Is it just me or is Iraq the least of my worries?

[AgPete]

Iran is getting close to joining the nuclear weapons club!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ear/index.html

Meanwhile, North Korea is about to perform their own rendition of the Cuban Missile Crisis!

It's a crazy world we're facing in the 21st century.

I know this is unpopular at the moment but maybe bombing the living #$*# out of any country that scares us isn't a wise idea? Is it naive to believe that if we spent billions of dollars on social welfare (the nasty word, WELFARE! ) instead of on the newest laser guided missiles, some of these countries might come around as part of a natural process in becoming an industrialized country? Maybe education, women's equality and healthcare are what these countries need instead of bullet holes? They're weak enough now to attack but we can't do it forever and we can't deal with the consequences of enraging every country that isn't with us. We have a tiny window in which we'll be technologically superior to anyone but all it takes is one nuke to wipe out D.C.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by AgPete
Iran is getting close to joining the nuclear weapons club!
Is it naive to believe that if we spent billions of dollars on social welfare (the nasty word, WELFARE! ) instead of on the newest laser guided missiles, some of these countries might come around as part of a natural process in becoming an industrialized country?

Very naive.

Originally posted by AgPete


Maybe education, women's equality and healthcare are what these countries need instead of bullet holes?

Most of the countries we are worried about predicate themselves on denial of these very things. We have tried (and still do) sending aid to places, and the honchos turn it into a personal bank account. When we send food and medical care to other countried, the suppies are used a way to control the population and make money for the people in power.

Originally posted by AgPete
They're weak enough now to attack but we can't do it forever and we can't deal with the consequences of enraging every country that isn't with us. We have a tiny window in which we'll be technologically superior to anyone but all it takes is one nuke to wipe out D.C.

What you suggest in akin to being blackmailed. We wil give uou money if you don't blow us up. More or less we tried to "buy off" NK, and we can see how effective that has been.

[ACStrider]

I would like to believe that assisting these countries with money would help, but consider our biggest enemy over the past 50 years.

The Soviet Union had one of the largest (if not the largest) single nation army in the world for the years following the second world war. During this time the United States and NATO were the clear enemies of the Warsaw Pact and what hindered the Soviet Union from starting World War III was the knowledge that the collective forces of NATO were a significant enough challenge to their forces. As long as the threat from the West was there, military dominance by the communist nations were stymied.

During most of this time the American military was committing 4-5% of their GNP towards defense spending. To match this the sluggish Soviet economy had to commit 20% of their GNP. When Reagan became president, one of his key actions was to increase the defense spending. Under Reagan the defense spending went from 4% of the GNP to 7% (much of which was in technology). Using the ratio, you can assume that to match the 7%, the Soviets would have to raise their spending to 28-35%. Critics at the time insisted that Reagan was a war-monger and was escalating the Cold War conflict. History has shown, however, that the economy of the Soviet Union which was already in trouble was driven into the ground when the demands of the military were too great.

Having spent a summer in a former Soviet state and seeing the devastation that Communism and Soviet occupation caused, I can say good riddance to such an abominable state. Estonia (the country I was in) has been recovering well from the effects of Communism, but is still a good bit away from being a comperable nation to the western nations.

I'm not trying to suggest that we take up a policy of ousting any government that we have a personal problem with, but not sustaining an effective defense is not the answer. Look at the former Soviet states. The Baltic states are very appreciative of the support that they have received from the west.

I agree that education and a basic understanding of human rights would do these nations a lot of good, but as long as they have their current rulers in power, you can expect this never to happen. Regime change should be rare, and war a last resort, but sometimes it is beneficial for many reasons.

[AgPete]

Very naive.

I know it's a naive and simple view of the world but I still stand by my prediction that we won't be able to fight off our enemies forever. I admit, it sounds like a good idea in theory, and I haven't the slightest idea how the USA would implement these social changes. What worries me though is sooner or later, the rest of the world will catch up with WMD technology. We can delay it like Israel did with a few well placed strategic bombings but it won't prevent it. When the people we really don't want to see with these weapons appear, wouldn't it be better to make sure they have the proper institutions in place. Maybe the only way to do it is like we are in Iraq, by forcing them to become an "enlightened democracy" but I think it will only encourage the terrorist cells and hatred aimed against our country. We get rid of one country, we instantly foster the hate and anti-American sentiments in its next door neighbor. Education is an enemy of religion, women's equality is an enemy of men and war, healthcare (including food) is an enemy of desperation. Pardon my dopey John Lennon mentality , I just think this world is going to hell in a hand basket sometimes.

