The belief that America has the duty, power and moral standing to “bring democracy” and protect human rights in the world is becoming common among Americans. Even G.W. Bush said in his speech that he was told by “God” to invade Iraq and Afganistan. (Link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm) Many have applauded his actions but a lot of people, especially non-Americans believe this is just an excuse to forge a world that is beneficial to the interests of US. Here are some of the claims that support that America is being hypocritical:

- America talks about disarmament and WMDs in wrong hands but America spends more than any other country in the world for conventional and mass destruction weapons. America's military expenditure is 43% of the entire world's expenditure in weapons. This is almost as much as rest of the world put together. (Proof: http://www.globalissues.com/Geopolitics/Ar...de/Spending.asp scroll down a bit) *

- America trained and supported many human rights violators during and after the Cold War. (Such as Pinochet)

- America is acting wars of aggression and killing thousands of innocent civilians. (Especially the air raids in Bagdat and the "peace keeping" operations in Fallujah)**

* From http://www.globalissues.com/Geopolitics/Ar...e/Spending.asp:



**The number of civilians killed by American soldiers is more than the number of civilians killed by insurgents. From http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php



Are the arguments valid and accurate?

If so, is this hypocrisy?

If you agreed with the statement above, what does it imply about the WOT?

If you said yes to the 1st question but no to the 2nd question, then what do you make of these arguments?

Are the arguments valid and accurate?

I'm not sure I agree with the statistics regrading civilian casualty's in Iraq. I don't doubt the US inflicted casualty figures (I've seen too much from too many different sources for that) but I don't believe, for one second that the insurgents have only killed enough civilians to account for 9% of their kills. Thats plainly ridiculous given the daily slaughter that is reported at Antiwar.com.

Other than that though, yes, the arguement is valid. The USA is engaged in a hypocrisy of monumental proportions. The thing is, whats the alternative?

I'm no fan of current US foreign policy, but even I am stumped when it comes to thinking of a credible alternative to what is going on. I don't like it, and I want it to go away, but what would replace US hegemony? The UN is a joke when its member states ignore it, its undemoratic members make it a laughing stock, the EU is economically powerful, but militarily and politically it is still pitifully weak. Russia, India and China inspire no confidence...


If so, is this hypocrisy?

It is politics.


If you agreed with the statement above, what does it imply about the WOT?

The WOT is a pretext to allow the USA to do what it feels it must do in order to maintain its edge against the Islamic threat that we are all too political to admit exists.

Essentially it is a low intensity war against the rising threat of Islam.

1. I won't argue about the numbers. Let's just say that it's clear that the United States has the largest military budget in the world. Many would defend this by saying that peace only comes through strength. There is some validity to this. Even the ultra-dovish Green Party of the United States recognizes this reality:

Link



(Bold added for emphasis)

2. I don't see it as "hypocrisy," exactly. Those who support an assertive (aggressive?) foreign policy are quite sincere, I think, in the belief that this is the best way to defend American interests. Part of this belief are the assumptions that American interests are much more important than the interests of other nations; that the United States is, by far, the best place that has ever existed on Earth; and that other nations should, to a great extent, to subject to the benign will of the USA. These points are debatable, of course, but they are sincere beliefs.

3. The struggle against terrorism is a real one, in which all decent governments must take part. They must be aware that it is not a "war," in the sense that it can never be won. Terrorism, like other horrible crimes, can only be minimized; it can never be eliminated. Whether the war in Iraq is of any benefit in this struggle is a highly controversial issue.

To add a personal note for moif, I am about as "politically correct" as it is possible to be, but I would never deny that there is a terrible cancer in the heart of Islam as it exists in 2005. The cancer can be cured without killing the patient, and it requires the full co-operation of the patient; but we must not allow the patient to be killed in an aggressive "War on Cancer."

Vicky.

I agree with you, whole heartedly, but I fear the patient is deaf to our reasoning.

I don't want to look upon an entire religion as a direct threat to the western democracies but for as long as we see the direct confrontation without both sides accepting responsibility, then I fear this 'clash of cultures' will remain an undeclared war between 'us and them'.

I'm not prepared to vote for any politician who advactes active provocation, but in the face of an opposing provocation and ever growing animosity, even amongst our own Islamic population, against us then I will vote according to which ever politician will act to safe guard this nation, from which ever threat and by which ever means if needs be.

