Uh, why do we need the UN's approval again?

[Darth Wong]

In a schoolyard, this is known as being a bully.

The worlds not fair, and trying to run international relations like you would a school yard is the road to disaster. It like trying the law enforcement approach to suicide bombers. 9/11 was the end result of that method.

Actually, 9/11 is arguably the end-result of bullying, or at least the perception of bullying. It's no secret that psychotic shooting rampages in schoolyards are often the result of the disaffected, disenfranchised losers who get pushed around by the more popular kids. and who's more of an analogue for these disenfranchised losers than nutjobs like Al-Quaeda?

[0.1]

Well, all things considered, call it bullying, call it whatever you want. The point Wong (I think) is making is that the foremost power in the world has interests, it's contrary to the interests (and opinion) of most other powers except possibly its closest allies. Why, because, every other power has the same aim, to be on top. To get on top, well, you have to knock off the guy currently occupying the top rung of the ladder. What better way to do that then to paint the guy at the top as the "schoolyard bully", it's simple politics, it draws countries that might otherwise be your enemy to common purpose. After all, no one person or country can please everyone, no matter what you'd do, at least half of everyone else is against it.

As for 9/11, it would've happened to whichever nation happened to be on top. Take France for example, put it in place of America, you might not get 9/11 exactly, but you might get something like it. Same reason, it's history, it happened to other countries that were at various times the foremost power in their era.

The entire exercise comes down to strategies and tactics of maintaining the top spot for as long as possible. The U.S. cares about world opinion (or at least need to care about it) because without it, it gets removed from the top spot faster. The fact that the U.S. is running contrary to world opinion right now is incidental since it's key interest is at stake. And it isn't about Iraq or some tinpot loser in the middle of nowhere butchering his people (see Rawanda), it's about remaining the world's formost power. If the U.S. lets Iraq off the hook like the previous administration did when it has specifically stated otherwise, then it's seen as weakness, and the inability of the U.S. to impose its will. Then all the guys sitting on the sideline would start to challenge American power and its place in the world.

The U.S. doesn't have much of a choice in terms of the world opinion, left to its own devices, the UN could never get Iraq to disarm. Because there would be no need, it would be only the U.S. interest that might be threatened, and the other powers couldn't be happier about that. After all, how many people in the world wwould shout: "death to Canada, or death to France" It's not because they happen to like France or Canada more, it's because these countries do not have thecapability to impose their will. At the worst extreme, these countries are marginal, and the best, they are more or less inconsequential.

[CmdrWilkens]

If you ask for proof that the majority of Americans do not care about world opinion, the fact that UN permission is not generally considered a prerequisite to aggressive military action speaks for itself.

I don't want this to turn into a debate over the merits of military intervention in Iraq; I'm just saying that Americans have always pretended to care about world opinion but this has never been reflected in the actions taken by popular leaders, and since they remain popular ...

Strange then that we have the public perception that the Vietnam War was the most reviled event in US history yet the same politicians who espoused support for it continued to be re-elected to office. Is this a contradition or simply a reminder that politics, like most things, is MUCH more complex than you are trying to make it out to be.

I mean Mike are you actually trying to pretend that reflection of world opinion is the ONLY criteria for why leaders are popular? That is what your logical chain requires us to assume and I think even you would not be truly attempting that weak of a link.

Politics is a vast tangle of influence and back door talks of which only some of it makes itself forward into the PR game that is the international media. What we see and hear is like the ruffling of sheets in an "R" rated movie giving us the illusion of sexual intercourse. What is going on underneath the sheets is much more involved but compeltely beyond what we think it to be. Its been the case since before the days of public outcry over Vietnam when almost every Western nation which lamblasted us was using every NATO conference to remind us how important it was for us to stay in SE Asia. What matters, at the end of the day, is whether a nation is justified in what they do. Is the US unjustified in its actions?

[Sea Skimmer]

In a schoolyard, this is known as being a bully.

The worlds not fair, and trying to run international relations like you would a school yard is the road to disaster. It like trying the law enforcement approach to suicide bombers. 9/11 was the end result of that method.