Excuse me while I go off on another hippy rant but you know, there's a common theory in the astronomy community about finding intelligent life in the universe. Its premise is basically meant to argue against tales such as "War of the Worlds" and other apocalyptic predictions. It states that if we ever were to make contact with an intelligent civilization, it would never be a war mongering society, one that meets its objectives through force, primarily because they'd destroy themselves with the technology available for warfare before they were able to apply it to exploring our galaxy. I sometimes wonder if we're that war mongering society that will never make it past the solar system.

The Soviet Union had one of the largest (if not the largest) single nation army in the world for the years following the second world war. During this time the United States and NATO were the clear enemies of the Warsaw Pact and what hindered the Soviet Union from starting World War III was the knowledge that the collective forces of NATO were a significant enough challenge to their forces. As long as the threat from the West was there, military dominance by the communist nations were stymied.

I'm no expert on Soviet policy but what I've always believed is that common sense kept the USSR from invading. Not NATO, not better tanks, not increased American spending on the military. The simple fact that we both built enough nuclear weapons by the 1960's to end the human race was probably good enough reason to deter any war. What I'd give to have an enemy as predictable as communism again.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by AgPete
I know it's a naive and simple view of the world but I still stand by my prediction that we won't be able to fight off our enemies forever.

Oh, our time will come one way or another. "When" and "How" are the things you fight for.

Originally posted by AgPete
What worries me though is sooner or later, the rest of the world will catch up with WMD technology.

This is why the US military now operates under a policy of transformation. The idea is to use the wealths of this country (money, education, free thought, scientific curiosity, a tradition of innovation) to make leaps that other countries can not match.

Originally posted by AgPete
When the people we really don't want to see with these weapons appear, wouldn't it be better to make sure they have the proper institutions in place.

But many other countries do not want these institutions in place. A big chunk of the world is still ruled by people who hold power by actually controlling the power.

What instituions would you want in place to deal with these people?

In the case of NGOs what would you do? They are a stateless group.

Education is an enemy of religion, women's equality is an enemy of men and war, healthcare (including food) is an enemy of desperation.

So you want to export our culture and values? I am reasonably sure you have a hard time finding many historic examples of this happening in a non-violent manner.

Star Trek Tangent

I'm no expert on Soviet policy but what I've always believed is that common sense kept the USSR from invading. Not NATO, not better tanks, not increased American spending on the military. The simple fact that we both built enough nuclear weapons by the 1960's to end the human race was probably good enough reason to deter any war.

American defense spending is what built the nuclear weapons. Like all tools, nukes are only good for some things. In terms of proportional response, the US can't use them for very much. Even the Soviets knew we could only use them is some situations. What do you do to cover the other situations?

[AgPete]

LOL Star Trek Tangent!

This is why the US military now operates under a policy of transformation. The idea is to use the wealths of this country (money, education, free thought, scientific curiosity, a tradition of innovation) to make leaps that other countries can not match.

That's been a policy of every empire that ruled this world. Some nations prospered through sheer manpower, some relied on innovation, I guess it depends on when that particular nation ruled. This is actually one of my initial points. There comes a time when extremist factions have access to the weapons we can't stop or fight no matter how advanced we are. We can't defend some bioweapons and we can't stop a nuclear attack. Even if we somehow discover how to make the Star Wars defense system work, we're fighting factions that would prefer to drop the bomb off in a truck rather than launch it on a missile.

Ya know, I don't believe my sermon on education and human rights is realistic, there will always be rotten apples and I agree with you that we've tried for decades to implement these policies but faced resistance. And just as we can't stop some of these people through peaceful means, we can't find them all (nor gather enough American support) with military force.

I don't think we can win. It's just a matter of time before the Timothy McVeighs and Osama Bin Ladens of this world get their hands on something much worse than fertilizer bombs or jetliners full of fuel. I just hope it doesn't happen often in my lifetime.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by AgPete
That's been a policy of every empire that ruled this world.

There have been some examples of this, but i would not say this is the policy of "every empire that ruled." Actually, the predominant power is usually conservative, and the innovate ones are on the outside. Innovation is one factor in the shuffling of empires.

Originally posted by AgPete

There comes a time when extremist factions have access to the weapons we can't stop or fight no matter how advanced we are. We can't defend some bioweapons and we can't stop a nuclear attack. Even if we somehow discover how to make the Star Wars defense system work, we're fighting factions that would prefer to drop the bomb off in a truck rather than launch it on a missile.

