George Bush again

[Abadula Joshi]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Dropping an atomic bomb on Hirosima and Nagasaki, or Vietnam war -

I don't want to comment on Vietnam war 'cuz I haven't done too much research on that yet. But
for the atomic bomb issue, I 100% think Japan deserved it. How many Chinese did they kill in Nan King (?) slaughter ? 300,000 in a month. How many Asian and Chinese victims have been used by them in their chemical weapon experiment ? For this kind beast, the only way to stop them is to use atomic bomb, the bomb power should have been even stronger...

[Ritu Kama]

Actually that was a great way to stop the war(which was already on it's end). But it makes one wonder why there was a need of 2 atomic bombs.
Also the bomb should have been dropped on Germany. That would have ended the war even earlier.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ritu Kama:
Actually that was a great way to stop the war(which was already on it's end). But it makes one wonder why there was a need of 2 atomic bombs.
Also the bomb should have been dropped on Germany. That would have ended the war even earlier.

After the first bomb there was no sign from the Japanese that they planned to end the war. Fighting was still going on in SE Asia especially Java and Burma. American ships were still being attacked and sunk by Japanese subs. China and Korea were still suffering under occupation.
The bomb would probably have been used against Germany (the original intent was to use the bomb on Berlin) but the Germans surrendered 2 months before the first bomb was completed.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ritu Kama:
Actually that was a great way to stop the war(which was already on it's end). But it makes one wonder why there was a need of 2 atomic bombs.

The short answer is that the Japanese did not surrender after the first one.
There was a great docu-drama jointly produced by Canadians and the Japanese about the events that led to the dropping of the two bombs, called Hiroshima. It is mixed with actual footage and does a good job at portraying things from both the American and Japanese perspective. I highly recommend it.
Here is an interesting essay about Truman's motives for dropping the bombs: http://oror.essortment.com/presidenttruman_rywp.htm . Basically, based on estimates provided to him, Truman believed that dropping the bombs would be far less costly in terms of human lives. Of course I'm sure anyobody can find any statistics and/or links which support their way of thinking.
While it certainly could have been worse given a land invasion, that should not lessen the horror and destruction that resulted. At the time, dropping the bombs was most likely the lesser of evils given the situation and information we had, but it was terrible nonetheless.

[George Miller]

There are no innocents at war.
We must recognize that the avoiding of killing of civilians is morally mistaken.
The government of a free nation is simply the agent of its citizens, charged with one fundamental responsibility: To secure the individual rights - and very lives - of its citizens through the use of retaliatory force. An aspect of this responsibility is to uphold its citizen's right to self defense, a responsibility our government in part meets by eliminating terrorist states that threaten U.S. citizens.
If, however, in waging war our government considers the death of enemy civilians as a cost that must be weighed against the death of our own soldiers or civilians, or as a cost that must be weighed against achieving victory over the enemy, our government thereby violates its most basic function. It becomes not an agent for for our self-defense but theirs.
Morally, the U.S. government must destroy our aggressors by whatever means are necessary and minimize U.S. casualties in the process.
To be victorious in war, a free nation has to destroy enough of the aggressor to break his will to continue attacking, and then dismantle his war apparatus and replace his government. In modern warfare this almost always necessitates collateral damage, i.e. the killing of civilians.
In fact, victory with a minimum of one's own casualties may even require a free nation to deliberately target the civilians of an aggressor nation in order to cripple its economic production and/or break its will. This is what the US did in WWII when it dropped fire bombs in Dresden and Hamburg and atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These bombings were moral acts. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki precipitated Japan's surrender and so assured victory with no more American casualties. In that context, to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in a ground attack on Japan would have been morally monstrous.
But, will it be objected, is it not more monstrous to kill all of those innocent civilians?
No. The moral principle is: The responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves.
Furthermore the objection contains a mistaken assumption: It is false that every civilian in enemy territory is innocent.
Many civilians in the Mideast for example, hate us and actively support the assasination of our children.
They will continue to be held accountable for their actions.
We will win as always.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by George Miller:
...charged with one fundamental responsibility: To secure the individual rights - and very lives - of its citizens through the use of retaliatory force....
...Morally, the U.S. government must destroy our aggressors by whatever means are necessary and minimize U.S. casualties in the process.

