America is a spent force in international politics

RE: America is a spent force in international politics

>>This helps to explain why, if it does not get the UN
>Security Council to agree to it’s resolution to include the
>use of force against Iraq, it will go it alone anyway.
>
>

That´s what the president keeps saying, but I am not so sure that without the resolution they would go alone. However I am sure, they´ll get the resolution at the end, so no need to make that decission. If they had wanted to go alone, they would have done it before.

RE: America is a spent force in international politics

The USA, like it or not, is THE major player in world politics. It is the only country with the wealth and complimentary military and economic clout to be The worlds Policeman. When the US Homeland is directly threatned, or world stability is threatned that would pose a danger to the US homeland, America will act.

This helps to explain why, if it does not get the UN Security Council to agree to it’s resolution to include the use of force against Iraq, it will go it alone anyway.

Now, whether the USA is RIGHT to pursue policies in the way it does is another question…..

RE: America is a spent force in international politics

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 23-10-02 AT 07:39 PM (GMT)]Monster

I’ve seen enough of John Pilger to wonder why he ever admits to being Australian – all he ever seems to do is bucket this country for its actions or inactions over the years and take up the cause of the bleeding hearts. He may know his stuff, but he is too highly opinionated for me.

I am inclined to wonder at the degree of US influence in the world today. I do think it has diminished to some extent in recent months. The non-Islamic world knows it has a problem on its hands with religious zealots, but also knows that war is not necessarily the answer. The problems being experienced world wide at present limit the viability of simply attacking Iraq. Where do you go after that? As a number of us have pointed out, they still haven’t captured Bin Laden. Taking on further areas doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

I agree with the analogy already put forward. America has a bad habit of thinking that what’s good for the US is good for the (western) world, and we know that isn’t correct much of the time. Public feedback out here has caused our government to back-pedal on its unilateral support of Bush’s proposals. Our Prime Minister has been described as Bush’s lap-dog, which is demeaning to Australians, as we consider ourselves to be independent and capable of running our own affairs. Unfortunately, recent actions by the PM tended to subjugate those nationalistic feelings and make us look as though we wanted to do whatever the US said. The PM now knows better.

I don’t think the US is a spent force, but I do believe that many of its allies are most reluctant to engage in further conflict at present, even though many of them are suffering from terrorist actions of one sort or another. The US has the military capability of virtually eliminating any opponent it chooses, but forgets than many of the rest of us are far weaker militarily and financially, and in no position to engage in major wars.
Regards
Wombat

RE: America is a spent force in international politics

CNN, bahhhh, got to be the most American point of view you will ever see, it never gives the full unbiased picture, if you want someone to do that then here is your man, www.johnpilger.com he will tell you how it really is.

RE: America is a spent force in international politics

I think that Americas stance on Iraq is a little Hypocritical considering the rencet admissions of a certain MR Kim Jong Il of North Korea.

here is something for you to read by Mary Mcgroy

Carrots For North Korea, Sticks For Iraq
By Mary McGrory

WASHINGTON — At a glance, it would seem as if the warlords in the White House are as clueless as the frustrated police pursuing the shooter who has been rampaging through Washington’s suburbs for the past 2 1/2 weeks.

George W. Bush, who had been doing a credible imitation of Alexander the Great conquering the known world, was stopped in his tracks by North Korea ( news – web sites ). Yes, representatives of Pyongyang’s demented leader told a State Department envoy, they are working on a nuclear bomb.

Iraq, Bush’s obsession, has been six months away from a nuke for years, and Bush wants to bomb, invade and occupy it. But here’s North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, who fits perfectly Bush’s description of Saddam Hussein ( news – web sites ), as “a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.” Bush doesn’t want to raise a finger against him. “We seek a peaceful solution,” said he.

We do? How come?

It is true that there is a difference between Saddam and Kim Jong Il. Saddam is power-mad; Kim Jong Il is mad, certifiably so, which could make him even more dangerous. And his nuclear program — aided and abetted by our principal ally in the war against terror, Pakistan — is farther along than Iraq’s. Moving into the broken promises area, North Korea has been no piker: Saddam Hussein has broken more U.N. resolutions, but Kim Jong Il violated the all-important 1994 agreement on nonproliferation.

As for mass murder of their own people, they are twins. The president has been telling us of the crimes of Hussein, the gassing of the Kurds, and the cruelties toward his real and official family. Kim Jong Il has chosen another means of exterminating his citizenry. In the wake of flood and drought, North Korea faced famine, and some think as many as 2 million died. Kim manipulated humanitarian aid programs and starved people he deemed nonessential.

Bush has no comment.

What has been drained off his crusade for sending the bombers over Baghdad is the moral imperative of regime change. If Saddam has to be removed because he is so loathsome, why not Kim Jong Il? You had to go to the small tent city outside police headquarters in Rockville, Md., where frustrated cops brief press from all over the world about what they don’t know, to find a more flummoxed crew than the White House warlords.