Actually, 9/11 is arguably the end-result of bullying, or at least the perception of bullying. It's no secret that psychotic shooting rampages in schoolyards are often the result of the disaffected, disenfranchised losers who get pushed around by the more popular kids. and who's more of an analogue for these disenfranchised losers than nutjobs like Al-Quaeda?

People wanting to commit 9/11 could be the end result of bullying. The US's arrest them after the fact counter to terrorist attacks is what made it possibul for them to acutally go through with it so easily. No matter what the US does people will hate it.

[Darth Wong]

Strange then that we have the public perception that the Vietnam War was the most reviled event in US history yet the same politicians who espoused support for it continued to be re-elected to office. Is this a contradition or simply a reminder that politics, like most things, is MUCH more complex than you are trying to make it out to be.

I mean Mike are you actually trying to pretend that reflection of world opinion is the ONLY criteria for why leaders are popular? That is what your logical chain requires us to assume and I think even you would not be truly attempting that weak of a link.

Politics is a vast tangle of influence and back door talks of which only some of it makes itself forward into the PR game that is the international media. What we see and hear is like the ruffling of sheets in an "R" rated movie giving us the illusion of sexual intercourse. What is going on underneath the sheets is much more involved but compeltely beyond what we think it to be. Its been the case since before the days of public outcry over Vietnam when almost every Western nation which lamblasted us was using every NATO conference to remind us how important it was for us to stay in SE Asia. What matters, at the end of the day, is whether a nation is justified in what they do. Is the US unjustified in its actions?

OK, fine. Find me some Americans on this board who give a shit about world opinion regarding the US. And not just from a Machiavellian standpoint, but who genuinely care. Anyone? I haven't heard a lot of American voices chiming in yet. Then canvas all of the talk shows. Look at the editorials in newspapers and magazines.

Frankly, you can complain that it's not rock-solid proven yet, but any other hypothesis (eg- that Americans in general do genuinely care about world opinion in any sense other than humouring it) is much less supportable.

[Darth Wong]

No matter what the US does people will hate it.

Which is why less is more. Anti-US sentiment tends to be proportional to US activism in international affairs. I suppose purely humanitarian activities would not generate this response, although that is a hypothesis that would be difficult to test.

[Sea Skimmer]

No matter what the US does people will hate it.

Which is why less is more. Anti-US sentiment tends to be proportional to US activism in international affairs. I suppose purely humanitarian activities would not generate this response, although that is a hypothesis that would be difficult to test.

An isolationist US didn't work out real well in the 30's.

[Darth Wong]

No matter what the US does people will hate it.

Which is why less is more. Anti-US sentiment tends to be proportional to US activism in international affairs. I suppose purely humanitarian activities would not generate this response, although that is a hypothesis that would be difficult to test.

An isolationist US didn't work out real well in the 30's.

You weren't the world's leading power at the time.

[Stormbringer]

No matter what the US does people will hate it.

Which is why less is more. Anti-US sentiment tends to be proportional to US activism in international affairs. I suppose purely humanitarian activities would not generate this response, although that is a hypothesis that would be difficult to test.

You'd be suprised. The US is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. Look at how much we get blamed for Rwanda or Bosnia in the early days. And look at Somolia for a case in which humanitarian aid got us in trouble.

[Darth Wong]

You'd be suprised. The US is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. Look at how much we get blamed for Rwanda or Bosnia in the early days. And look at Somolia for a case in which humanitarian aid got us in trouble.

Actually, I don't recall the US suffering bad publicity for neglecting Bosnia before intervention began, nor do I see any particular bad publicity directed toward it for continuing to ignore Rwanda (at least, no barbs that aren't also levelled at all of the first world nations).

[Crown]

In response to the actual thread question, no America doesn't require a second resoloution to go into Iraq. Resolution 1441, pretty much said comply or else, should America decide that the comply part hasn't been met with satisfaction (and in all honesty it hasn't), then the 'or else' part allows for an immediate butt-rape of Saddam...

[Perinquus]

Which is why less is more. Anti-US sentiment tends to be proportional to US activism in international affairs. I suppose purely humanitarian activities would not generate this response, although that is a hypothesis that would be difficult to test.

An isolationist US didn't work out real well in the 30's.