Since I am not prepared to stand idly by and watch my nation endangered by any one, be they American, Muslim or European, then I must understand and respect that the people of the USA feel the same way. Thus, as much as I dislike GW Bush I do recognize that for many he is the lesser of two evils.

I suppose it boils down to a simple basic instinct of humanity. Kill them before they kill us.
If thats what it takes, then so be it. I once volunteered for military service in the knowledge that Denmark might be invaded by a far superior military force. I did so in order to defend the people I love and if I have to I'll do what ever it takes to do so again.

CNN

Let's clarify the premise before heading on to debate... The BBC and Guardian are not what I consider to be "unbiased" in re: Bush or the U.S. for that matter, I'd take it with a grain of salt when it's refuted by the PA itself.




Got me there, ain't going to deny it. Who else does the world call on when it needs a policeman? The U.N. is impotent at best, more akin to neutered. Many of us here don't relish the role. Look back in recent history though, who does the world turn to when there is a wrong that needs righted?



Unfortunately, as complex as global affairs are, some times you have to close your eyes and sleep with some unsavory people to move towards the greater good, or perhaps there are some who are still lamenting that fact that the U.S. caused the USSR to collapse?



* From http://www.globalissues.com/Geopolitics/Ar...e/Spending.asp:

I trust 100 years from now, the Iraqis will look at this differently that you do, but I have no doubt that there are still Germans mad at us for taking out Hitler.




OMG, now all I need is to see people on here citing D.U. or Moveon.org for "facts"




Except nearly all of it which is debunked or from "less than credible" sources.


Since the premise is false, q.e.d. the result must be, it's only logic

I would have to say that the arguments are not valid and that, to be honest, I really don't trust the numbers of casualties either.

First lets address the numbers. I was shocked when I heard that so many civilians had died. I went out to see where these numbers came from. What I found was disturbing. One site said that unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10000 to over 37000. Another said the estimate was 100,000. However "The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing"." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

Anybody take statistics? That small a sample is not good enough to start throwing out conclusions.

Also from that page is the following civilian estimates:

Iraq Body Count: 14-16,000
Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
UK foreign secretary: >10,000
People's Kifah >37,000
Lancet: >100,000

To me this means that no one really knows what the toll is. That brings up the conclusion that if they don't even know how many have died then dividing up who killed them is an exercise in futility. Facts don't lie but statistics do, especially when you are trying to prove a point.

The Iraq Body Count people have an agenda and they are throwing out fluff to support their stand.

That having been said lets address why we spend so much on the Military.

The short answer is "because we can". I have to laugh whenever anyone trots out the same argument that the US's military spending is so much more than anyone elses. Our spending is actually one of the smallest in the world when you compare apples to apples. Yes it is more as a real dollar number than anyone elses but it is less when you consider it as a percentage of the GDP.

I would recommend the following for anyone who is interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budg...e_United_States

Granted it may be slightly out of date as the numbers appear to be from 2003 but the reasoning and arguments presented seem very solid.

So the question is is the US hypocritical for having a big military that can reach around the globe? Not in my eyes. We may not be perfect and there may be hypocrites in positions of power (not saying there is only that there MAY be) but this is life. We are doing what we can to protect ourselves and those who may not be able to do it on their own.

You may disagree with this and state, as many have, that the war in Iraq is a hypocritical war, but your argument would be based on your opinion about Pres. Bush and company. Ask the military itself, that is the average G.I. Joe on the ground and they overwhelmingly seem to believe they are there for the right reason.

So again, while some may be hypocrites I don't think you can classify the US as hypocritical.

Yogurt


Well, the two quotes you cite are referring to two different things. Check out the video on this link. (You'll need RealPlayer, which can be downloaded for free.)

They show Abbas, speaking with subtitles. The BBC's own translation says that Abbas himself heard Bush saying that he felt he had a "religious and moral obligation" to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Not Iraq and not Afghanistan.

Another Palesinian official, seen speaking in English, says that HE heard Bush speaking about how God told him to sort out Afghanistan, and he did, and God told him to sort out Iraq, and he did, and God had now told him to bring peace and a Palestinian state to Israel/Palestine. The linked article then says that this official, Nabil Shaath, did not take President Bush's points as literal instructions from God, but as the same kind of moral and religious obligation that Abbas heard Bush talk about.