But this is so untrue. There is always a balance of offense vs defense with one taking the lead until the other finds a way to compensate. There will be a defense against NBC.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
There will be a defense against NBC.

Good. That peacock has gotten way outta hand.

[AgPete]

LOL The Killer Peacock! MUWAHAHAHAHA

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by AgPete
Is it naive to believe that if we spent billions of dollars on social welfare (the nasty word, WELFARE! ) instead of on the newest laser guided missiles, some of these countries might come around as part of a natural process in becoming an industrialized country? Maybe education, women's equality and healthcare are what these countries need instead of bullet holes?

Even if social welfare and US ideals would work for these countries (doubtful), I'd suggest that pouring billions of dollars into any country that threatens you is probably not a great idea. If you think the US has enemies now, wait until every country realizes all they have to do is wave a fist and the US will ride in with the checkbook.

A better solution would be to give the financial aid to your friends, use your military to crush the enemies who threaten you, and then let other countries decide which side they'd like to be on.

[JPhillips]

I agree that we have to maintain a strong defense, but there are many things we could do to garner good will that won't cost us much money. Without spending on humanitarian efforts, we will be faced with regimes that we have to take out again in twenty years. Using only our military is very shortsighted. Remember when we were Iraq's friends, or Iran's?

Did you know that the Bushies have proposed exactly ZERO dollars for Afghanistan in the 2004 budget? Its this lack of commitment to the long and hard job of rebuilding countries that really scares me regarding Iraq. I currently have no reason to believe that Bush or Congress will be willing to spend billions and stay for years to turn Iraq into a functioning democracy.(Although I'm not convinced it can work at all)

I wish we would establish a gov. agency that would get up to five billion to rebuild Afghanistan. We wouldn't just give this to the Afghans, we would help choose the projects and help hire the labor, using non-Afghanies only when they have skills not found in Afghanistan. We could build roads, schools, hospitals, and police stations all while putting the Afghanis to work. This would cost half of what one month of Iraq deployment will cost, and it would give something good to put on Al-Jezeera.

There are a number of things we could do for the citizens of these countries without just throwing billions at despotic leaders. One former four-star general has suggested sening te US hospital ships to the region and giving free healthcare with the staff coming primarily from Doctors Without Borders. A year of this program would cost less than one stealth bomber.

There will never be a shortage of despots in the world, and we can't fight them all. We should focus our forces on the immediate threats, but also use the other tools at our disposal to limit the number of threats. We could do this without propping up dictators and without spending huge sums of money.(Although I guess that doesn't matter now that Bush has decided deficits don't matter!)

[Fritz]

AgPete, JPhillips

http://www.usaid.gov/mca/


From what I have seen, USAID is not well recieved in many nations. They look at strings attached to dollars as the US being a bully.

[Fritz]

dola

http://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan/

[JPhillips]

Fritz: That's with 2003 dollars. I never said we weren't doing anything, but the Bush 2004 budget proposed ZERO new dollars. I guess by the end of 2003 we will have completely rebuilt Afghanistan.

Also, if they look at strings attached to US aid as being a bully, what do they think when we bomb them and install a military governor?

[Fritz]

JPhillips: I do not know how we budget, soI am not sure how we are funding Afghanistan. It may be no dollars as you say, or the money may be inside of some other appropriations.

As far as USAID goes, I am just saying what I have seen and heard.

[CamEdwards]

JPhillips,

After reading your post I took the time to call USAID. The 2004 budget DOES propose money for Afghanistan. In fact, here's how it breaks down.

$150 million dollars for economic support.

$150 million dollars for development assistance

$21 million dollars for child survival and health.

The budget for 2004 hasn't been approved yet. It's not that it's been denied, it's that the process hasn't really begun. In fact, according to the official I spoke with, they just received their funding for FY 2003.

Total dollars for Afghanistan in USAID's FY 2003 budget? $235,000,000.

To date, USAID has given $900,000,000 to Afghanistan, and it is NOT the only government agency appropriating funds for that country.

I just thought you'd like to know the facts, rather than the propaganda.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by AgPete

It states that if we ever were to make contact with an intelligent civilization, it would never be a war mongering society, one that meets its objectives through force, primarily because they'd destroy themselves with the technology available for warfare before they were able to apply it to exploring our galaxy.

Are you trying to tell me that movies like The Fifth Element, and Independence Day are not glimpses into our future?? I just hope we don't end up like Planet of the Apes.

You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!!!

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I just thought you'd like to know the facts, rather than the propaganda.

