit hijacking other threads for the sake of expressing your hatred for our imperfections. What I am asking is, why do we have to be the burden carrier in every conflict around the globe, while everyone else sits back(and criticizes us) and waits for war to come knocking on their doorstep before they look out the window and see wtf is really going on. This thread has nothing to do with anything you posted.

PS where did I say I approved or condoned anything you said. You find my thread and show it to me.

The basis of your question pre-supposes this is a just war. A better example would be WWII where we had to fight in two areas of conflict at the same time.

This...

Originally posted by WI Crippler:
why do we have to be the burden carrier in every conflict around the globe

...is an improper question to draw from the War on Terror. You don't go beat someone up your scapegoating and then complain that no one else helped you in the assault.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Tashah:
The OP topic inquires about the shortcomings of the global community vis-a-vis global problems. It is a valid and distinctly targeted line of inquiry. Clearly, the OP is intended to exclude a discussion of either the merits or demerits of US involvement in global affairs.

Why do you always feel the necessity to hijack threads with anti-American rants? This sort of reductionism is anathema to constructive dialogue and retards thematic development and topical exchange. I realize that you have your idiosyncratic view of what ails the world, but this does not entitle you to foist your precepts where it lacks tangential relevance. I'm asking you nicely to address a targeted topic and nuture its development with kindred contributions.

I respectfully disagree and have given my reason in the preceding post.

I might take issue with you lecturing me on what is (or is not) anti-American, but I'll save that for another thread.

 

[Tashah]

I respectfully disagree and have given my reason in the preceding post.

I might take issue with you lecturing me on what is (or is not) anti-American, but I'll save that for another thread.

Moderator's Warning:

And I will ask you respectfully one last time. Either stop your attempt to hijack/divert this thread or I will do it for you. Is that clear?

 

[Billo_Really]

Shades of Shuamort!

I will not post in this thread again.

 

[G-Man]

My question is

Why does America have to lead the way in every situation??

This comes up in my mind, as on another board I am engaged with a suprisingly large number of canadians, who are very anti-bush, anti-iraq war. Which is fine, but they always bring up Darfur, or Rwanda and bitch about "Why didn't America do something there??"
If the people of other countries are really so damn upset about the human rights around the globe, why don't they pressure their own governments, or be critical of their own governments for not sending a military presence into these areas. Why is there never a headline of "Canada to send mass amounts of troops to quell violence in Darfur"?? Why aren't other governments, who by all accounts have decent troop level strength and technology, fighting the people who are violating all these human rights around the globe??
Even our Allies in the war in Iraq, and on Terror are usually just tagging along with US forces. Why does it seem we always have to shoulder the burden, while everybody criticizes us for another atrocity taking place somewhere else, without taking any action themselves??

Quite simply there is no global consensus or commitment to ensure the spread of human rights or democracy, not even a commitment from the US for this. What you have is the US trying to further its own interests and influence in certain strategic areas of the globe under the notion of the 'spreading of freedom and democracy'. When we are pushed about this we will not back up such commitment to other 'less valuable' states to US interests.
Basically you are wanting the rest of the world to back up US actions which are undertaking with the underlying rational that these actions are the best for US interests. Is it a surprise they won't follow this path?

The US would always be the leader as the only 'super/hyper' power in the world. We have far more military capabilities than most of europe added together, if not more.

Also, the idea of 1 country sending troops to a foreign nation to install democracy/freedom has been shown to be a failure. Such actions will only ever succeed with full international co-operation and perhaps more importantly the full co-operation of the inhabitants of said nation.

The US will not be taken seriously until it adopts one position regarding global democracy/freedom. On one day GW will stand up amd talk about helping democracy spread in Iraq but on the next he is selling arms to the military dictator of Pakistan or the ruling monarchy in S.Arabia.

US foreign policies are not determined by an analysis of how best to spread freedom but an analysis of what is best for the US. Expecting the rest of the international community to follow such decisions is just stupid.

And why does no-one else lead - there is no ONE other nation which could lead. Only an international body such as the UN could replace the US but the reality is that the US does not want to lose its position of dominace because if it did international interventions would be taken with global interests at the fore-front and US interests no longer the major underlying rational.

 

[WI Crippler]

Quite simply there is no global consensus or commitment to ensure the spread of human rights or democracy, not even a commitment from the US for this. What you have is the US trying to further its own interests and influence in certain strategic areas of the globe under the notion of the 'spreading of freedom and democracy'. When we are pushed about this we will not back up such commitment to other 'less valuable' states to US interests.
Basically you are wanting the rest of the world to back up US actions which are undertaking with the underlying rational that these actions are the best for US interests. Is it a surprise they won't follow this path?

The US would always be the leader as the only 'super/hyper' power in the world. We have far more military capabilities than most of europe added together, if not more.

Also, the idea of 1 country sending troops to a foreign nation to install democracy/freedom has been shown to be a failure. Such actions will only ever succeed with full international co-operation and perhaps more importantly the full co-operation of the inhabitants of said nation.

The US will not be taken seriously until it adopts one position regarding global democracy/freedom. On one day GW will stand up amd talk about helping democracy spread in Iraq but on the next he is selling arms to the military dictator of Pakistan or the ruling monarchy in S.Arabia.

US foreign policies are not determined by an analysis of how best to spread freedom but an analysis of what is best for the US. Expecting the rest of the international community to follow such decisions is just stupid.