So the Abbas' formal statement that he "never heard President Bush making any statement linking what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq with any religious points of view" is not only entirely consistent with what Abbas said in the documentary, it does not in any way underscore the White house's denial, because that denial was in regard to Nabil Shaath's "claim" that God had told GWB to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

It doesn't matter how much bias you think the BBC has - if you go to the source material (the documentary "Israel and the Arabs: Elusive Peace", which I took the trouble to watch), there is no anti-Bush bias.

And subsequent hostile British coverage to the idea that anyone in political office should talk aout being inspired by God to invade another country, even figuratively, is touched upon in the interview that takes up the second half of the video interview in the link I provided.

The presenter advances the thought that Britain, a secular country, is just more sensitive and nervous of such expressions than America, a deeply religious country by international standards. The producer of the documentary (who, unless my ears deceive me, is a North American) specifically says that in all the interviews she carried out and coverage she watched in researching the programme, George W Bush was the only politician (American or otherwise) who mentioned God.

So this is not some conspiracy theory cooked up by pinkos at the BBC and the Guardian, as you seem to think.



Um, let's see. The UN is acting as peacekeeper in 16 different regional or national conflict areas as at 31 March this year. A total of 58,751 UN troops are deployed, along with 6,460 civilian police officers, and 2,101 uniformed military observers. Of these 67,132 UN peacekeepers, 363 are American. Source, though doubtless you think this one is "less than credible" too, because it undermines your argument

Clearly only 363 Americans relish this role, so you're right on that count. But let's not get overly caught up in the notion that America is the world's policeman, shall we?

As for the world turning to America when there's a wrong that needs righting... did the Afghan people ask American to come in? Did the Iraqis (in 2003 I mean - they did in the 1990s' Gulf War, but Bush Snr let them dangle on the end of Saddam's ropes). When, precisely, was the last time America carried out any police actions that were at anyone's behest except America? (I'll answer for you - the Balkans. Before that, though?)




The USSR collapsed because American outspent them in the arms race and the Soviets would not admit to themselves that they could not keep up. America can certainly take the credit for that, and rightly deserves to do so. And funding the Afghan mujahedin against the Soviet occupation, while it ultimately helped create the likes of al Qaeda, would certainly be an extra drain on Soviet resources that would have helped things along.

However, I'm not sure how much that cause was helped along by cosying up to Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, and all the other "unsavory people" the US has had to close its eyes and sleep with. What "greater good" was served by doing so? These people had no impact on the collapse of the Soviet Union, so that's out. And if the idea was to keep Islamic fundamentalism under control, well - the jury's still out, but it doesn't appear to have been very successful so far, does it?


Do you have any evidence that such Germans exist in significant numbers? And are any of them trying to kill Americans or their allies? But I'm sure you're right, in 100 years time, Iraqis will look at America differently - over that time scale, the only certainty is change.


I don't much like the cited figures either. If America is killing 36% of the Iraqi casualties, and the insurgents are killing 9%, who the heck is killing the other 55%?

But if you don't like these sources, can you suggest another source for the Iraqi civilian death count? Bearing in mind it's not something the Bush administration feels the need to keep a tally of?


Disregarding your apparent choosiness over what constitutes credibility and debunking, what about the bits that are neither debunked nor less than credible?


What's it like on Vulcan?

Ok, Julian, even though I don't necessarily agree with the arguments FMA makes, I have to set you straight for the record.

The US may not have the majority of troops on the ground, but has been involved on a global scale for the past 40 years (approx). In addition, the U.S. pays about 27 percent of the cost for UN peacekeeping missions. Why does more than 1/4 of the financial burden have to fall on the US? I suppose that's not enough is it...

Simply put, in the past decade (approx), we've had troops on the ground in Somalia, Rwanda, the Middle East, Croatia/Bosnia, Haiti, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

The UN basically utilizes the best prepared and most readily deployable force for the situations as they arrive. The map of UN peacekeeping deployments closely parallels the pattern of U.S. interests. For instance, UN peacekeepers play a key role in the Middle East, in Cyprus, in the former Yugoslavia, and on the border between India and Pakistan. These and other missions (currently 17 missions worldwide) have helped nurture new democracies, lower the global tide of refugees, reduced the likelihood of unwelcome intervention by regional powers, and prevented small wars from growing into larger scale conflicts with much higher costs in terms of lives and resources.

I beleive what people mean to say, is that any time a large-scale deployment of the UN is necessary, the US Armed Forces must be deployed from at least a logistical stand point. The Balkans are the best example, in that the force was nearly totally comprised operationally of US forces, however commanded by a foreign leader (Clinton at work again! )

Per the above, if US led forces killed 37 percent and insurgents 9 percent, who did the rest of the killing? Ghosts? Oh, criminals. Of course. We wouldn't want to group criminals with insurgents. They never work together and it's easy to make that distinction.

