ANALYSIS: An Even-Handed Look at American, European Relations - Page 10

Ted Striker · March 21, 2004, 21:39

Regarding the landmines, the main issue is the DMZ in Korea. There are no civilians there at all, and the mines are especially helpful for defending the area. But thanks for doing your due diligence. And the drama helped too.

And so, when is Europe going to use its miraculous diplomacy powers to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Well, I'm waiting...

DinoDoc · March 21, 2004, 21:44

Regarding land mines: Why should we do something that isn't in our self-interest?

Oncle Boris · March 21, 2004, 21:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Regarding the landmines, the main issue is the DMZ in Korea. There are no civilians there at all, and the mines are especially helpful for defending the area. But thanks for doing your due diligence. And the drama helped too.

Aren't the mines already there? Just leave them and stop producing more.

Quote:

And so, when is Europe going to use its miraculous diplomacy powers to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Well, I'm waiting...

Diplomacy power requires, at its root, to be backed by military and economic power. As things are right now, only the US has them. And BTW, most UN resolutions to try something for the peace came from Europe, and were blocked by US veto. It is in fact America that is hindering the 'European diplomatic force', as you call it.

Oncle Boris · March 21, 2004, 21:46

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Regarding land mines: Why should we do something that isn't in our self-interest?

Because you are supposedly the greatest democracy in the world? Because we all want peace, as citizens of the world?

Berzerker · March 21, 2004, 21:53

OB -

Quote:

Berzerker: that's it, America is not paying more in blood than the others are.

Korea? Was there any UN sanctioned war/action that the US did not lead and suffer the most casualties? Maybe Somalia since I believe the Pakistanis may have taken more casualties...

DinoDoc · March 21, 2004, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Because you are supposedly the greatest democracy in the world? Because we all want peace, as citizens of the world?

That's not a reason.

Oncle Boris · March 21, 2004, 21:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
OB -

Korea? Was there any UN sanctioned war/action that the US did not lead and suffer the most casualties? Maybe Somalia since I believe the Pakistanis may have taken more casualties...

No, you had allies participate in the Korea war.

Berzerker · March 21, 2004, 22:14

OB -

Quote:

Because you are supposedly the greatest democracy in the world? Because we all want peace, as citizens of the world?

I'd suggest those landmines help ensure N Korea doesn't invade S Korea.

Imran -

Quote:

We are talking about STATES! Individuals have no role in this debate whatsoever. It was about American dues and if they are too high! Jesus H. Christ!

States are made up by individuals.

Quote:

The United Nations doesn't care about the people when it assesses dues, what it cares about is the GDP of the state as a whole. GDP/capita doesn't factor at all.

I don't care how the UN decides how much the US owes it, that has nothing to do whether or not I volunteered to support it.

Quote:

No one forces the United States of America to be a member of the United Nations.

A supermajority in the Senate and the President forces the rest of us to be a member.

Quote:

The debate was whether dues of the United Nations for the United States of America was too high.

No, the debate was whether or not we volunteered to support the UN. Some of us did, some of us didn't. Those that did are forcing the rest of us to "participate". Do you believe taxes are voluntary? You must if you think what the Congress decides for us wrt the UN makes us volunteers.

Quote:

A minority of individuals disagreeing with the paying of those dues have no bearing on this issue.

It does if you want to describe us as volunteers.

Quote:

Only you would take a discussion about whether the US's UN dues were too high and add individuals into it.

We weren't debating that Imran, you took issue with my comparison of UN dues to taxation.

Bosh · March 21, 2004, 22:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
OB -

Korea? Was there any UN sanctioned war/action that the US did not lead and suffer the most casualties? Maybe Somalia since I believe the Pakistanis may have taken more casualties...

South Korea suffered just slightly more casualties...

Berzerker · March 21, 2004, 22:18

OB -

Quote:

No, you had allies participate in the Korea war.

So? That was a UN sanctioned war and American casualties outnumbered any other UN member (except perhaps for S Korea). I don't know if Vietnam was also a UN sanctioned war but if it was we can add another ~58,000 to Korea.

Berzerker · March 21, 2004, 22:21

Quote:

South Korea suffered just slightly more casualties...

I'm not sure if S Korea was a member at that time, but I acknowledged that in my last post.

Imran Siddiqui · March 21, 2004, 22:28

Quote:

the debate was whether or not we volunteered to support the UN.

Um.. no it wasn't. The debate, even before you got in this thread, was whether the US pays too much in UN dues. It had nothing to do with individual people volunteering to pay it.