And why does no-one else lead - there is no ONE other nation which could lead. Only an international body such as the UN could replace the US but the reality is that the US does not want to lose its position of dominace because if it did international interventions would be taken with global interests at the fore-front and US interests no longer the major underlying rational.

The problem is that the UN was supposedly created with this in mind, but they fail to enforce their own resolutions. How could one take seriously a governing body that does not enforce its own laws. Personally, and I know it would never happen, but I'dlike to see us remove our presence, just like you all do. We would sit back and watch them all kill each other, have armies move in and commit atrocities far worse than any thing at Gitmo or Abu Gharib, and when they all came begging for help we'd let them fall under the sword. unfortunantley if we let all the countries that criticize us, while being afford the implied protection of the US, fall under the sword , then whatever aggressive force that wiped them out would have access to unrivaled amounts of rescorces to build armies to destroy America. So by being proactive in global conflicts, we keep ourselves relatively safe and keep our enemies far away, fighting our military, rather than our citizens. And that is the only role our government should have in our country, is the defense of the citizen, and if that means keeping wars from spreading over here, then thats their job. I guess other governments would rather their cities be firebombed, or have the enemies soliders and tanks sitting on their lawn before they got involved.

 

[WI Crippler]

The basis of your question pre-supposes this is a just war. A better example would be WWII where we had to fight in two areas of conflict at the same time.

This......is an improper question to draw from the War on Terror. You don't go beat someone up your scapegoating and then complain that no one else helped you in the assault.

If you read, I wasn't sure where to post this but because the war on terror is technically a war, I felt it was a pertinent thread to throw it in. I did ask if it was in the wrong place, for the mods to move it. There isn't a thread for general global conflict, otherwise I would have put it there.

 

[Volker]

Other countries take the lead in other conflicts. There is not so much media stuff around it, maybe because there are rather successful.

Germany took the lead in making elections work in the DRC in Africa and it worked so far.

 

[G-Man]

The problem is that the UN was supposedly created with this in mind, but they fail to enforce their own resolutions.

The UN could be the body to take the lead in international affairs but it needs major reconstruction. The power of the veto should be removed from all members for starts, 100+ member organizations where 5 or 6 members can veto any proposal agreed by the rest goes against global democracy and co-operation. It also makes it impossible for the UN to take ANY action if any of the big 5 are against that course.

How could one take seriously a governing body that does not enforce its own laws.

Its own make up makes it unable to enforce its own laws. Any of the big 5 can do as they please then veto any proposal to take action against themselves. The VETO needs to go and majority rule needs to be enforced. The problem with this is that none of the big 5 (particularly the US) will give up their veto therefore rendering the UN ineffective.

Either you submit yourself (and your nation) to international law and become part of an international organization or you don't. None of the big 5 are willing to submit themselves to the authority of an international organization, so thats a major problem.

The UK/US/France/Germany/Russia may well complain about the action/inaction of the UN but its due to their own unwillingness to commit to the UN that it has become so powerless.

Personally, and I know it would never happen, but I'dlike to see us remove our presence, just like you all do. We would sit back and watch them all kill each other, have armies move in and commit atrocities far worse than any thing at Gitmo or Abu Gharib, and when they all came begging for help we'd let them fall under the sword.

This is already happening in Iraq and we are helpless to stop it.

unfortunantley if we let all the countries that criticize us, while being afford the implied protection of the US, fall under the sword , then whatever aggressive force that wiped them out would have access to unrivaled amounts of rescorces to build armies to destroy America.

The US protects itself and its own interests first and foremost, we are not the protector of the free world to the detriment of ourselves. And there is no possibility of a modern western country being 'invaded' and resources stolen. Nuked perhaps but the days of large scale battles are gone.

So by being proactive in global conflicts, we keep ourselves relatively safe and keep our enemies far away, fighting our military, rather than our citizens.

We are probably the least safe that we have been since the end of the cold war at the moment. Another terrorist attack is undoubtedly going to happen sooner or later and the intelligence agencies have already thwarted some.

And that is the only role our government should have in our country, is the defense of the citizen, and if that means keeping wars from spreading over here, then thats their job. I guess other governments would rather their cities be firebombed, or have the enemies soliders and tanks sitting on their lawn before they got involved.

The US is never gonna be invaded and there will NEVER be a foreign army on US soil...your becoming hysterical here. Our greatest threat comes from terrorist groups and they ain't gonna start invading the US.

Maybe you should ask why the US is a target for these groups despite being several thousands miles away from them?

 

[WI Crippler]

This is already happening in Iraq and we are helpless to stop it.

We are not helpless to stop it. The Bush Admin took the wrong approach to the post war situation, and ignored military generals, and war games experts who predicted something just like this. We have the ability, the training, the technology, and the power to stop it. Now with the bungled effort put up by the likes of Rumsfeld and Co. American citizens, armchairing the war back here have now lost the will to put up with it anymore. To say we are helpless is a farce, we could do this if we did it right.

The US protects itself and its own interests first and foremost, we are not the protector of the free world to the detriment of ourselves. And there is no possibility of a modern western country being 'invaded' and resources stolen. Nuked perhaps but the days of large scale battles are gone.

there is always a possibility of an invasion. In the US maybe not(due to the geographics), but other "western civilizations" could certainley be threatened by China, or Russia should it fall back to what it once was. Large armies streaming across the battlefield like in WWII are probably gone yes, but that doesn't mean invasions can't and won't happen in the future.

We are probably the least safe that we have been since the end of the cold war at the moment. Another terrorist attack is undoubtedly going to happen sooner or later and the intelligence agencies have already thwarted some.

