Who's real threat to world peace?

[Karine]

Who's real threat to world peace?

(LIU WEITAO)

07/05/2001

 

The Pentagon last week unveiled the US 2002 defence budget, which required an increase of US$32.6 billion on the year 2001, the biggest growth since the military build-up of the mid-1980s under President Ronald Reagan.

If approved, US military expenditure would rise to US$328.9 billion, a record high in post-Cold War years. The figure would equal the combined spending of seven other major powers - Russia, Japan, France, Germany, Britain, China and India.

 

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld himself explained that such an increase is the result of Washington's overextended battle line in recent years, which has caused a capital shortage in many aspects.

 

Nowadays, the military presence of the United States is almost everywhere - in the Persian Gulf, in the Balkans and in East Asia.

 

The United States, the sole superpower left, is more active than ever in flexing its military muscle - pushing NATO's eastward expansion, building the New US-Japan Defence Co-operation Guidelines and advocating the National Missile Defence programme and the Theatre Missile Defence system.

 

The United States is doing all of this for just one purpose - to ensure a unipolar world dominated by itself.

 

And that is only part of the story.

 

Besides reinforcing its military presence in the world, Washington has never relaxed its efforts to brainwash other countries.

 

Uncle Sam repeatedly portrays itself as the heavyweight champion of human rights, trying to sell its values, democracy and social system to other countries.

 

When meeting resistance, it either adopts an iron fist - using military threats or intervention or supporting political opposition forces - or uses softer means like financial aid to realize its purposes.

 

Such tactics are clearly demonstrated in the Iraqi and Yugoslav cases.

 

Uncle Sam also has other handy gimmicks like the "congagement" (containment and engagement) strategy, an uncontrolled arms race, labelling others as "rogue countries," or the "X threat" theory, etc.

 

In today's world, hotspots have emerged one after another. War, conflict and confrontation still plague millions of people. The arms race is getting worse and behind it is the shadow of Uncle Sam.

 

So who is the real threat to world peace? Who is creating so much fear and instability? The answer is quite clear.

[MJ]

Karine,

 

10 years ago the world was a bipolar system. As far as the nuclear armory is concerned, it still remains so. In the last 8 years, the US government has not reformed its system to adjust its military doctrine to new realities. Current administration has undertaken the task of reforming the US military, and redesigning its military doctrine for the new realities.

 

Additionally, the current administration has pledged to unilaterally and substantially cut its nuclear arsenal. This process is underway.

 

In most of the areas the budget has been cut. More money has been allocated to raise the salaries of the personnel, to improve their living conditions, etc. I don’t have the details of where has the military budget shrank and where has it been increased. This issue is a subject of intense analysis and discussions, currently. The real priorities of this administration will be reflected perhaps in the next year’s budget.

 

The US military is the most high-tech military in the world. Therefore, its expenditures are also high.

 

The US military is not present anywhere without mutual agreement. It doesn’t occupy any countries. An exception is Yugoslavia. The US Congress was very much opposed to the introduction of forces to Yugoslavia. The President of the time made clear that he was going to introduce them anyway. However, the US Army was introduced to Yugoslavia upon the strong insistence from the European countries. The powerful voices of the US Congress were claiming at the time that Kosovo is European affair, and the Europeans should take care of it. However it didn’t happen. The current administration has expressed willingness to pull out the US forces from the region many times. The primary opponents of the pullout have been the European countries. As far as the Persian Golf is concerned, US has perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars investments in that region, and it has obligation to protect them from potential expropriation. Additionally, the US troops are stationed in countries of Persian Golf, which have voluntarily welcomed it. The same concerns Asia.

 

I have noticed that in general the anti-Americanism is not based on rational thinking and arguments. It is rather based on envy, jealousy and hypocrisy.

 

There are things in the American policy that I disagree with. But overall, America is a very dignified country, it is a positive force in the world affairs, and it is indeed a champion of Human Rights. It provides financial assistance to a great number of nations, and it is very insincere to claim that it does so out of considerations to import its values. American values penetrate all countries without an extra and sinister effort from the American side. It has been the case with the Soviet Union with an Iron Curtain, and it is the case even with Iraq.