Quote:

We weren't debating that

Of course we were...

Berzerker · March 21, 2004, 23:00

No Imran, you took issue with my comment about the involuntary nature of taxes and membership in the UN.

Quote:

So you can decide that you aren't a part of the US government and thus refuse to pay taxes? What a silly comparision!!

Quote:

It's about as voluntary as taxes

See? Read your sig since you forgot already.

Imran Siddiqui · March 21, 2004, 23:06

Quote:

you took issue with my comment about the involuntary nature of taxes and membership in the UN.

Which was a total misunderstanding of the debate entirely, which is what I took issue with. Taxes and membership dues are entirely non similar. You can leave with membership dues, but not with taxes, which is the analogy is wrong.

notyoueither · March 21, 2004, 23:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Boshko

South Korea suffered just slightly more casualties...

Does that figure include military and civilian, or just military? I would be surprised if SK had fewer military casualties, but I am curious.

Ted Striker · March 21, 2004, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Aren't the mines already there? Just leave them and stop producing more.

Well duh.

Quote:

Diplomacy power requires, at its root, to be backed by military and economic power. As things are right now, only the US has them. And BTW, most UN resolutions to try something for the peace came from Europe, and were blocked by US veto. It is in fact America that is hindering the 'European diplomatic force', as you call it.

Europe can do things outside of the UN to try a diplomatic solution. NEVER has there been a diplomatic leadership role taken until THIS WEEK. And THAT was only because of what happened in Madrid. Talk about self-interest!!!

Secondly what happened to all this, "Europe doesn't ever want to see war again," crap I'm always hearing? But then you tell me the diplomacy has to be backed by military force? So when the US takes military action you will whine and complain? But you find the threat the US provides highly convenient and the US should use it?

Secondly, the one block that has the most economic and military power in the entire world next to the US is Europe.

The difference is that the USA will actually use military force. Europe has the military force but won't use it. It's alot easier for you all to just let the US do it for you.

I really don't know WHAT the hell you want.

You Eurocoms if you want to go change the world go do it and stop complaining. Eurocoms definition of leadership is simply, "the US is wrong." Well why not try your own damn plan for once????

And invading to control the chocolate supply doesn't count.

Berzerker · March 22, 2004, 01:24

Imran -

Quote:

Which was a total misunderstanding of the debate entirely, which is what I took issue with.

You took issue with my comparison between taxes and UN membership. You did not say my comment was unrelated to the debate. Hell, I didn't even enter into a debate about whether or not the US was paying enough money, just that the US pays more in blood. You haven't been debating that point... Also, look at the title of thread before complaining that my comment was unrelated to "the debate".

Quote:

Taxes and membership dues are entirely non similar.

They are to people who don't want to be members but are forced, hence my comment about it being involuntary.

Quote:

You can leave with membership dues, but not with taxes, which is the analogy is wrong.

I can't leave the UN, so the taxes I'm forced to pay so others can support the UN makes my "participation" involuntary. If you didn't understand my point then, you should by now so why do you keep up with this nonsense?

Berzerker · March 22, 2004, 01:27

Ted -

Quote:

And invading to control the chocolate supply doesn't count.

I've seen a reference to chocolate a couple times now, what does that mean?

Ted Striker · March 22, 2004, 01:31

Basically the French and Italians sent "peacekeepers" to the Ivory Coast to intervene in the uprising/civil war going on there.

However, I can't find the map, but it was from some French Foreign Ministry government site, where they showed the units stationed there, and every Euro unit just "happened" to be stationed where the cocoa fields were.

About half of the world's cocoa comes from the Ivory Coast.

I find the Europeans who complain about the US invading Iraq to gain oil particularly hypocritical, when here we have a BLATANT attempt to secure the cocao supply which mainland Europe clearly has a vested interest in protecting.

Imran Siddiqui · March 22, 2004, 01:31

Quote:

I can't leave the UN

And you can't join it either... only states.

Quote:

If you didn't understand my point then, you should by now so why do you keep up with this nonsense?

'Cause your point is nonsense to this debate.

Berzerker · March 22, 2004, 02:22

Quote:

every Euro unit just "happened" to be stationed where the cocoa fields were.

I'm sure it was just a coincidence

Imran -

Quote:

And you can't join it either... only states.

And as a member of a state that has signed onto UN treaties, I'm subject to the provisions of those treaties - involuntarily - just as I am subject to the taxes raised to support the UN - involuntarily.

Quote:

'Cause your point is nonsense to this debate.