From the perspective of the US, war is simply one tool which may be necessary to achieve national objectives or protect national interests. This is stated in several documents, but I'll direct you to Joint Publication 3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations, 10 September 2001:

War. When other instruments of national power (diplomatic, economic, and informational) are unable or inappropriate to achieve national objectives or protect national interests, the US national leadership may decide to conduct large-scale, sustained combat operations to achieve national objectives or protect national interests, placing the United States in a wartime state. In such cases, the goal is to win as quickly and with as few casualties as possible, achieving national objectives and concluding hostilities on terms favorable to the United States and its multinational partners.

If you are interested in the guiding principles of war at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels, check out Appendix A of JP 3-0. These will reflect in part the foundations of decisions at other than the national level. The Principles of War are: Objective, Offensive, Mass, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Surprise, and Simplicity. A little outside the scope of what we are talking abuot, but interesting reading anyway.

To be victorious in war, a free nation has to destroy enough of the aggressor to break his will to continue attacking, and then dismantle his war apparatus and replace his government.

Being victorious doesn't necessarily require the dismantling of the opposing government. All that is necessary is that our objectives are achieved with favorable terms.

In modern warfare this almost always necessitates collateral damage, i.e. the killing of civilians.

This is as a result of the nature of warfare and the weapons used though, not as a goal of operations.

In fact, victory with a minimum of one's own casualties may even require a free nation to deliberately target the civilians of an aggressor nation in order to cripple its economic production and/or break its will.

While this may have been true once, it no longer holds. In fact US military doctrine establishes guidelines for non-combatants. Check out JP 3-06, Doctrine for Joint Urban Operations, 16 September 2002, Chapter IV, for a set of examples.

The dense populations inherent to urban areas require that JFCs pay greater attention to the relationship between noncombatants and military operations than in other types of operation. The presence of large numbers of noncombatants will affect military operations, and military operations will affect the lives of the noncombatants. In examining those effects, the commander should keep in mind two overall objectives regarding the civilian populace: to minimize their interference with military operations, and to observe the necessary legal, moral, and humanitarian obligations toward them.

That section also touches on the additional requirements and restrictions that are levied on operational forces when noncombatants are a factor. Included amongst the restrictions are respect for the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).
LOAC is the guiding principle whenever lethal force is brought to bare. Rules of Engagement (ROE) are drawn up specifically with LOAC in mind. Ignoring LOAC will lead to war crime trials for those responsible. So what I'm saying is, it isn't simply "destroy the enemy by any means". In fact all that is required is that we persuade the enemy, although that often isn't accomplished until after much death has taken place.

Many civilians in the Mideast for example, hate us and actively support the assasination of our children.

While this is true, it does not make them legitimate targets for military force any more than our civillians are legitimate targets because we support Israel.

[George Miller]

Jason:
You must be a JAG. Or at least a military lawyer. -Joke, maybe!- And whether you are or not, you have my utmost respect.
But
And you know a BUT was coming:
What you quoted as the standard of engagement I and many others believe me, who are in the business, are against. I think that type of thinking will take us to our doom. We might as well surrender now.
That philosophy runs counter to the philosophy of our enemies which is KILL THEM ALL -us Americans-, even if those killed are children walking in or out of a non-sectarian school in the US.



We have to KILL those people. Our lives are more important by definition, than theirs.
I sincerely hope that our government STOPS trying to be so civilized and starts showing really what the military might of the USA is, instead of this pussyfooted treatment of murderous criminals that will kill our children if we don't show them the consequences.
Please forgive me this aside for those who don't KNOW that we are the most civilized country in the World in spite of Sept. 11: We know who the assassins were -mostly from Saudi Arabia but - we also know where they parents live, where their uncles live, where their grandparents live.
AND EVEN SO WE HAVE NOT KILLED THEM.
That means that we HAVE to be the most civilized country in the world.
Stalin would have killed them.
Pol Pot would have killed them.
Ho Chi Min would have killed them.
Castro would have killed them.
Hitler would have killed them.
Mussolini would have killed them.
WE SHOULD HAVE KILLED THEM but we didn't because we are the United States of America.
I personally vote to KILL THEM ALL. But that's just me.
We will not be able to defeat terrorism with that many "rules of engagement".
As for civilians read my previous post.
We are fighting a new kind of war as stated by our Commander In Chief. And we will prevail.
God Bless Goodness!
Thanks for your erudite reply.