 

To cover their own failures, people always need somebody else to blame for it. It is not different with the states. The anti-American hysteria is growing especially in Europe. It was not like this while the USSR was around. Now Europe feels that it doesn’t need America, and it wants to compete with it. That’s fine. This world is built on competition. But the Europeans try to justify their inability to compete (perhaps due to their socialistic political system) by the American “expansionism.” It makes me feel that the well known “phantom” has not left Europe, yet.

[Karine]

Why have US troops been stationed in Countries of say, the persian Golf? Becuase they want to protect the people who live there? I dont think so!

Same concerns ASIA:

 

What happened in Vietnam? Why did they destroy Vietnam? What buissness did they have there? What buissneess do they have anywhere? In Afhganistan? Putting the talibans in power. They can easily bomb Irak. Why, because they want to protect Israel. From who? Saddam Hussein?!

 

 

WHat would the moral diffrents been with Irak bombing Israel and US bombing Irak??

 

US destroyed nuclear stations in Irak, few years ago. Because they believed it was a threat to Israel. That was their excause.

But its OK for israel to have nuclear weapons? Not to menation US.

 

It's well known, America is a coutry with power, who likes to remain in power, not only in their country.

 

The people in Irak is also people. The sanctions agais Irak by the US is an obvious crime agains humanity.

 

Isk Euvropan ira yughov tapakvi

[THOTH]

MJ - just read your July 7 post - very well said (I am in 100% agreement)

 

Karine - sure some of what you say is true - but it is really not so simple. I cannot think you could beleive that USA is in fact a greater villan (to Iraq & the rest of the world) than Sadddam (be real). Why did Saddam bomb Israel one may ask? And why did the US bomb Iraq? Sure US was defending oil supplies...don't you think they should be defended? Are you interested in seeing the collapse of the world economy anytime soon? Talk about suffering...etc Think about it...

[Karine]

Thoth,

 

When exacly did Irak bomb Israel?

[THOTH]

Karine -

 

Iraq fired SCUDs against Tel Aviv - strictly civilian terror target. Israel was not involved in Gulf War. (and was kept out after the strikes by extreme US pressure)

[MJ]

Dear Karine,

 

Just some quick replies:

 

Why have US troops been stationed in Countries of say, the persian Golf? Becuase they want to protect the people who live there?

 

America is not world’s police, or at least it shouldn’t be. The US troops are in the Golf to protect the US investments. I think it is a legitimate cause, as long as the investments are made on the basis of mutual consent. Additionally, none of the countries of the Persian Golf were the US troops are present have complained so far about their presence, and in fact, they are strongly for a continuing US presence on their soil. The same concerns Asian countries.

 

What happened in Vietnam? Why did they destroy Vietnam? What buissness did they have there? What buissneess do they have anywhere? In Afhganistan? Putting the talibans in power.

 

Many Americans feel strongly against the US involvement in Vietnam. But the fairness requires to admit that US didn’t get involved in Vietnam (as well as in Afghanistan) on a unilateral basis. It got involved to balance/prevent the expansionism of the USSR. In some ways, if they had not resisted the USSR worldwide, we would’ve lived under communism, now.

 

They can easily bomb Irak. Why, because they want to protect Israel. From who? Saddam Hussein?!

 

As Thoth has already said, the bombing of Iraq had not much to do with Israel. Additionally, it was not the US bombing Iraq, but NATO almost all Arab countries. Sure, the US was the strongest executer of the will of NATO and the Arab nations.

 

WHat would the moral diffrents been with Irak bombing Israel and US bombing Irak??

 

Israel has not threatened Iraq, the Iraqi property, civilians, investments, and has not questioned Iraq’s right to exist. Obviously, Israel is not interested in a hostile environment. It is more that interested in peace in the region, but such peace that guarantees its security. Israel has not been the aggressor against Iraq, or the Arab world.

 

US destroyed nuclear stations in Irak, few years ago. Because they believed it was a threat to Israel.

 

I don’t think this information is correct. I think NATO has bombed some research facilities. I think for the sake of the truth and common sense, we should leave Israel out of this.

 

But its OK for israel to have nuclear weapons? Not to mention US.

 

Perhaps it is not OK that Israel has nuclear weapons, as much is it is not OK that India, Pakistan, North Korea do have them. The world superpowers are trying to reduce , and if possible eliminate the nuclear weaponry. Nuclear weapons are not toys. Sure, one wouldn’t like to see them in the hands of dictators who have used chemical weapons against the civilians of their own nations (Saddam against the Kurds).