We are safer now than we were on Sept 10th. Will another attack happen, probably, but the likelyhood for success is much smaller than it was on Sept 10th 2001. Its not as if had we somehow left everything the same after Sept 11th, we would be safer somehow and they wouldn't try to attack us again.

Maybe you should ask why the US is a target for these groups despite being several thousands miles away from them?

Because Saudi Arabia asked the US for help during the Gulf War, and not Osama Bin Ladens Al-Qaeda group. He felt spurned and since then has attacked the US and her allies over the past 15 years. Funny how we weren't the great devil when we helped his people keep Russia out of Afganistan.


Your other points on the UN might be valid, but you have to look at the fact that 3 out of 5 of the permanent members of the UN, and its own Sec General, aren't exactly pushing forward in any manner themselves.

 

[G-Man]

We are not helpless to stop it. The Bush Admin took the wrong approach to the post war situation, and ignored military generals, and war games experts who predicted something just like this. We have the ability, the training, the technology, and the power to stop it. Now with the bungled effort put up by the likes of Rumsfeld and Co. American citizens, armchairing the war back here have now lost the will to put up with it anymore. To say we are helpless is a farce, we could do this if we did it right.

I don't see how we can stop it. One religious set of Iraqi's is hell bent on slaughtering the other and vice versa. We are stuck in the middle and don't know which way to go, sustaining ever more casualities whilst we try to figure out what action to take.

I'd agree the Bush admin must shoulder the blame for the huge political mistakes they have made but there comes a point where so many mistakes have been made that it is impossible to recover from them.

The military have accomplished all they can, they were asked to defeat the Iraqi army and did so in record time. Now there is an internal civil war and it is beyond their means to stop this.
A political solution may end the bloodshed but only one that was agreed by all the relevant Iraqi parties would accomplish this. The US govt cannot bring about a political solution to internal Iraqi strife.

there is always a possibility of an invasion. In the US maybe not(due to the geographics), but other "western civilizations" could certainley be threatened by China, or Russia should it fall back to what it once was. Large armies streaming across the battlefield like in WWII are probably gone yes, but that doesn't mean invasions can't and won't happen in the future.

I can't forsee one happening. No nation is stupid enough to put its amry in large numbers on the battlefield unless your opponent has no airforce or missile technology. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to imagine one of the 'western' nations being invaded these days.
China and Russia may have millions of troops or thousands of tanks but these things can be elimiinated by a good airforce or capable missile technology.

We are safer now than we were on Sept 10th. Will another attack happen, probably, but the likelyhood for success is much smaller than it was on Sept 10th 2001. Its not as if had we somehow left everything the same after Sept 11th, we would be safer somehow and they wouldn't try to attack us again.

We are safer in the sense that thankfully homeland security has been taken seriously and proper resources have been spent, but less safe in the sense that the number of those who hate us and wish to attack us have grown at an alarming rate.

Because Saudi Arabia asked the US for help during the Gulf War, and not Osama Bin Ladens Al-Qaeda group. He felt spurned and since then has attacked the US and her allies over the past 15 years. Funny how we weren't the great devil when we helped his people keep Russia out of Afganistan.

True, but when we offered support to the Islamists in Afghanistan this was done to protect American interests and stop the spread of communism, not done for the purposes of helping those groups.

Your other points on the UN might be valid, but you have to look at the fact that 3 out of 5 of the permanent members of the UN, and its own Sec General, aren't exactly pushing forward in any manner themselves.

They are powerless as things stand, I wouldn't suggest otherwise.
China/Russia will shield Iran from any sanctions due to their veto and the US will shield Israel from any sanctions due to its veto - even if these countries are in breach of the UN regulations. Therein lies the problem.

It needs to be restructured. Remove the veto from all members and make it a condition of all those who join that they MUST enforce the regulations, whether they might be against enforcement or not.

Unfortunately, I feel you would see the most powerful members i.e US, Russia, China resign from the UN because they do not wish to give away their authority to an international authority. Thats the reality.

Talk of international groups etc are worthless until nations decide to commit to them and the most powerful invariable do not.

 

[WI Crippler]

I don't see how we can stop it. One religious set of Iraqi's is hell bent on slaughtering the other and vice versa. We are stuck in the middle and don't know which way to go, sustaining ever more casualities whilst we try to figure out what action to take.

thats not for us to figure out, its what our tax dollars should be paying for. The people in our government and military are the ones who need to figure out what needs to be done. I am confident our military knows exactly what needs to be done, but having civilians controlling the military impedes their ability to make war, as was intended.

I'd agree the Bush admin must shoulder the blame for the huge political mistakes they have made but there comes a point where so many mistakes have been made that it is impossible to recover from them.

Nothing is impossible, unless you quit. there are solutions out there for every problem that has ever faced the human race from the day we crawled out of the primordial ooze. Perserverence and adaptation is the key to victory. We have one, but not the other on the admins part.

The military have accomplished all they can, they were asked to defeat the Iraqi army and did so in record time. Now there is an internal civil war and it is beyond their means to stop this.

It is not beyond our militarys capablility. It is weak policy that hamstrings our troops, not because the sectarian violence is beyond our soliders skill level.

A political solution may end the bloodshed but only one that was agreed by all the relevant Iraqi parties would accomplish this. The US govt cannot bring about a political solution to internal Iraqi strife.