You weren't the world's leading power at the time.

Actually, by some measures, we were. We were already the world's number one industrial giant, which is where real military might lay in modern times. Even despite the great depression, we were the world's largest economic power. I think our navy was roughly even with Britain's as the largest in the world at that time (and of course, by the end of WWII we were number one there as well).

Other countries had larger armies, but less ability to project their power across oceans than we did.

[MKSheppard]

Every nation acts on self-interest. When one nation is extremely powerful, it gets to act on unfettered self-interest.

Go home now wong, and start planning the 1,000 fold expansion of the
Canadian Military, and the construction of 10 CVBGs for the Royal Canadian
Navy, and then get the fuck back to us....

[Sea Skimmer]

An isolationist US didn't work out real well in the 30's.

You weren't the world's leading power at the time.

Actually, by some measures, we were. We were already the world's number one industrial giant, which is where real military might lay in modern times. Even despite the great depression, we were the world's largest economic power. I think our navy was roughly even with Britain's as the largest in the world at that time (and of course, by the end of WWII we were number one there as well).

Other countries had larger armies, but less ability to project their power across oceans than we did.

The US fleet was equal or greater in power to the RN. Pretty much equal numbers though the RN had a fuckload of older cruisers, but the US had more modern heavy ships. The RN had a few advantages of its own though. A debate on the exact balance is not somthing I'd want to pursue though.

[Sea Skimmer]

Every nation acts on self-interest. When one nation is extremely powerful, it gets to act on unfettered self-interest.

Go home now wong, and start planning the 1,000 fold expansion of the
Canadian Military, and the construction of 10 CVBGs for the Royal Canadian
Navy, and then get the fuck back to us....

Canada coming up with 200 billion for its navy procurement budget, plus an easily matching amount for infrastructure would be an interesting day.

[MKSheppard]

Canada coming up with 200 billion for its navy procurement budget, plus an easily matching amount for infrastructure would be an interesting day.

The US spends between 3% and 4% of it's GDP on defense.

Canada on the other hand, spends only 1.2% of it's GDP on defense.....

At the height of the Cold War, America spent 6% of GDP on defense.

Today it's 3%, and the US spends close to $300 billion a year on
defense.

Double that figure and you get an annual defense budget of nearly
$600 billion dollars. To put that in perspective that's nearly three
times the total GDP of the Russian Federation, equal to Canadian
GDP, and half the GDP of France.

Ahh, it's good being the economic juggernaut of the world....

[Sea Skimmer]

Canada coming up with 200 billion for its navy procurement budget, plus an easily matching amount for infrastructure would be an interesting day.

The US spends between 3% and 4% of it's GDP on defense.

Canada on the other hand, spends only 1.2% of it's GDP on defense.....

And you wonder why some units have run out of money to pay and feed there troops and artillery crews get 10 shells, for what should be two weeks of hard training. The whole CDF has about 5000 artillery shells, US stocks are in the double digit millions. 5000 shels might last through one day of combat.


Still in theory Canada could spend 400 billion on defense. Japan got up to about 60% of its GDP on its military in 1941, and Canada's GDP is around 700 billion. Now they couldn't spend all of that on procurement, and Canada's citizens would be living in heavily rationed slave like conditions while being force to give up there radiators for scrap drives.

Basically it would be funny as shit for those of us south of the boarder.

[Sea Skimmer]

Canada coming up with 200 billion for its navy procurement budget, plus an easily matching amount for infrastructure would be an interesting day.

The US spends between 3% and 4% of it's GDP on defense.

Canada on the other hand, spends only 1.2% of it's GDP on defense.....

At the height of the Cold War, America spent 6% of GDP on defense.

Today it's 3%, and the US spends close to $300 billion a year on
defense.

Double that figure and you get an annual defense budget of nearly
$600 billion dollars. To put that in perspective that's nearly three
times the total GDP of the Russian Federation, equal to Canadian
GDP, and half the GDP of France.

Ahh, it's good being the economic juggernaut of the world....

whoever your quoting is a moron or the quote is a decade old. The US defence budget for 2002 was 379 billion. I can't remember if thats with or without the extra 10 billion added on to pay for extra deployments against terrorist targets though.