 

It's well known, America is a country with power, who likes to remain in power, not only in their country.

 

Sure. Last time it didn’t have power, the tiny Japan slaughtered Americans in Pearl Harbor. Who doesn’t want to be powerful, or who would do hara-kiri to reduce its existing power? Why? Any evidence that America is striving for power in Australia, for example?

 

The people in Irak is also people. The sanctions agais Irak by the US is an obvious crime against humanity.

 

I am not sure if they are crime against humanity, but I find the sanctions of this scale to be wrong, and many Americans, including those in at power think the same way. But as a matter of “realpolitics” it is always easier to introduce sanctions/forces than to lift them up (to remove them). Let’s see what happens when the current administration get’s its hands around it. BTW, the current State Secretary of the US, as the Joint Chief of Staff, has been vociferously opposed to use force against Iraq during the Golf War.

 

Isk Euvropan ira yughov tapakvi

 

Amen!

 

To summarize, Karine, I think there are a lot of things that the US has done, and perhaps still does which were/are wrong. However, given its might and power, in the big picture of things, in the broader historic context, the US is the world's guarantor of democracy, Human Rights, peace and security on the earth. Sure, with such power comes also some arrogance. But it is not as bad as it could've been, and so far, it has not produce such negative results as one might’ve expected from such power.

[bellthecat]

Such blindness, and such complacency.

MJ - you are right when you notice the worlds increasing hostility against America, but can't seem to grasp the fact that it is America's actions that are causing that hostility. Increasingly to us, America seems like an intellectual backwater, brim full of dangerous political rednecks. And every new pronouncement by Bush only reinforces that view.

Steve

[MJ]

Steve,

 

When it comes to America and Bush, I don't feel that your arguments are based on sound judgments, but rather on emotions. And I haven't gotten to the bottom of your emotions, yet, i.e. what’s driving you in these matters.

 

So that to make this discussion substantive, let's develop it this way. You advance your concrete allegation, trying to cut down the mere declarations to minimum (better eliminate) and I will try to articulate the reasons behind my position based on your allegations.

[Boghos]

Steve,

I think this type of opinion just reflects your utter ignorance of the very dynamic intellectual life in the US. Of course most small town middle class America tends to be conservative and a tad ignorant. As much as your middle class Brit or German, maybe they are a bit more literate when it comes to world news but that´s just a reflection of a different history and a better educational background.

Now, dismissing the whole country is plain stupid. Having studied in Canada and the United States, and having had the chance to attend conferences, visit and interact with people from leading European universities and independent research centers your statement sounds preposterous to say the least. It is so typical of the inferiority complex that Europeans have when confronted with America.

I confess I am not a big fan of the McDonald´s culture that is indeed pervasive, but there are so many nuclei of intellectual life in America with so many diverse and interesting opinions that your statement just sounds ridiculous.

It seems to me that you are a very well educated person with very strong opinions. And besides you seem to have not only a deep knowledge of some aspects of Armenian culture but a keen interest in many others. Just relax a bit, you seem to be under some sort of stress.

[bellthecat]

MJ - how can you request arguments based on sound judgments rather than emotions, yet only a moment earlier casually dismiss the rest of the world's concern's over America as just down to "envy, jealousy and hypocrisy"!

 

I am not going to voice all my concerns about the current internal and external policies of America - I'd be here all day! But, MJ, just look at ANY newsgroup, read ANY foreign newspaper, listen to ANY foreign radio station, and you will find without difficulty an endless list of legitimate examples of the world's current hostility to America - or rather, to be accurate, of AMERICA'S HOSTILITY TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.

 

Of course there is plenty knee-jerk anti-Americanisim in the world. But that is different from opposition arising from legitimate reasons, and the "knee-jerking" comes about mainly because America has being going around the world for the past 50 years metaphorically (and sometimes in reality) stomping on people. You reap what you sow.

 

Boghos - I was not "dismissing the whole country". My exact words were "increasingly to us, America seems like..." And as for America's intellectual life, again I did not and am not denying it exists - but it seems to have reteated into itself and makes no opposition to state or national policies that in Europe would be untainable.

 

Steve

[bellthecat]

That should read "retreated into itself"

[MJ]

Steve,

 

This is characteristic of what I have been puzzled about. For months you come up with unjustified declarations about America, and the very moment one requests that you bring some rational arguments, you refer one to some newsgroups. It is not a good way of conducting conversation/discussion. It reiterates only my previous point that your attitude towards America is not based on rationality.