[Mapraputa Is]

Similarly, why get offended if somebody got the sense from one of your posts that you might have such a bias, and then made a reference to this apparent bias?
All depends on context. Do you mean "fascism" thread? I do not remember other references to my bias. I was mad because if Tom formulated his umbrage at portraiting Americans as self-confident as "It comes from kicking ass in a couple of world wars. If destroying communism around the world was a breeze then what's the big deal about coding some program" - I wouldn't say a word as I almost never do. This was precisely his including fascism that pissed me off, so when he implied that I had some other motivation... Well, I guess I had to suck my thumb and listen what I was told, as Balaji recommended
But put it this way, if I was displaynig what you saw as anti-Russian tendencies, and you pointed it out to me that you saw it that way, would I be in the best position to say that I didn't see it as "anti-Russian"?
Not sure what all the subtleties of "in the best position" are, but surely you could say that you don't see it as "anti-Russian", if you still do not. I would expect you (or anybody else for that matter) to think about your words carefully and try to understand what could be perceived as anti-Russian, but if after going through all the procedures you still disagree, you should say so. For example, you could say that you think what Russia does to Chechens is wrong, and I could accuse you in anti-Russian tendencies (well, based on a definition similar to AHD's of anti-Americanism as "opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the USA). You probably wouldn't agree and point out that simply criticizing certain actions cannot constitute "anti-Russian" tendency.
Speaking of "anti-Russian" (or rather anti-USSR) tendencies. I did not want to contribute to anti-American tendencies, but if you mention it... See -- it's all your fault.
Tom: The Russian people suffered severely to win WWII. However, WWII might never have happened if Stalin hadn't signed the non-aggression treaty with Hitler in the first place. As the saying goes, he who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind.
After which I quoted American source that only confirmed the Soviet version of those events: that Stalin asked Britain and France to sign anti-Hitler coalition and was refused. Then there was Munich Conference where Britain and France signed a deal with Hitler, where Stalin wasn't (naturally) invited. After that Stalin asks for coalition again and again there is "no". Thomas Paul, do not you think that it would make more sense to say that if Britain and France signed an agreement with Stalin, rather than with Hitler, then WWII might never have happened??
I do see certain bias here.
There is a huge difference. The US never supported the Taliban. They never gave a penny of aid to the taliban. The US was helping a people achieve their independence from the USSR. There was no secret agrement to carve up India after Afghanistan won. The US did not turn their back on any allies by helping the Afghanis as the Soviets did when they helped the Germans.
"turn their back on any allies" - did not "allies" turn their back first? Or there is a huge difference too? "the Soviets did when they helped the Germans" - this was mutual help. The Soviets gave German row material, and German gave the USSR industrial production, since the USSR's industry was less developed at that time. Looking at the consequences, it was a good deal, no? :roll: Why to show only a half of picture?
-----------------
"Correct me"
G Vanin
[ December 27, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Mapraputa Is]

And to complete my list of anti-American tendencies:
Rufus BugleWeed wrote: I think the appeasers get some bad publicity, but they are not really held responsible for Hitler's actions. This responsibilty belongs to Hitler and the German people. Many Americans have disassociated themselves from their German heritage due to this legacy.
Isn't such disassociation an example of "holier than thau" attitude? It is understandable as a first reaction, but it isn't too deep thinking, IMHO. Here is a description of some enlightening experiment.

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: And regarding your other post highlighting various threads, I have been through them as well. Keep in mind that it is well known that certain posters used certain other logins or anonymous pseudonyms back then, and we know who was who.
Unless you can read IPs this is unreliable source of information. (And even IPs aren't totally reliable, I was once accused in making an anonymous post only because its author used the same provider, so our IPs were very close). Then, I myself once attributed to you some rather arrogant post, which was made by somebody else, as it turned out when I decided to check my memory. What I am trying to get at, there is a certain expectation of anti-American tendencies and our (anti-Americans ) posts are read through this expectation = often read worse that they were intended. Cannot we do something about it?
Just for clarification:
Thomas post:

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
what do u call what America did it in vietnam and in Iraq freedom fight?