But it's the propaganda that fuels the emotions that dictates the thoughts that shape opinions. At least for the many uninformed people of the world. Such a shame.

[JPhillips]

CamEdwards: Did you ask if that money was propsed in the original budget presented by Bush? My understanding is that the original budget had zero allocated. I have also read that some Repubs in Congress discovered this and quickly said that they would add in some money. Even at 900 million, we haven't done nearly enough to clean up Afghanistan and secure a Taliban free future.

Outside of that, do you deny that we could be doing lots to protect us from military action? I'm not opposed to the Iraq war, although I am not sure its worth the dismantlement of the UN Security Council and NATO. I'm not trying to argue that we never need to use a gun. My point is that for decades we have had a shortsighted foriegn policy that has often gotten us into trouble later. Our foriegn policy is like the little old lady driving her car while looking six inches in front of the hood.

[Fritz]

From the factbook:

Economy - overview: Afghanistan is an extremely poor, landlocked country, highly dependent on farming and livestock raising (sheep and goats). Economic considerations have played second fiddle to political and military upheavals during two decades of war, including the nearly 10-year Soviet military occupation (which ended 15 February 1989). During that conflict one-third of the population fled the country, with Pakistan and Iran sheltering a combined peak of more than 6 million refugees. Gross domestic product has fallen substantially over the past 20 years because of the loss of labor and capital and the disruption of trade and transport; severe drought added to the nation's difficulties in 1998-2001. The majority of the population continues to suffer from insufficient food, clothing, housing, and medical care, problems exacerbated by military operations and political uncertainties. Inflation remains a serious problem. Following the US-led coalition war that led to the defeat of the Taliban in November 2001 and the formulation of the Afghan Interim Authority (AIA) resulting from the December 2001 Bonn Agreement, International efforts to rebuild Afghanistan were addressed at the Tokyo Donors Conference for Afghan Reconstruction in January 2002, when $4.5 billion was collected for a trust fund to be administered by the World Bank. Priority areas for reconstruction include the construction of education, health, and sanitation facilities, enhancement of administrative capacity, the development of the agricultural sector, and the rebuilding of road, energy, and telecommunication links.

Exports: $1.2 billion

Exports - commodities: opium, fruits and nuts, handwoven carpets, wool, cotton, hides and pelts, precious and semi-precious gems

Economic aid - recipient: international pledges made by more than 60 countries and international financial institutions at the Tokyo Donors Conference for Afghan reconstruction in January 2002 reached $4.5 billion through 2006, with $1.8 billion allocated for 2002; according to a joint preliminary assessment conducted by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the UN Development Program, rebuilding Afghanistan will cost roughly $15 billion over the next ten years

---
Seems to me $900M is not bad at all for an agricultural country of 27.75 million people.

[Bee]

Why would the dismantlement of the UN Security Council and NATO be a bad thing? They seem horribly outdated and mismanaged to me.

[JPhillips]

Bee: I don't believe the UN or NATO are perfect, but we have spent decades building these diplomatic institutions, and we have no alternatives except violence. It seems that we should have more discussion if we are going to destroy the only forms of international law, even if they are often flawed. BTW- many prominent foriegn policy types of both parties are worried by this.

[CamEdwards]

JPhillips,

My information comes from one of several government agencies responsible for giving aid to Afghanistan. Where is your information coming from?

The budget proposed by USAID (which is the budget approved by President Bush and submitted to Congress) contains the $321,000,000 in aid to Afghanistan. I don't know how much you know about how the government works, but the agencies propose their own budgets, submit them for approval, and then it's submitted to Congress. It's not a matter of a group of Republicans saying "oh, Bush didn't put any money in for Afghanistan. We better do it for him."

Nope, $900,000,000 isn't enough to change Afghanistan into the 51st state... but then again, that's not what we're trying to do. Change doesn't happen overnight, but if you look at Afghanistan now as opposed to before we went in, you'd be shocked at the difference. The difference will be even more apparent a decade from now. (And at this level of spending, in a decade we will have spent 3 billion dollars in aid to that country)

Could we be doing more to avoid military action? Sure, we could give Saddam Hussein 12 more years to avoid disarming. We could send in 10,000 inspectors to roam around the country looking for weapons, and then when they find them, burying the discovery of banned weapons in a 173 page document.

You talk about what we could be doing to avoid military action. What could Saddam be doing to avoid military action??

As far as dismantling the Security Council and NATO... when France went into the Ivory Coast without the approval of the Security Council, the SC didn't cease to exist. The same will hold true now. What I think will happen is people will realize the UN is now the world's largest debating society, with no teeth (or heart) to enforce it's own resolutions.