 

You don't need to spend a whole day on articulating your arguments. Just give three major arguments in bullet points, please.

[MJ]

No, Steve. First of all, I don't believe that you, alone or with an army, could give a right reason.

 

I am just saying that when we make strong statements the way you do (frequently), we should be prepared to provide adequate arguments, but not refer to some (unknown) newsgroups. Additionally, I may very well disagree what the newsgroups have to say. It is not the first time that I would associate with the Europeans or the Middle Easterners, and I think I know pretty well what they may say. However, as a rule, I they fail to say something fair or substantiated.

 

As to the US being seen as pariah, it may be more indicative of those who have this opinion, rather than the US, while I am far from assuming that the US is an angle state. I just try to see basic common sense and fairness.

[bellthecat]

MJ - so you are saying that if I, and I alone, give you the right reasons you will be out on the street chanting that America is the "Great Satan" I don't think so!

 

I was advising you to consult newsgroups, foreign newspaper, foreign radio stations to reveal to you what the world (and not just me) is saying and thinking about America today. And after doing that, I would hope you would be very worried that America is rapidly becoming seen as the world's leading pariah state. There is nothing more I can say, except don't attack the bearer of bad news, attack the cause of it.

[bellthecat]

All I can say is that in the next few years America, and Americans, are in for a very rude awakening.

 

Steve

[Boghos]

If this a reference to the likely beginning of a much harsher economic environment in the US, I agree.

 

Or is it something else ?

[THOTH]

Boghos/Steve -

 

perhaps you are both correct (I am interested in your reasons for saying such however). Obviously though - if the US economy gets hit - so does that of the rest of the world. The following article and editorial speak to the interconnectivities of the global economy (with that of the US) and some early signs of trouble.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2001Jul17.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2001Jul17.html

 

I for one think that we have been riding high due to reletively stable (not rising) energy prices and the influx of cheap goods from China (and to some extent the rest of Asia)...can we still expect both (perhaps)...obviously if either of these conditions is impacted inflation will again take off. And of course there are other fragilities...otherwise I don't see why the "awakening" will necessarily be so "rude" (for the average American)...but, of course, one can never know the future...

[Mike77]

Some comments regarding Thoth's post:

MJ - just read your July 7 post - very well said (I am in 100% agreement)

Karine - sure some of what you say is true - but it is really not so simple. I cannot think you could beleive that USA is in fact a greater villan (to Iraq & the rest of the world) than Sadddam (be real). Why did Saddam bomb Israel one may ask? And why did the US bomb Iraq? Sure US was defending oil supplies...don't you think they should be defended? Are you interested in seeing the collapse of the world economy anytime soon? Talk about suffering...etc Think about it...

 

---------

A little history from an Israeli source: http://www.iaf.org.il/iaf/doa_iis.dll/Serv...sh/1.3.4.6.html

On June 7th 1981, IAF planes attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor and destroyed it in a single bombing run. The attck was carried out by the new F-16s, which had joined the IAF less than a year earlier. The plant, which was intended for the production of nuclear weapons, was destroyed before it became operational; had Israel waited much longer, an attack would have caused radioactive fallout in the area around Baghdad. The attack removed the nuclear threat to Israel - and its necessity became doubly clear when Saddam Hussein launched the Gulf War and lobbed missiles into Israel, a decade later.

In the course of that year, tension along the northern border intensified, as terrorist attacks in Israel and abroad were stepped up. On June 3rd 1982, terrorists shot Israel's ambassador to Britain and wounded him severely. Three days later, the IDF launched Operation 'Peace for the Galilee' - the Lebanon War. IAF jets gave close support to the ground forces, which attacked transportation routes, terrorist camps, outposts and APCs. On June 9th, IAF planes - aided by artillery - attacked the Syrian missile array in the Lebanese Beka'a Valley. The missiles were destroyed in a matter of hours. 29 Syrian MiGs were shot down in the large scale air battle that accompanied the attack.

The IAF achieved complete dominance over the Syrian Air Force, which lost 99 planes in the course of the war, in air combat, from AA fire and from other factors.