[CmdrWilkens]

Politics is a vast tangle of influence and back door talks of which only some of it makes itself forward into the PR game that is the international media. What we see and hear is like the ruffling of sheets in an "R" rated movie giving us the illusion of sexual intercourse. What is going on underneath the sheets is much more involved but compeltely beyond what we think it to be. Its been the case since before the days of public outcry over Vietnam when almost every Western nation which lamblasted us was using every NATO conference to remind us how important it was for us to stay in SE Asia. What matters, at the end of the day, is whether a nation is justified in what they do. Is the US unjustified in its actions?

OK, fine. Find me some Americans on this board who give a shit about world opinion regarding the US. And not just from a Machiavellian standpoint, but who genuinely care. Anyone? I haven't heard a lot of American voices chiming in yet. Then canvas all of the talk shows. Look at the editorials in newspapers and magazines.

I have, I get the Washington Post and frankly I see a rather balanced opinion between those who think we should get world approval for PR issues and those who thjink we honestly ought to care. I'm not a fan of All News stations so i won't comment there but in talking with many of my friends (obviously a rather tiny polling group) the vast majority of them (read all) believe we need the world's support for moral reasons, who believe that if we can't convince our allies its a just war then it probably isn't. Now is this a polling of the country as a whole? Nope but its more than you're bringin up. You say canvas talk shows and newspapers but were this any other debate and I said that you would be accusing me of telling you to do the reasearch for me. That's what you are doing, you are asking me to do rsearch when you've never proved your point to begin with.

Frankly, you can complain that it's not rock-solid proven yet, but any other hypothesis (eg- that Americans in general do genuinely care about world opinion in any sense other than humouring it) is much less supportable.

I can claim that you haven't even provided a snitch of evidence yet only speculation from an anti-American position that you seem to hold with a fervor. You haven't brought ANY proof of your position to the table, I've brought some counter evidence which is miles beyond what you are doing which is making sweeping generalizations with no support.

[Darth Wong]

I can claim that you haven't even provided a snitch of evidence yet only speculation from an anti-American position that you seem to hold with a fervor. You haven't brought ANY proof of your position to the table, I've brought some counter evidence which is miles beyond what you are doing which is making sweeping generalizations with no support.

I can see that you've decided to be difficult about this, and fight it as a debate rather than discussion. OK, this board has many hundreds of American members. Almost none of them have ever expressed genuine concern over UN opinion. Unless my memory is failing, you yourself have stated that it is not a deciding factor. There are, in fact, numerous entire threads devoted to American contempt for international opinion in general and the UN in particular.

Do you believe this board's American population is such a freakishly anomalous cross-section that its attitudes could be that dissimilar from the mainstream?

[The Dark]

I can claim that you haven't even provided a snitch of evidence yet only speculation from an anti-American position that you seem to hold with a fervor. You haven't brought ANY proof of your position to the table, I've brought some counter evidence which is miles beyond what you are doing which is making sweeping generalizations with no support.

I can see that you've decided to be difficult about this, and fight it as a debate rather than discussion. OK, this board has many hundreds of American members. Almost none of them have ever expressed genuine concern over UN opinion. Unless my memory is failing, you yourself have stated that it is not a deciding factor. There are, in fact, numerous entire threads devoted to American contempt for international opinion in general and the UN in particular.

Do you believe this board's American population is such a freakishly anomalous cross-section that its attitudes could be that dissimilar from the mainstream?

Just personally, I don't consider the UN's opinion to be the same as the world's opinion, unless you believe that Hussein and his ilk really represent their people. I care very much what people from other countries think; I don't give a rat's ass what the United Nations thinks. They're a bunch of petty beauracrats who might have the collective IQ of a small zucchini, who act merely in their own self interest and don't give a shit about the world outside of their tiny corner and whatever "warm fuzzies" they might sponsor. I've got many international friends, and their opinions and feelings are ones I listen to more than my American friends, since their voices are heard less in the United States. Most of them are preaching patience; I agree that we must wait for the Iraqi documents to be completely translated. If Iraq is still in violation of Proposition 1441, then we tell the UN to go to hell and take their hypocrisy with them. It may sound Machiavellian, but the fact is that if the UN's going to keep changing the rules in the middle of the game, then we'll pick up our pieces and leave them to finish the puzzle.