[JPhillips]

CamEdwards: from the BBC through Republican congressman Kolbe. And according to Kolbe, they did say "oh, Bush didn't put any money in for Afghanistan. We better do it for him." Here is the story.


"The United States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to request any money in the latest budget.

One mantra from the Bush administration since it launched its military campaign in Afghanistan 16 months ago has been that the US will not walk away from the Afghan people.

President Bush has even suggested a Marshall plan for the country, and the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, will visit Washington later this month.

Washington has pledged not to forget Afghanistan
But in its budget proposals for 2003, the White House did not explicitly ask for any money to aid humanitarian and reconstruction costs in the impoverished country.

The chairman of the committee that distributes foreign aid, Jim Kolbe, says that when he asked administration officials why they had not requested any funds, he was given no satisfactory explanation, but did get a pledge that it would not happen again.

A spokesman for the US Agency for International Development, which distributes the money, says the reason they did not make a request was that when budgetary discussions began in 2002, it was too early to say how much money they would need.

Jim Kolbe has expressed surprise at the administration's oversight.

The US will spend over $16bn in foreign aid this year.

The main beneficiaries will be Israel, Jordan and a number of anti-Aids programmes.

However, Mr Kolbe says that should there be a military conflict in Iraq, he believes the US will have to find billions more, not only to help Iraq, but also Turkey, Jordan and Israel."

[Bee]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Bee: I don't believe the UN or NATO are perfect, but we have spent decades building these diplomatic institutions, and we have no alternatives except violence. It seems that we should have more discussion if we are going to destroy the only forms of international law, even if they are often flawed. BTW- many prominent foriegn policy types of both parties are worried by this.

So we have no alternatives but violence? I don't follow that logic at all. I also don't really see how dismantling the Security Council and NATO would destroy international law.

[JPhillips]

Bee: What other international law organizations are there? Where else will we take our disputes?

While the UN has a world of flaws and will always be held hostage to the wil of its individual members, it has helped to create a world without a major conflict over the past fifty years. What does the Bush admin propose in its place? I agree with those who say that the anti-war folk should propose a better policy, so I demand that the Bush folks propose a better solution than the UN and NATO.

I am very worried about the closer ties developing between France, Germany and Russia. All of these countries want to be seen as more important and can only achieve that together. France and Russia have a long history of alliance before Lenin and may be inclined to come back to that historical friendship. We are doing our best to push them that way. Imagine a world where France and Germany and Russia consistently oppose the US.

[Bee]

You can get rid of the Security Council without removing the World Court. There was an international world court (under a different name) before the UN and there will be one after. There were international laws before the UN and there will be international laws after the UN.

Just to clarify, I'm far from being a Bush supporter. But I think the UN and to a lesser degree NATO have served their original purpose and need to be replaced with organizations that are designed to deal with issues that are out there today (not 50 years ago).

I'm not sure where you are headed with the France, Germany and Russia friendship thing. Just because they oppose us on Iraq doesn't mean they oppose us on other issues. France and Germany are still our allies and Russia has dramatically improved relations with the US. I think it would be political suicide for those countries to suddenly shift their policies to consistently oppose US actions internationally. Basically, none of the three have any significant leverage against the US economically and even less militarily.

[rexalllsc]

I think NK is just blowing smoke. Let's say they get a few missles off...the whole country would be gone in 30 minutes...whereas Iraq can give chemical/bio weapons to small factions of terrorists, and put on a smile...then say, "Not me!"

[Fritz]

Originally posted by JPhillips
While the UN has a world of flaws and will always be held hostage to the wil of its individual members, it has helped to create a world without a major conflict over the past fifty years.

I don't know if I agree with this. If you mean a world war, I don't know if UN prevented one or not. I think there have been a few major conflicts (but less than world wars) in the past 50 years.

[CamEdwards]

Jphillips,

From what the article says, it sounds like it wasn't Bush that didn't ask for aid, it was the agency USAID, and they didn't ask for money specifically for Afghanistan. That doesn't mean that hundreds of millions of dollars appropriated for economic development, children's health, etc. would have found it's way to that country. In fact, my gut tells me that Congressman Kolbe was looking for a little press that didn't focus on his being the only openly gay Republican in Congress.

Anyway, the money's there now, and they're asking for more than 300 million for next year.

BTW, it's estimated that Afghanistan will receive over 12 billion dollars in aid over the next ten years, so your wish for 5 billion will be met and then some.