There are multiple ongoing debates, you took issue with my analogy between taxes and forced membership in the UN, not whether the US is paying enough in "dues" which is someone else's contention. There is a landmine debate going on, you might as well complain that my comment was unrelated to that issue while you're at it.

Oncle Boris · March 22, 2004, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
OB -
I'd suggest those landmines help ensure N Korea doesn't invade S Korea.

I bet the nuclear weapons were better incentives.

Berzerker · March 22, 2004, 02:29

Kind of hard using nukes once an invasion starts since you'll be hitting everyone with the blast or fall out. We could have used nukes in the Korean and Vietnam Wars but didn't because of the possible negative consequences.

Oncle Boris · March 22, 2004, 02:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Well duh.

Admit the truth, Ted. Personnel mines are outdated and of limited military use. I doubt that the mines in the Korea DMZ are anti-personnel, but probably anti-tank or anti-vehicle or something. If that's so important for you, then keep existing stocks for the Korea DMZ and support the ban. That'll be a huge plus for humanity, when the dumbass guerillas around the world stop screwing the world with them.

And we're not in 1923 anymore. Any massive crossing of the border with plain infantry would result in a genocide.

Quote:

Europe can do things outside of the UN to try a diplomatic solution. NEVER has there been a diplomatic leadership role taken until THIS WEEK. And THAT was only because of what happened in Madrid. Talk about self-interest!!!

Yeah, Europe has never undetaken diplomatic talks.

Quote:

Secondly what happened to all this, "Europe doesn't ever want to see war again," crap I'm always hearing? But then you tell me the diplomacy has to be backed by military force? So when the US takes military action you will whine and complain? But you find the threat the US provides highly convenient and the US should use it?

In an ideal world, no one would have a military and no one would need it. Things are not like this, and yes, I do believe that it's OK to project power (AFAIK only Britain and France can do this except America) when we need to. I mean, when it's NEEDED, not when Hallicheney wants some cash.

I have nothing about the US military; I'm against how it is being used.

Quote:

Secondly, the one block that has the most economic and military power in the entire world next to the US is Europe.

They don't speak in an unified voice, and won't do so for the next 25 years at least.

Quote:

The difference is that the USA will actually use military force. Europe has the military force but won't use it. It's alot easier for you all to just let the US do it for you.

I really don't know WHAT the hell you want.

You Eurocoms if you want to go change the world go do it and stop complaining. Eurocoms definition of leadership is simply, "the US is wrong." Well why not try your own damn plan for once????

You really think France or England could have sustained the war against Saddam by themselves? Remember, these countries have about 1/10 of your military budget and 1/6 of your GDP, and you're already having trouble paying for Iraq. Besides, it's not like going to Iraq was a good idea in the first place.

How would you like France and Germany invading Israel to force the diplomatic proposals that were rejected by US veto? and maybe arrest Sharon for trial at the Hague, while we're at it?

Instead of whining at Europe's lack of power, why don't you just agree that if America was just a little more intelligent with its diplomacy, it could be collaborating with France and Germany? And that if you finally showed some balls towards Israel, the conflict would be solved in a matter of months. You tell Israel: peace treaty or we withdraw military aid. Kamikazes don't count for the next 6 months.

Quote:

And invading to control the chocolate supply doesn't count.

It does count. Europe is not much better than America, usually. But at least their policy towards Israel and terrorism is more balanced.

Oncle Boris · March 22, 2004, 02:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
I'm sure it was just a coincidence

They were defending the highest God-given right, property.

Berzerker · March 22, 2004, 02:50

Good for them, I think Ted's point is that they didn't require UN resolutions to protect their interests but when the US acts to protect it's interests, they complain.

Oncle Boris · March 22, 2004, 02:53

If Ted thinks he'll teach me someting about realpolitik he's dreaming. Of course Europe defends its interest. It's funny that every debate about America ends up with 'Europe is not better'. Of course they're not. But at least you're agreeing that America sucks too.

Hell, I'm a commie. I'm pissed off at everyone.

Berzerker · March 22, 2004, 03:06

Umm...OB...I gave Europe a

up on protecting the cocoa fields, so why would I think they suck or use their behavior to condemn US behavior?

Ted Striker · March 22, 2004, 03:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Good for them, I think Ted's point is that they didn't require UN resolutions to protect their interests but when the US acts to protect it's interests, they complain.

That's my point.

Ted Striker · March 22, 2004, 03:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Hell, I'm a commie.

That explains everything.

commies