I'm not sure what the comparison is between Vietnam and Iraq...
In case it is not just technical problem with UBB "quote" feature, this question is not mine, I was quoting Sameer Jamal (and wasn't very good at it)
[ December 27, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by George Miller:
There are no innocents at war.
We must recognize that the avoiding of killing of civilians is morally mistaken.

I've never heard anything like this even from communists.
There is a Soviet monument in Treptow park in Berlin, a soldier with a little German girl he saved. You can call communists hypocrites, but it was a real case, and for some reasons communistic propaganda pictured this as a norm of human behavior, not "kill them all". And please, keep in mind that by 1945 fascists did to the USSR a little more than destroying two buildings with subsequent dancing on the streets.
You people need to grow up.
[ December 27, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[R K Singh]

So what is the problem if some other country also wants to have Nuke ?? After all it has so many advantages.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Thomas Paul, do not you think that it would make more sense to say that if Britain and France signed an agreement with Stalin, rather than with Hitler, then WWII might never have happened??

And if Stalin hadn't been a mass murderer, the allies may have been more likely to trust him. How far do you want to take this? The fact is that in 1939, Stalin had no fear of Germany invading him because they had to go trhough Poland and Poland had a treaty with France and Britian. Stalin saw the opportunity to take back Poland and the Baltic states back into the USSR. He also thought he saw in Hitler a man like himself who was ruthless and cutthroat enough to rule the world. Why do you think the USSR was caught so unready in 1941? It was because Stalin refused to believe that he would be attacked by his buddy, Adolph.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
You people need to grow up.

Who is "you people"? I disagreed with him and said as much. I do not think civillians should be targetted in any instance, as long as they do not undertake any action which would negate their non-combatant status. I particularly think targetting civillians as a means to break the will of the enemy is beyond repugnant. This is what makes al-Quaeda, Hezzbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the like particularly evil, so there is no way I would support these kind of tactics by a civilized nation's military.
[ December 28, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Abadula Joshi]

Originally posted by George Miller:
Jason:
You must be a JAG. Or at least a military lawyer. -Joke, maybe!- And whether you are or not, you have my utmost respect.
But
And you know a BUT was coming:
What you quoted as the standard of engagement I and many others believe me, who are in the business, are against. I think that type of thinking will take us to our doom. We might as well surrender now.
That philosophy runs counter to the philosophy of our enemies which is KILL THEM ALL -us Americans-, even if those killed are children walking in or out of a non-sectarian school in the US.
We have to KILL those people. Our lives are more important by definition, than theirs.
I sincerely hope that our government STOPS trying to be so civilized and starts showing really what the military might of the USA is, instead of this pussyfooted treatment of murderous criminals that will kill our children if we don't show them the consequences.
Please forgive me this aside for those who don't KNOW that we are the most civilized country in the World in spite of Sept. 11: We know who the assassins were -mostly from Saudi Arabia but - we also know where they parents live, where their uncles live, where their grandparents live.
AND EVEN SO WE HAVE NOT KILLED THEM.
That means that we HAVE to be the most civilized country in the world.
Stalin would have killed them.
Pol Pot would have killed them.
Ho Chi Min would have killed them.
Castro would have killed them.
Hitler would have killed them.
Mussolini would have killed them.
WE SHOULD HAVE KILLED THEM but we didn't because we are the United States of America.
I personally vote to KILL THEM ALL. But that's just me.
We will not be able to defeat terrorism with that many "rules of engagement".
As for civilians read my previous post.
We are fighting a new kind of war as stated by our Commander In Chief. And we will prevail.
God Bless Goodness!
Thanks for your erudite reply.

You must be insane. Tell us how to "Kill them ALL" ?

[Abadula Joshi]

Posted by Miller --
Stalin would have killed them.
Pol Pot would have killed them.
Ho Chi Min would have killed them.
Castro would have killed them.
Hitler would have killed them.
Mussolini would have killed them.
WE SHOULD HAVE KILLED THEM but we didn't because we are the United States of America.
I personally vote to KILL THEM ALL. But that's just me.

I 100% agree on what USA is doing now to fight against terrorism. But I don't think I can buy your extremist idea. I guess-- if you were born in Germany 80 years ago, you might be a Nazi.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Who is "you people"?

Sorry for "you people". I should have been more precise.