Agreed

I can't forsee one happening. No nation is stupid enough to put its amry in large numbers on the battlefield unless your opponent has no airforce or missile technology. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to imagine one of the 'western' nations being invaded these days.
China and Russia may have millions of troops or thousands of tanks but these things can be elimiinated by a good airforce or capable missile technology.

its unlikely now, but we cannot discount the possibility, especially as large as a military power as China is becoming.

We are safer in the sense that thankfully homeland security has been taken seriously and proper resources have been spent, but less safe in the sense that the number of those who hate us and wish to attack us have grown at an alarming rate.

Better we have alot of defense against a large number of enemies than literally no defense against a small number of enemies.

True, but when we offered support to the Islamists in Afghanistan this was done to protect American interests and stop the spread of communism, not done for the purposes of helping those groups.

Yes I agree, however from the stand point of OBL and Al-qaeda, we were their allies and they used the support of "the great devil" to run the Communists out of Afganistan, then turns around and hates us because his home country spurned him, and chose us to fight in the first gulf war. I never insinuated we helped AQ out of alturism.

They are powerless as things stand, I wouldn't suggest otherwise.
China/Russia will shield Iran from any sanctions due to their veto and the US will shield Israel from any sanctions due to its veto - even if these countries are in breach of the UN regulations. Therein lies the problem.

It needs to be restructured. Remove the veto from all members and make it a condition of all those who join that they MUST enforce the regulations, whether they might be against enforcement or not.

Unfortunately, I feel you would see the most powerful members i.e US, Russia, China resign from the UN because they do not wish to give away their authority to an international authority. Thats the reality.

Talk of international groups etc are worthless until nations decide to commit to them and the most powerful invariable do not.

Yes I agree with most of what you say, but if in the perfect world the US and other permanent members dropped veto power, and equalled themselves to all the other countries, I would hope that our support and money being funneled into the UN would be equalled amongst all member nations. No reason for us to be the biggest stockholder, with the same amount of say as the guy who owns one stock. Therein lies the other issue.

 

[G-Man]

thats not for us to figure out, its what our tax dollars should be paying for. The people in our government and military are the ones who need to figure out what needs to be done. I am confident our military knows exactly what needs to be done, but having civilians controlling the military impedes their ability to make war, as was intended.

I'd go along with most of that but I don't feel its civilian control which is the problem. Our military doesn't lose battles but there are some wars it can't win by force alone. We are unable to identify the 'enemy' and therefore unable to take him down. Groups pledge loyalty to us & the Iraqi govt with one hand but stab us in the back with the other. I think the 'insurgency' could only be defeated if we had the co-operation of the locals and sadly we do not.

Nothing is impossible, unless you quit. there are solutions out there for every problem that has ever faced the human race from the day we crawled out of the primordial ooze. Perserverence and adaptation is the key to victory. We have one, but not the other on the admins part.

Well its maybe not impossible but I feel it would definately require a sort of admission of failure by the admission and a new strategy to succeed. It seems horrible to say but I don't think the current administration is capable of admitting to its own mistakes in order to try and rectify them. Is an ambition of leaving a political legacy worth so much these days? Guess so.

It is not beyond our militarys capablility. It is weak policy that hamstrings our troops, not because the sectarian violence is beyond our soliders skill level.

I never doubt the troops abilities, like I said before they never lose the battles but the politicians lose the wars for them. We could keep 'control' of Iraq in the way we are doing so now for decades to come because we would never 'lose' a large scale military battle. However, our presence will never be accepted and there would be a constant stream of casualties until we left.

its unlikely now, but we cannot discount the possibility, especially as large as a military power as China is becoming.

China's main danger may come in the shape of its economic power rather than its military power. The US is in debt to the tune of billions to the Chinese, there could easily be a change in the economic powers of our nations soon.

Better we have alot of defense against a large number of enemies than literally no defense against a small number of enemies.

Hey I'm definately in favour of increased spending and strengthing of homeland security but it doesn't hurt to put a little more thought and effort into foreign policies.

Yes I agree, however from the stand point of OBL and Al-qaeda, we were their allies and they used the support of "the great devil" to run the Communists out of Afganistan, then turns around and hates us because his home country spurned him, and chose us to fight in the first gulf war. I never insinuated we helped AQ out of alturism.

Agreed but maybe its a bit like the alliance between the US & Russia during WWII. Two groups helping each other against a common enemy but after defeating the enemy turning upon each other. OBL didn't kick the Communists out of the holy land to let it become westernised, he has his own version of what the ME should look like.

Yes I agree with most of what you say, but if in the perfect world the US and other permanent members dropped veto power, and equalled themselves to all the other countries, I would hope that our support and money being funneled into the UN would be equalled amongst all member nations. No reason for us to be the biggest stockholder, with the same amount of say as the guy who owns one stock. Therein lies the other issue.

I'm not necessarily saying the US should only have the same voice/power as i.e Luxembourg or Spain but I feel NO nation should have the power to veto a resolution proposed and accepted by the other 100+ members. I would guess this could be done on some sort of proportional representation basis i.e if the US is 5% of the UN (in terms of population) then it should hold 5% of the voting power and contribute 5% of the costs required. Then something along the lines of 85/90% required to pass motions and take action.
Obviously this might not be practical due to large African populations and less than able economies but its just a general suggestion and not a detailed proposal!!

 

[WI Crippler]

I'd go along with most of that but I don't feel its civilian control which is the problem. Our military doesn't lose battles but there are some wars it can't win by force alone. We are unable to identify the 'enemy' and therefore unable to take him down. Groups pledge loyalty to us & the Iraqi govt with one hand but stab us in the back with the other. I think the 'insurgency' could only be defeated if we had the co-operation of the locals and sadly we do not.