The most recent shooting was of a 47-year-old woman who had survived cancer; she was felled by a single shot as she and her husband loaded their car with Home Depot purchases. The horrible event was thought to have a redeeming feature — a harvest of clues and eyewitness accounts. But it all vanished. Chagrined officers and officials said the cream-colored van, the olive-skinned man and the broken tail-light were imagined and not seen.

Bush is moving fast these days. The commander in chief spends all his time waging war on Democrats. He should perhaps pause long enough to explain to those in Congress why he withheld the news about North Korea’s nuclear program from them for 12 days, making sure that the war resolution was safely passed without any distracting revelations.

Democrats who voted for the resolution, particularly those who railed against it while doing so, might find an explanation to mitigate their embarrassment. They were prodded to a roll call by Bush’s hard sell about the importance of every minute; they were also being hammered on the right for being “appeasers.” Democrat Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, despite a stiff Republican challenge, bucked the tide and voted against the war. He is so far not paying any price. Even pro-war voters have commended him for showing guts.

Voters have long been accustomed to living with a double standard from both parties in dealing with troublesome foreigners. Little Cuba is still caught in a 40-year-old embargo because of its communist dictator, while humongous China, with its brazen human rights violations, religious persecution and ruthless repression, is a partner.

But as we barrel down the road to war with Iraq, maybe we ought to quiz our unilateralist president about why it is necessary for us to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq while North Korea gets the striped-pants treatment. Is it because North Korea has a million men under arms? Is it because Kim Jong Il never threatened to kill Bush’s father, or because he has no oil, or is not a Muslim?

Maybe we should ask the advocates who dreamed for 10 years of invading Iraq. Do Richard Perle, ##### Cheney ( news – web sites ) and Paul Wolfowitz believe in equal opportunity for tyrants? Their leader seems to be pointing the other way.

RE: America is a spent force in international politics

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-10-02 AT 07:49 PM (GMT)]I think Kev’s question is a bit more subtle than that Geforce.

Your quite right, of course, that the USA’s influence over other nations is at its all time peak right now. However that is not the same as saying that it is strong in a political sense.

In fact I think that American economic and military dominance is having an inverse relationship on the number of “true” friends (and therefore political allies) it has left on the planet. An analogy would probably be something like a neighbour and friend winning a few millions on a lottery and using that wealth, power and influence to build an airport (for his new private jet) at the end of your street, for his convenience, and subjecting all his previous friends and neighbours to uncomfortable new surroundings. To him this a new convenience and will benefit all his local friends (they can use it for their private jets too – when they can afford them ofc!). To them the fact that he ignored all their gentle requests not to proceed mean that he’s started to turn into an overbearing jerk who’s becoming full of his own importance.

I’m not for one second suggesting that this is a direct anology of any group of nation towards another. I am however saying that its an illustration of how a gain in material power can lead to a degredation in the amount of respect a country, in this case, can have.

The US, for some, has danced around the fine line between good neighbour and overbearing jerk for decades. To others they’ve been over the mark for longer. Here in the UK many, IMHO, still see them as a powerful friend however making unilateral decisions or plain not listening to the advice of those who would give it sincerely and in friendship is bound to swing the needle.

My 2c anyway!.

Regards,
Steve

RE: America is a spent force in international politics

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-10-02 AT 06:20 PM (GMT)]American influence in the world now is stronger than ever. The fact that you are bringing up the question proves this, Keltic. The real question should be, is this influence positive or negative.

I don`t know anymore what to think about a war against Iraq. CNN has done a great job }>. Fact is, the longer Bush waits, the less support he will get, from the American people, and from the allies. If Bush goes ahead with his plans, he will have the world against him. If he doesn`t, that means political suicide, because both democrats and republicans will use this argument as an evidence of what a weak president he really was.

RE: America is a spent force in international politics

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-10-02 AT 06:11 PM (GMT)]America’s insistence on the removal of Saddam Hussein from power seems to have little support and they are now changing their minds and saying that he may be allowed to remain in power. America was going to go ahead and invade Iraq on their own but the tension now seems to be easing.

The war on terrorism is not going well. Bali, the attack on American soldiers in Kuwait, the attack on the French oil tanker, continued suicide bombings in Israel and hijackings are still being attempted. America has still not dealt with the al-Qaeda and Taleban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Afghanistan is barely more stable than it was under the Taleban as evidenced by the bombigs and attempts on the President’s life.

Internally they seem no further forward in capturing those responsible for the spread of anthrax last year. Today they bungled the arrest of the suspected sniper who promptly replied to their incompetence by killing another innocent victim.

Can we honestly say that American influence in the world is as strong as it once was? Unless of course they use the odd carrier battle group to persuade those with a different perspective?

Regards,

kev35

RE: America is a spent force in international politics

First difine spend force. Then I’ll be most happy to discuse it.

greetings,

jw