[Younes Essouabni]

We may make Bush say what we wants!
For non sensible pro-Bush, here is my sentence.
From Bush mouth:" Ladies and Gentlemen, we've accomplished much raging disease. Above all, afghanistan and beyond Iraq must never again fear my country. We created persistant poverty, side by side, shared by all without freedom. Saddam Hussein defended on a massive scale peace and justice. America stands commited to further destruction, deceitful dictators including my own government"

This does not reflect my ideas, just made for fun
[ December 28, 2002: Message edited by: Younes Essouabni ]

[Lalooprasad Yadav]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I read the whole message, and posted it. So his prejudices are our fault? Such a statement is similar to saying "I liked black people until I actually met one".

So you think I have never seen a live American before ? . Reports of Laloo sighting a live American are given as much credibility as UFO sightings in the Mexican desert. Why do you think this is an impossibility ?
As for your theories about Indians being US haters. What is the motivation for this alleged hatred ? Oh! yes, I remember envy. So what kind of envy is it ? Is it some kind of national envy based on GDP , per capita income etc ? If so, countries like Japan , Luxembourg , Denmark , Singapore are also possible candidates for hatred.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Yes, envy and an inferiority complex can have that effect sometimes.

This seems to imply personal envy. I don't know about the others, for me, a bigger bank balance is not sufficient grounds for hatred. If that were the case, why should you give me a bigger inferiority complex than Masayashi Son (Japan), Thomas Hoffa (Germany) or the Sultan of Brunei ? They have more money in the bank than you do Jason.

My attitide towards the US isn't significantly different from my attitude to most other countries of the world. Korea (both north and south) is a notable exception. Their duck rights record is appalling.

You mentioned the use of multiple identities. When the message content makes no conscious effort to mask the real identity of the poster, it can hardly be called wearing of disguises. That is mostly done for comic effect (I know most people dont find it funny, but it amuses me, that is a good enough reason). As for the "history polishing", I was probably reacting to something, nevertheless in hindsight those comments seem insensitive at best , hence they have been purged.

P.S.
You seem to have some weird ideas about the lifestyle of those who live outiside the US. This gives me an idea for a new thread . Coming soon : The story of Mowgli Prasad Yadav , Baloo Yoginathan , Colonel R.K. Haathi and miscellaneous fauna
[ December 28, 2002: Message edited by: Lalooprasad Yadav ]

[Mapraputa Is]

The fact is that in 1939, Stalin had no fear of Germany invading him because they had to go trhough Poland and Poland had a treaty with France and Britian.
Ok, in 1939 Stalin had no fear of Germany. Then he must have asked Chamberlain for anti-Hitler coalition because he liked Chamberlain a lot.
<subsequent poisoned comments deleted>
How far do you want to take this?
I am trying to explain that your views of other countries history are about as simplified and biased as "a list of American atrocities". Well, Ok, not that much biased and simplified, I am trying to say that if somebody criticize you it's often because they see things differently, not because they hate you.
---------------
"But be that as it may, particularly in the spirit of the season, I will decline from commenting further and just leave it at that."
Jason Menard
[ December 28, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Lalooprasad Yadav:
So you think I have never seen a live American before ?

No, I have no idea whether or not you have.

As for your theories about Indians being US haters.

I don't hold any such theories about Indians. I have however commented on the apparent attitudes of some individuals here, who may or may not happen to be from India. I don't even always know (or care) what country a poster is from unless they happen to tell me.

You seem to have some weird ideas about the lifestyle of those who live outiside the US.

I do? I have lived and travelled outside of the US extensively, so I'm probably not as sheltered as you might like to think.
As for the rest, I'm not going to bother to argue a thread that's a year old. If you had a point to make, you should have made it then. I mean really, does it take you a year to try to formulate a counter-argument?

[Mapraputa Is]

I just read Hitler's complains about Poland in Russian translation, which looked so similar to our Soviet complains about Western countries unfaithfullness, and yesterday I read Poland's compains about all other contries treason to Poland (in English). I guess, there never will be any agreement regarding who betrayed whom. Maybe we should try to forget all old betrayals and start the history form a blank list once again.
[ December 29, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Thomas Paul]

The main reason that the allies wouldn't sign a treaty with russia was because Poland didn't trust the USSR. As it proved out, Poland had every reason not to trust the USSR. The leaders of Poland were quite convinced that if Soviet troops ever entered Poland to "help Poland defend hereself" that they would never leave. Of course, they did leave... 50 years later.