So the responsibility for Iraq to become a stable government resides with the civilian population and iraqi forces?? Absolutely, but my intent on this thread was not soley based on Iraq or the war on terror alone, which most threads either evolve or de-evolve into. I think it supports my question that America should not be shouldering the burden of wars, while the other countries sit back and criticize us, while adding nothing constructive to the effort.

Well its maybe not impossible but I feel it would definately require a sort of admission of failure by the admission and a new strategy to succeed. It seems horrible to say but I don't think the current administration is capable of admitting to its own mistakes in order to try and rectify them. Is an ambition of leaving a political legacy worth so much these days? Guess so.

Again we are getting into the current situation in Iraq, which is not my intent in this thread. We should be looking at an overall global strategy, that the free countries of the world should be actively participating in rather than criticizing us without action on their part.

I never doubt the troops abilities, like I said before they never lose the battles but the politicians lose the wars for them. We could keep 'control' of Iraq in the way we are doing so now for decades to come because we would never 'lose' a large scale military battle. However, our presence will never be accepted and there would be a constant stream of casualties until we left.

Not to keep bringing it up, but I am not soley discussing Iraq war. But to make a small point here. There will be larger casualties should we leave before the infant Iraq Government is ready to shoulder the responsibility alone.

China's main danger may come in the shape of its economic power rather than its military power. The US is in debt to the tune of billions to the Chinese, there could easily be a change in the economic powers of our nations soon.

Doubt it. Not saying it isn't true, however China is very dependent on us, and us them. Direct war with China would not serve either countries interests at this time. However, China may shift its gaze somewhere we don't want it to be(Taiwan)

Hey I'm definately in favour of increased spending and strengthing of homeland security but it doesn't hurt to put a little more thought and effort into foreign policies.

No disagreement there.

Agreed but maybe its a bit like the alliance between the US & Russia during WWII. Two groups helping each other against a common enemy but after defeating the enemy turning upon each other. OBL didn't kick the Communists out of the holy land to let it become westernised, he has his own version of what the ME should look like.

And we never attempted to westernize afganistan. we just kept communism from spreading. Now we are trying to keep fascism from spreading, and facism in its most powerful form is extreme Islam.

I'm not necessarily saying the US should only have the same voice/power as i.e Luxembourg or Spain but I feel NO nation should have the power to veto a resolution proposed and accepted by the other 100+ members. I would guess this could be done on some sort of proportional representation basis i.e if the US is 5% of the UN (in terms of population) then it should hold 5% of the voting power and contribute 5% of the costs required. Then something along the lines of 85/90% required to pass motions and take action.
Obviously this might not be practical due to large African populations and less than able economies but its just a general suggestion and not a detailed proposal!!

I think its going to take people alot smarter than you or I to figure out how to fix the UN. Not that we are idiots, but it is just that bad and for alot of reasons.

 

[MSgt]

Prime Example of the absent but critical world....

"The conflict in Darfur has spread to two neighboring countries and is now in "free fall" with six million people facing the prospect of going without food or protection, the outgoing U.N. humanitarian chief said Tuesday.

The U.N. is evacuating its international staff and the assets it can at the moment because of the intensifying violence and insecurity, "but we're not protecting the lives of the vulnerable women and children, and there are four times more of them now than when we started in 2004," he said."

ABC News: U.N. Chief: Darfur Is in 'Free Fall'

Presently, U.S. Marines have been in Chad and in Djibouti for a couple years. The only other international force in the area has been the French, but they are only protecting the last remnants of European colonialism in the west. Where's the world? Where's that great Global left outcry for the world's attrocities when America isn't directly involved with an attempted solution? Where are the crocodile tears from those that opt to be humanity's voice of concience behind safely protected borders? Is this a problem that creeped up on them unsuspecting? The UN is made up of how many countries? Granted that many of those countries practice the same type of governance the west despises, but there are many countries in the UN that claim to hold the same values as America. So where are they? Even America, during the '90s, turned its back as Al-Queda and their Radical base massacred countless Christians and "back-slidden" Muslims in Sudan. Our President's response was to apologize later as if the violence was over. What is the excuse world? Perhaps if there was a vast oil exportation from Sudan, the European powers could simply choose to exhonerate themselves by declaring that American troops are positioned just for the oil. Where have we heard that before? Without this tiring excuse, they will simply do the bare minimum to save face if they do anything at all. Somalia was a perfect example of the UN (the world) doing something for somebody. American Marines hit the beaches alone (our incistence), international forces showed in minimum force, and when the mandate ran out the international forces left American troops alone until we bowed to Radical Islamists.

Like we have seen enough times, if America doesn't step in with the help of our truest allies, no one will lift a finger. Even if we do step in, others will simply criticize as those Radicals that are making a gory mess of their faith blame America for denying them their power on earth and we will see terror attacks. The rest of the world will remain safe behind their criticisms and their insincere apologies to the victims.

Like the man said..."Why won't anyone else take the lead??"

 

[PrimBabUB]

Prime Example of the absent but critical world....

"The conflict in Darfur has spread to two neighboring countries and is now in "free fall" with six million people facing the prospect of going without food or protection, the outgoing U.N. humanitarian chief said Tuesday.

The U.N. is evacuating its international staff and the assets it can at the moment because of the intensifying violence and insecurity, "but we're not protecting the lives of the vulnerable women and children, and there are four times more of them now than when we started in 2004," he said."