As a direct result of 'Peace for the Galilee', some of the Palestinian terror organizations relocated their headquarters to Tunis. However, a wave of terrorist attacks engulfed Israel after the IDF withdrew the bulk of its forces from Lebanon, culminating in the murder of three Israelis on a yacht in Larnaka, Cyprus. In retaliation, IAF F-15s bombed the PLO's new headquarters in Tunis. It was the longest-range attack the IAF had ever carried out: 2,400 km. away from Israel's shore.

On October 16th 1986, in the course of an attack on terrorist targets in Lebanon, an IAF Phantom suffered a technical malfunction, and was subsequently hit by enemy fire. The two air crew men had to bail out. The pilot was rescued later in the day, and was carried to safety as he hung on to a Cobra helicopter's skids. The navigator, Ron Arad, was taken prisoner. 14 years have passed since then, and Ron Arad is still being held captive.

----

As you can see, the Iraellis attacked Iraq first. On top of that, they atacked a Nuclear facility that could have exploded killing thousands maybe millions.

[Harut]

i'll just say one thing.

 

which superpower(past, present) in the world has ever been generous, caring, ... for other countries without any profit at all?

 

-----NONE-----

 

then, why should USA be so?

everybody warries about himself and doesn't care about other. that's the way it is.

 

therefore, you should not blame USA for not supporting everybody equally.

[MJ]

I would add the "e-commerce" bubble on the top of those points that you have made above. The current deterioration of the economy is partially attributable to its bursting.

[THOTH]

Yea - a rude awakening for some I supose (LOL) - the young yupsters will need to learn how to actually do work perhaps and those who were expecting meteoric returns will have to get more realistic (I suspect most of what was "lost" was previously recently "gained" anyway...though I certainy took some hits...nothing catestrophic however...). Oh - I agree BTW - but I'm not sure we have seen the last of e-commerce & the like - in fact - as the web transforms (and it is about to drasttically - soon - IMO - with wideband/video and perhaps a departure from a page based paradigm...etc - we will find many new ways to utilize the medium (and make $ off of it) ...folks may be a little more leary of investment however and at least should not expect instant returns on nothing (I think this is a good thing). So while I see things moving slower now (and of course there could always be a catastrophe to really shake things up...) for the most part I'm unsure about what will cause our near term "rude awakening" - unless Steve is the new una-(atomic)-bomber or some such or if Bin Laden starts gas attacks in the US or some such....

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

 

 

I would add the "e-commerce" bubble on the top of those points that you have made above. The current deterioration of the economy is partially attributable to its bursting.

---

[ThornyRose]

I agree. That's the way the system works. Nothing new.
Some dolts talk about Zionists loving Turks or trying to look like they love Turks... Yeah, and we are stupid enough like this dolt to buy it, go all a gaa-gaa over somebody "friendly" to us... Till death do us part! http://network54.com/images/tongue.gif

[THOTH]

Mike77 -

 

It is my understanding that the nuclear facility (forgot its name - begins with an O) was not operational. It was (to be) the type that would have the Iraqis to enrich uranium to weapons grade...in hindsight I think the Israelis did us all a favor - though at the time I remember thinking it was a brazen act - hard to justify....In any event it was not an attack on population or such - nor did it threaten the regime...and it occured over 10 years prior to the Iraqi "response"...I don't dispute the fact that Israel has done some pretty outrageos and objectionable things in its defense...however, if I was an Israeli - surrounded by hostile nations vowing to destroy Israel, etc - I could certainly understand taking what some might think is extreme action in my defense. Obviously, to a great degree such action has worked - to defeat the threats & "cow" the Arab states...just as obviously such action has generated enemies and caused great eminity from the Palestinians (& others such as Iraq etc) which only leads to more problems. I think it is well past the time the Israel changed their way of doing business vis a vis the Arabs/Palestinians...but again they still have the seige mentality - legitamatly or not...

[bellthecat]

The fact that my statement was not understood is just another example of American blind ignorance. I am refering to an entire nation suddenly wakeing up one morning with the realization that everyone else in the world hates their guts.

Perhaps the sleep analogy is the best and most polite way to come to terms with American attitudes - there is no point trying to reason with people who are asleap. We (everyone outside America) must just wait for them to wake up, and hope it is not too late whan they do. Meantime - sticking verbal needles into them as often as possible might encourage their awakening.

Steve

PS. what to you think are the chances of some old WW2 mine floating into Genoa harbour and ridding the world of Bush and his cronies? Probably nil - but we can dream.