[San Su]

Back from the great holiday I ever had...
First I was branded as Anti-Chiristian for trying to defend my country and my people from an "anti-Indian", now I am branded as Anti-American for not agreeing with some(one?) american's POV? :roll: Well... who cares.. Let me also suck my thumb and listen to what this intelligent gentleman says...

[Mapraputa Is]

Actually, I was looking for "Solaris" book, I knew I can rely on rusnet to read it... :roll: and among other new submissions to the online library I found Hitler's speeches. I was curious how much Nazis propaganda was different from communistic. I would say it is more artistic and emotional, communistic was impersonal and totally unmoving. But this must be because I was exposed only to late species of genre, when communists themselves were bored to death to repeat the same canonical phrases for some 60 years. Early communism was romantic, late was cynical.
Speaking about Solaris, I enjoyed this insultful discussion a lot. Is there some special culture of insult in the USA? How can people be so good at it?
-----------------------
"Good writing should flow unstoppably from the gut like diarrhea."
MANIFESTO

[gautham kasinath]

hhmm
I wonder why "Bilateral talk" doesnt come to your minds to solve your problems.. but pops up when there is some one else having some problems back home??( Ref. India - Pak tension )
What the heck.. dont tell me all the wars that only US fights are justified and the rest are not..
Regds
Lupo

[R K Singh]

sucking my thumb and not listening old, 100 times repeated talk.
Happy New Year and live in peace.
May God give you peace of mind.
Amen ..

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by gautham kasinath:
What the heck.. dont tell me all the wars that only US fights are justified and the rest are not..

Which wars are you talking about? I can think of three we fought in the last 40 years. Most of the time we engage in bilateral talks in the hopes of avoiding war.

[Mani Ram]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Which wars are you talking about? I can think of three we fought in the last 40 years. Most of the time we engage in bilateral talks in the hopes of avoiding war.

Lets take the Gulf War.
Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2nd and the US strikes on January 17th.
So, for 5 and a half months you tried and decided that bilateral talks are not going to work and war is the only solution left out.
CLAP CLAP CLAP.
And you tell other countries to solve their issues without war, even though those countries have talked for years and years!
Personally, I too feel war is a bad option. But when you tell that, it is like a cannibal preaching against non-vegetarianism!

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Is there some special culture of insult in the USA? How can people be so good at it?

Years of practice.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by R Manivannan:
Lets take the Gulf War.
Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2nd and the US strikes on January 17th.
So, for 5 and a half months you tried and decided that bilateral talks are not going to work and war is the only solution left out.
CLAP CLAP CLAP.

And what would you have suggested? Do you think 1 years of negotiation might have convinced Sadaam to leave Kuwait? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? So what is the appropriate waiting time to respond when one country invades another before anyone should respond militarily?

[Mani Ram]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
And what would you have suggested? Do you think 1 years of negotiation might have convinced Sadaam to leave Kuwait? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? So what is the appropriate waiting time to respond when one country invades another before anyone should respond militarily?

I can't give any suggestions and I won't.
And that's exactly I'm telling you. You can't give any suggestions on issues between other countries. So better stay away from that.
You decided when to respond and let others decide when they should.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by R Manivannan:
I can't give any suggestions and I won't.
And that's exactly I'm telling you. You can't give any suggestions on issues between other countries. So better stay away from that.
You decided when to respond and let others decide when they should.

Don't you think other countries should try to help countries reach peaceful conclusions to their disputes?
In the Gulf War, the US did not reach a conclusion unilaterally. It was the UN that gave the US the date for the war to start.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
In the Gulf War, the US did not reach a conclusion unilaterally. It was the UN that gave the US the date for the war to start.

Let's not start bringing facts into this. Jeesh. :roll:
Seriously, if it were up to some, the Iraqis would still be in Kuwait, the Serbs would have slaughtered all of the Muslims in Bosnia and the Albanians in Kosovo, the Taliban would still be in control in Afghanistan, and probably Germany would still own a decent portion of Europe.
Some fail to appreciate the fact that the only language some regimes speak is violence, and that the only thing they respect is strength. When you have regimes such as those, there is a finite limit to the amount of actual good that diplomacy without the threat of force can achieve.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Speaking about Solaris, I enjoyed this insultful discussion a lot. Is there some special culture of insult in the USA? How can people be so good at it?