ABC News: U.N. Chief: Darfur Is in 'Free Fall'

Presently, U.S. Marines have been in Chad and in Djibouti for a couple years. The only other international force in the area has been the French, but they are only protecting the last remnants of European colonialism in the west. Where's the world? Where's that great Global left outcry for the world's attrocities when America isn't directly involved with an attempted solution? Where are the crocodile tears from those that opt to be humanity's voice of concience behind safely protected borders? Is this a problem that creeped up on them unsuspecting? The UN is made up of how many countries? Granted that many of those countries practice the same type of governance the west despises, but there are many countries in the UN that claim to hold the same values as America. So where are they? Even America, during the '90s, turned its back as Al-Queda and their Radical base massacred countless Christians and "back-slidden" Muslims in Sudan. Our President's response was to apologize later as if the violence was over. What is the excuse world? Perhaps if there was a vast oil exportation from Sudan, the European powers could simply choose to exhonerate themselves by declaring that American troops are positioned just for the oil. Where have we heard that before? Without this tiring excuse, they will simply do the bare minimum to save face if they do anything at all. Somalia was a perfect example of the UN (the world) doing something for somebody. American Marines hit the beaches alone (our incistence), international forces showed in minimum force, and when the mandate ran out the international forces left American troops alone until we bowed to Radical Islamists.

Like we have seen enough times, if America doesn't step in with the help of our truest allies, no one will lift a finger. Even if we do step in, others will simply criticize as those Radicals that are making a gory mess of their faith blame America for denying them their power on earth and we will see terror attacks. The rest of the world will remain safe behind their criticisms and their insincere apologies to the victims.

Like the man said..."Why won't anyone else take the lead??"

Where are the crocodile tears from those that opt to be humanity's voice of concience behind safely protected borders?

Sitting in Oprah Whinefry's audience.

Perhaps if there was a vast oil exportation from Sudan, the European powers could simply choose to exhonerate themselves by declaring that American troops are positioned just for the oil.

Perhaps it is about the oil and the Arab Muslims want control.

"According to EIA Sudan has proven oil reserves totaling 563 million barrels. So far Sudanese oil exploration has been limited to the central and south-central regions. The upstream oil industry could be key to the future of the economy of the North East African state of Sudan. Although the country is considered to be vastly under-explored, it has been a producer of oil and gas for a number of years. The country's oil and gas reserves are vast. The downstream oil industry in Sudan is an important sector in the country's economy as Sudan has three refineries and imports both refined product and crude oil. The completion of a new refinery has made Sudan largely self sufficient and able to export refined as well as crude products. Sudan still needs to import jet fuel however."

"In November 1997 the United States imposed sanctions against Sudan on the basis that profits from oil were being used to fuel the civil war. The pressure of sanctions has kept American firms out of Sudan, although Canadian company Talisman Energy is still operating in the Sudan. Talisman Energy has also purchased Araxis' share in GNPOC. Current players in Sudan include GNPOC, Lundin Oil (IPC Sudan Ltd), Petronas, Sudapet, Gulf Petroleum Corporation (GPC), China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), National Iranian Gas Company, OMV, Royal Dutch / Shell, and Talisman Energy. TotalFinaElf are reportedly looking to return to their concession in the Bor Basin and are listed as being the most likely partners to Petronas in their permit for Block 5B."

An MBendi Profile: An MBendi Industry (Sector) Profile for Sudan: Oil and Gas including economic overview and directories of companies, personalities, industry sectors, projects, facilities, news and events.

The UN is made up of how many countries? Granted that many of those countries practice the same type of governance the west despises, but there are many countries in the UN that claim to hold the same values as America. So where are they? Even America, during the '90s, turned its back as Al-Queda and their Radical base massacred countless Christians and "back-slidden" Muslims in Sudan.

"Could a United Nations peacekeeping mission face al-Qaeda's fighters in Darfur? According to Osama bin Laden, if a UN force deploys in the region, al-Qaeda will attack UN troops. On April 23, al-Jazeera television broadcast a bin Laden audiotape in which he called for al-Qaeda fighters to begin traveling to Darfur to prepare for a "long-term war against the Crusaders," an apparent reference to the UN force (controlled by the United States in bin Laden's mind) that could replace the ineffective African Union mission in the region. The commander of the United Nations Mission in Sudan has announced that the UN force is treating bin Laden's threat with "whole seriousness" (Sudan Tribune, April 26). The Sudanese government is doing everything possible to prevent a large-scale UN deployment in Darfur, but this sudden offer of al-Qaeda assistance is surely unwelcome in Khartoum."

"Most Sudanese do not admire the Wahhabist-style Islam espoused by al-Qaeda. Their Islam is based on the proud Sufi lodges, whose form of worship is violently opposed by al-Qaeda. While al-Turabi and others have had some success in their efforts to radicalize the population, most local Muslims will tell you that Sudanese Islam is in no need of improvement by outsiders. Not everyone in the Khartoum regime shared al-Turabi's fondness for al-Qaeda. When bin Laden was in Sudan, the suspicious Mukhabarat (secret service) took note of every move and utterance by bin Laden and his associates. Attempts were made to turn thousands of pages of intelligence over to the United States after bin Laden was deported in 1996, but the Clinton administration refused to have anything to do with a "state sponsor of terrorism.""

Bin Laden's African Folly: Al-Qaeda in Darfur

If Bin Ladin thinks the UN is controlled by the US, then he should crawl out from under his rock more frequently and grab a newspaper.