[CmdrWilkens]

I can claim that you haven't even provided a snitch of evidence yet only speculation from an anti-American position that you seem to hold with a fervor. You haven't brought ANY proof of your position to the table, I've brought some counter evidence which is miles beyond what you are doing which is making sweeping generalizations with no support.

I can see that you've decided to be difficult about this, and fight it as a debate rather than discussion. OK, this board has many hundreds of American members. Almost none of them have ever expressed genuine concern over UN opinion. Unless my memory is failing, you yourself have stated that it is not a deciding factor. There are, in fact, numerous entire threads devoted to American contempt for international opinion in general and the UN in particular.

Do you believe this board's American population is such a freakishly anomalous cross-section that its attitudes could be that dissimilar from the mainstream?

Well first off I have not taken the view that world opinion should be a non-factor. In fact I am rather generally against intervention period and the distaste of other nations for it merely confirms, in my mind, that it would be a good idea.

As to this board I would look more to member's like Phong, Rob, Colin, Kelly, Zaia, Jegs, Tysroc, and such to be representative of the majority of Americans. Those who tend to mouth off (such as Mark and Enlightenment, I believe he's American) are generally representative of the extremes who talk a lot, and get a lot of press time, but generally do nto capture what the centrist average American feels and thinks.

Personally I have not canvassed this board asking the Americans present which way they lean nor could I do so basd on vauge recollection. On the matter of treating this as a debate I chose to respond to you essentially attacking Americans in general without really any basis. Is a general disparaging remark against an entire group made with no factual support not something which should be responded to? You can call it a discussion or a debate but you chose to make sweeping generalizations about Americans in general without supporting it at all and that, personally, offends me because it is, in a way, an insult to my country and to the uniform I wear in service to that country. For those reasons it is an insult to me. Now maybe that's taking it too far but I'm not sure.

[HemlockGrey]

I like to think I represent a large portion of America's population when I say that the UN only exists to give the faded nations of Europe something to bitch over.

[MKSheppard]

As to this board I would look more to member's like Phong, Rob, Colin, Kelly, Zaia, Jegs, Tysroc, and such to be representative of the majority of Americans. Those who tend to mouth off (such as Mark and Enlightenment, I believe he's American) are generally representative of the extremes who talk a lot, and get a lot of press time, but generally do nto capture what the centrist average American feels and thinks.

Yeah, right. Me, extreme?

Sounds like I would fit in more in South Carolina, where the
Attorney General went on TV and declared open season on
Carjackers and said that if you kill your carjacker, the state
of South Carolina will NOT prosecute you.

That would be viewed as extremist in New York City, but south of
the Mason-Dixon line, it's a fact of life.

America is not one single amporphous entitiy where everyone follows
the example of New York City. There are vast differences between
NYC and cities below the Mason-Dixon Line.

[0.1]

Ah, the importance of UN opinion. I personally think Wong is right, as an American, I couldn't care less about what the UN says, this is probably true for most Americans. The exception being the rare people who somehow manage to make a ton of money in the movies and expound on the fact that the world is better off if everyone just got together around a camp fire roasted some marshmellows and all sang a happy song.

But I'm going to go a step further and say, SO WHAT... a majority of Americans don't give a rats ass about the opinions of the UN. I'm guessing that a majority of the world doesn't give a rats ass about the opinin of the UN either. There are certainly ample enough reasons to justify that opinion.

The difference here is always about which country is the top dog in the power structure of the world. The one on top has to pay slightly more attention to the rest. Because it would never do to have the rest of the world against that one country, no matter how powerful. Again, lots of precedence for that.

Going back to the original position though, America should care about UN opinion only to pay it lip service like every other nation on the planet. The reason Wong can call the U.S. a schoolyard bully and be right is because the U.S. is actually the foremost power in the world and have the ability to make everyone else fall in line. Take that influence and power away, the U.S. is just another yapping dog like all the other little annoying whining nations on the planet. (and you could slap on the tricolor flag and call it any one of a dozen nations on the planet)