Read this some hours ago. Still impressed.
For better intercultural competence we could introduce national discussion days.
Russian discussion days would be like that:
You must be 15. With this little brain nobody can make it until the age of 16.
German discussion days would be like that:
yes... but ... on the other hand.
American discussion days would be like that:
Well. With your brainwashed, stereotyped thinking you just are not able to get it.
British discussion days would be really polite.
Pakistan discussion days would be all in certification forum
Indian discussion days would be a lot about national souvereignity, cricket and strange hindu religion nobody understands.

[R K Singh]

strange Hindu religion nobody understands.

[gautham kasinath]

Originally posted by gautham kasinath:
[QB]
hhmm no comments.. but I m forced to agree.
Lupo

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The main reason that the allies wouldn't sign a treaty with russia was because Poland didn't trust the USSR.

It's Russia, not russia.
(Kidding!)
We had a nice fight on Christmas night, and we aren't going to sleep New Year eve either, I am sure.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Seriously, if it were up to some, the Iraqis would still be in Kuwait, the Serbs would have slaughtered all of the Muslims in Bosnia and the Albanians in Kosovo, the Taliban would still be in control in Afghanistan, and probably Germany would still own a decent portion of Europe.

Jason, what do you mean by "probably Germany would still own a decent portion of Europe"? Could you elaborate on this?
Regarding your other statements, as much as I hate to see people killing each other, it seems to me that other countries cannot have their own history any more. It's the USA who decides their way of development. Please, do not read this statement as anti-American, since I have very controversial feelings about this. It's like if some SuperPower bombed you some time ago and explained that you deserved it for your bad treatment of black people. And if they kicked out your government, and brought to power one that supports equal rights for all people etc. Would you really like it?
On the other hand, watching people who kill each other and saying "it's not my business" isn't a good option for me either. Do you have a solution? Do you really feel that you (Americans) are right and you have rights (no pun intended) to "correct" history?
---------------------
Hey this is meaningless drivel. We THRIVE on such excitement. Peace is BORING.
Rahul Rathore

[R K Singh]

Strange, Hindu religion nobody understands.

[forgot to put smiley]
[ December 31, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Jason, what do you mean by "probably Germany would still own a decent portion of Europe"? Could you elaborate on this?

Without US involvement in the European theater (both in terms of military forces and supplies) during WW2, it is likely that Russia and Germany would have fought each other to some kind of stalemate, each maintaining their own territorial integrity, but leaving much of the rest of Europe divided between the Germans and the Russians.

Regarding your other statements, as much as I hate to see people killing each other, it seems to me that other countries cannot have their own history any more.

So you are saying that you support the right for people to kill each other without interference from concerned third parties? That in fact this interference alters the natural course of history? Surely you are joking.

It's the USA who decides their way of development.

Not at all. What happens is that in most cases we only get involved in situations which are of concern to our own interests. The only recent example that I can think of where we may not have had any direct interests is Somalia. Unless I'm mistaken, that was purely humanitarian. To even hint that this situation is unique to the US is far removed from reality. If you recall, it was the USSR that determined the post-WW2 development for most of Eastern Europe, as one example.

It's like if some SuperPower bombed you some time ago and explained that you deserved it for your bad treatment of black people.

What is like this? I can't think of any events that remotely parallel this example? Do you have any specifics?

And if they kicked out your government, and brought to power one that supports equal rights for all people etc. Would you really like it?

If I was a racist, I probably wouldn't. My not liking it would not stop it from being the right course of action though.

On the other hand, watching people who kill each other and saying "it's not my business" isn't a good option for me either. Do you have a solution?

The solution is for the strong nations to stand united. Appeasement and looking the other way is usually far worse than direct involvement.

Do you really feel that you (Americans) are right and you have rights (no pun intended) to "correct" history?

If you are trying to say that the natural course of history is for unchecked killing on a large scale, then yes. However I would disagree that this is the natural course of history and that outside interference into these conflicts is "correcting" how things should turn out. May I ask whether or not Soviet subjugation left as bad a taste in your mouth as Western liberation seems to have?
[ December 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]