 

[G-Man]

So the responsibility for Iraq to become a stable government resides with the civilian population and iraqi forces?? Absolutely, but my intent on this thread was not soley based on Iraq or the war on terror alone, which most threads either evolve or de-evolve into. I think it supports my question that America should not be shouldering the burden of wars, while the other countries sit back and criticize us, while adding nothing constructive to the effort.

Apologies, got a bit side tracked with the Iraq issue!!

But I don't see who else would be able and/or allowed to shoulder the burden of wars.
Lets consider the other 2 main world powers (at least military powers) :-

1) Russia - well if Russia had decided to invade Iraq and spread its own form of government and ideology in the ME the US and other Western nations would have rejected this completely, and perhaps even threatened force should they decide to take action.

2) China - Again, there's no way western nations would support a Chinese action to wage war and force/implement their customs/ideologies/govt into the ME. Again, they would probably be threatened if they did so.

In terms of 'who else' I can only see 2 Nations with the ability to run a war on their own across the globe.
Neither of these two would be acceptable to the US so its a bit unrealistic to criticise them for non-action.

We cannot realistically expect them to wage war and risk their soldiers lives in order to install governments purely for the benefit of western nation.

Again we are getting into the current situation in Iraq, which is not my intent in this thread. We should be looking at an overall global strategy, that the free countries of the world should be actively participating in rather than criticizing us without action on their part.

Sry, stuck on Iraq in the last post!
But the free countries of the world will only follow a course which is designed for the benefit of the whole globe, not one designed with the best US interests at the forefront. We cannot expect others to support us blindly.

Doubt it. Not saying it isn't true, however China is very dependent on us, and us them. Direct war with China would not serve either countries interests at this time. However, China may shift its gaze somewhere we don't want it to be(Taiwan)

China is getting bigger and more powerful all the time. We can no longer face a direct war with China for fear of our own destruction.

And we never attempted to westernize afganistan. we just kept communism from spreading. Now we are trying to keep fascism from spreading, and facism in its most powerful form is extreme Islam.

I'd go along with that but I believe you tackle extreme Islam by finding the extremists and taking them out, not by waging huge military campaigns which only serves to recruit more radicals for the opponent.
We should have committed to Afghanistan and solved the problems over there before starting on the disasterous adventure in Iraq.

I think its going to take people alot smarter than you or I to figure out how to fix the UN. Not that we are idiots, but it is just that bad and for alot of reasons.

Personally I think the UN is a good idea and could work very well. Unfortunately to achieve this it requires FULL participation from all its members and a voice which is louder than any one of its individual members. The US may complain about the burden it is having to shoulder at the moment but the simple fact is it doesn't wish to pass the burden on to anyone else and have any other nation (or organization) as the leader of the world. We want the strength and authority to make all the decisions but we don't want to be responsible for enforcing them all. I don't think thats a realistic position to maintain.

 

[WI Crippler]

Apologies, got a bit side tracked with the Iraq issue!!

But I don't see who else would be able and/or allowed to shoulder the burden of wars.
Lets consider the other 2 main world powers (at least military powers) :-

1) Russia - well if Russia had decided to invade Iraq and spread its own form of government and ideology in the ME the US and other Western nations would have rejected this completely, and perhaps even threatened force should they decide to take action.

Are we talking USSR russia, or current day Russia?? I know Russia isn't up to par with democracy like we would want them to be, but I think Russian involvement would certainly help out. If we felt Russia was going into other countries trying to spread democracy I don't see the issue. Russia IMO is teetering as to what it really is though.

2) China - Again, there's no way western nations would support a Chinese action to wage war and force/implement their customs/ideologies/govt into the ME. Again, they would probably be threatened if they did so.

China is not going to spread democracy, and still we have asked for involvement from them in the North Korea situation, one they could easily solve, but they refuse to do so. Not all action around the world has to be military.

In terms of 'who else' I can only see 2 Nations with the ability to run a war on their own across the globe.
Neither of these two would be acceptable to the US so its a bit unrealistic to criticise them for non-action.

I'll agree that these two nations have the capability to run full scale wars around the globe. But other nations could conceivably band together. Say France/Germany/Spain, and could go into regions like Darfur, or Cambodia. My probelm is that, say the genocide in Rwanda people bitch about the US not doing nothing. Ok fine, but why don't you condemn the inaction of the world, instead of just the US??

We cannot realistically expect them to wage war and risk their soldiers lives in order to install governments purely for the benefit of western nation.

No but they could do it for the benefit of humanity. If they are so concerned, send troops. organize an international force with the other countries who cry out for human crisis around the world, and fix it if they are really that concerned.

Sry, stuck on Iraq in the last post!
But the free countries of the world will only follow a course which is designed for the benefit of the whole globe, not one designed with the best US interests at the forefront. We cannot expect others to support us blindly.

I am not asking for people to support our cause, I am asking why won't they take the lead in the causes they feel are important. This has nothing to do with what we want in the world, and everything to do with what they feel is important. If the benefit for the whole globe is to stop the situation in Darfur, why aren't these free countries doing anything then??

China is getting bigger and more powerful all the time. We can no longer face a direct war with China for fear of our own destruction.

China does have more boots than we do (ground forces), and the threat of nuclear missiles. However, China does not have the logistic capability to move those troops overseas. A strong US Naval presence would be the determining factor in a war with China. We may not want to launch an all out ground war into China, but they won't set foot on our soil.
The threat of mutually assured destruction probably comes into play once again, and if there were tensions, another Cold War, and massive military build up would begin. But as reliant on each others economies as we have become, I don't see it happening in the near future.

I'd go along with that but I believe you tackle extreme Islam by finding the extremists and taking them out, not by waging huge military campaigns which only serves to recruit more radicals for the opponent.
We should have committed to Afghanistan and solved the problems over there before starting on the disasterous adventure in Iraq.

So you are saying we should have sent more troops to afganistan, but we shouldn't send in lots of troops to fight extremists?? Which one is it, more or less?? Lets not get stuck on Iraq again either, I can feel the comments coming.

Personally I think the UN is a good idea and could work very well. Unfortunately to achieve this it requires FULL participation from all its members and a voice which is louder than any one of its individual members. The US may complain about the burden it is having to shoulder at the moment but the simple fact is it doesn't wish to pass the burden on to anyone else and have any other nation (or organization) as the leader of the world. We want the strength and authority to make all the decisions but we don't want to be responsible for enforcing them all. I don't think thats a realistic position to maintain.

The UN passes resolutions all the times, not the US. Like you said there are other countries with veto power, so when a resolution passes it passes with support of the other countries, and should invariably be enforced by the UN members. The UN does not enforce its resolutions.
The UN is a good idea in theory, but its practicality leaves alot to be desired. And for many reasons, which we have discussed.

 

[easyt65]

This is an answer that tends to piss people off.

From my experience and readings, it has become quite clear that most of the world is more than comfortable not lifting a finger to do what they know America will do for them. Some of this is our fault, because of our roles in the world since the beginning of the 20th century. After crossing the ocean to deal with Europe's mess, then crossing the ocean again to deal with another European mess while facing our own threats in the Pacific, we recognized that only our presence will deter a WWIII. We accepted that our presence in Asia would suffice for the military power we denied them and we accepted the burden of remaining in Germany to allow western Europe it's time to heal as we chased down the communist threat every where we saw a poor man reaching out his hands. Our actions during the Cold War (while our friends across the Atlantic sea stood by and safely watched) brought with it a black eye for which our friends thouroughly enjoy embracing. At the end of the Cold War, we were faced with a very different world. A world where Radical Islam had gone on the rise and all those third world nations that technology forgot and were legacies of some European colony became the threat. While dealing with the Soviet Communist threat, Radical Islam was making an appearance unmolested. It was during this time that many were slowly recognizing this and trying in vain to report to purposefully very deaf and blind American administrations until 9/11 ("Peace in the Middle East" always meant "stability" at all costs for oil.)

What we see today is the world's resentment that we have blown past the shams that have traditionally maintained concrete destinies in the old orders. Every time those "damn upstart Americans" across the ocean go on another mission, it makes our friends uneasy and it shames them. They are faced with the truth that while America is addressing the very thing the Global Left claim to believe in, they have done nothing and they even go as far as to sum our actions up into packages of selfishness and deceit. They were even deliberating when American troops crossed the ocean, yet again, to deal with European Bosnia.

As the sole Superpower, the world has every intention on casting us bad grades for everything we do (as long as it doesn't save Europeans from something). It is always the position of the failed to blame all woes on the successful. And we are successful on many levels. We have developed a nasty habit in the world. America has assumed that all duties will be upon her shoulders with the help of our truest allies and the world has assumed that we will be perfect in their absence.

You see, with all the silence that comes from Europeans about our roles during both world wars and Bosnia, we would assume that all American treasure and blood is to be saved for the defense of Europeans only and not to be used to help anybody else. Why else are they so fond of pointing out civilian deaths during all wars but those in Europe? Why do they attempt to destroy all virtue of American actions and replace it with sole selfish interests? Why did Germans cling to the Mai Lai massacre so tightly that we were to think that it washed away their historical sins? Why are they so quick to pass out bad grades and pretend that all activity today is about oil, but remain silent on their roles during the Gulf War? Why did it take a UN mandate to push people into Somalia and then after the mandate ran out, they all left? Why are U.S. Marines deployed in Chad alone as President Bush diplomatically deals with the Sudanese without any real help from all those nations that used Darfur as an exhonerating stage? Why does it take a simple rumor of a Koran being flushed in a terrorist prison to bring those who care about humanity to speak out? - Of course, find a Bible in any Muslim prison at all.

The answer is simple jealousy and shame. The world isn't angry for what we do to others, but for what we do for ourselves. Everytime America goes through another social revolution of some sorts, they have to reflect upon their traditions and stagnations. Everytime a humanitarian effort is spotlighted and it becomes clear that America is getting involved, others begrudgingly give the bare minimum to protect their true wishes. The higher the civilian body count, the happier our slothful friends are. Of course, many will attempt to be more honest, by stating that they don't have the economy base or the ability to reach out and help as America can. What they dismiss is how young we are and how all those stagnate traditions of theirs is precisely why they haven't the ability to do what a nation of 231 years can do.

By waiting on America to do everything and simply standing by and criticizing, many of our friends have wordlessly agreed to let the rest of the world rot. For some, it takes a Nazi army to invade before recognizing a threat. Even today, we have Americans in our own country that wish to wait for millions of Americans to perish in a nuclear blast before accepting that Radical Islam is the new threat to humanity. We faced the Nazi threat with our friends, because they were immediately impacted. We faced the Soviet threat largely alone, because our friends were licking their wounds. We now face the Islamic threat alone. Perhaps things will change when Islamic riots in France become more continental wide.

I think I could not have said it better, Gunny! Well said, my friend!