Fact sheet 1:

*Of 24,865 civilians (37 percent of which were killed by US led forces), 82 percent were adult males.

*Of 42,500 wounded civilians (21,000 by coalition forces) 88 percent of the wounded were adult males.

It seems strange that “indiscriminate killing” would be so gender selective. It leads me to wonder how it was determined that these were civilians and not insurgents in the first place. The way they were dressed? Not likely that most of them would announce this fact themselves.

Regarding the rest, I'm not sure how defense spending indicates hypocrisy. And Syfir is right. On a per capita basis we spend less on our military than Singapore. On a GPD comparison basis we are 25th for military spending. Furthermore, we are still subject to treaty obligations to defend much of Asia and Europe. Those obligations didn't dissolve when the cold war ended, though we did reap a large peace dividend through the draw-down until 911. NATO just expanded to include parts of eastern europe so we are obligated to form a defense for them, too. Strangely it seems like a lot of nations want to be a part of the protected-by-the-US club (or at least their governments do) or they woudn't enter into these agreements, or would dissolve them.

That military spending also finances lots of humanitarian activities (like demining programs) throughout the world. I use that particular humanitarian activity purposely to refute one common charge of "hypocritical inconsistency". We are by far the largest contributors to demining efforts worldwide, yet vilified for not signing the into the landmine ban. The reason we didn’t sign into it is because we couldn’t convince negotiating delegations to build provisions into the treaty that would allow for self-destructing/self-deactivating submunitions or to accommodate the situation requiring landmine use along the northern border of the Republic of Korea. We may eventually ban cluster munitions because sometimes they don’t deactivate as they are supposed to, but clearing the border of landmines between North and South Korea would destabilizing at this point. Those mines pose absolutely no risk to anyone except advancing, attacking troops. If they are removed the US and the South Koreans would have to expend lots of resources to provide protection on that border. Up until 1992 nuclear warheads were sitting in S Korea facing the North. I think it’s a safer world without those warheads, and a few likely forever idle landmines but that’s just me. Common sense is not always common among the “international negotiators”.

While I’m on the subject, I’ll bring up the ICC because that is another bone of contention in which the US is maligned as "hypocritical". The United States has consistently supported the concept of an ICC for many years, We were actively engaged in the negotiation process, and made proposals and contributions to the ICC treaty. However, the finished product we could not sign into because it is unacceptably flawed. We consistently and clearly stated throughout the negotiation process that we would be forced to oppose any treaty which overrided the Constitutional protections for our soldiers. It is flawed in that respect and I applaud our government for not bowing to the whim of the ignorant (or something much worse) majority and sacrificing the Constitutional protections of our soldiers.

Have we always acted consistently and perfectly? Nope. I am hard pressed to come up with any nation that does.

I didn't realise I was bent, and I still don't think I am.



So have Britain, France and Australia. What's your point? America is a UN member, so it would be a source of shame not to be "involved", rather than a special case of generosity to do so.



Well, according to this data, calculated from the CIA World Fact Book, the USA generates approximately 21-22% of global GDP. (On the Purchase Power Parity scale, Global GDP is $55.5 trillion, while the USA's is $11.75 trillion. Currency fluctuations could conceivably change the US's share by +/- 1%)

So, while 27% of funding for the UN might be a bit more than should be expected if the UN were funded by some kind of global flat tax, it's about the right order of magnitude. You are not being especially hard done by on the financial front. (Not compared to Japan, anyway, whose economy is smaller but spend more money on the UN than the USA does.)


Again - and....? Pakistani and Nigerian troops have been to about as many different locations under the blue flag over the same period. So are we to be especially grateful that the USA deigns to be as generous with her manpower as Pakistan or Nigeria?



Thank you for demonstrating the usefulness and importance of the UN. (Though I cna't help but think that you meant to type "US" for "UN" at least once in that paragraph.)

And thank you for (inadvertently?) explaining how "the map of UN peacekeeping deployments closely parallels the pattern of US interests", which might go some way to explaining why the US pays slightly more than it strictly ought to to fund UN operations - because that way the UN protects US interests without the US having to deploy troops there (which it doesn't do in India/Paklistan, for example, as shown here)



I may have a faulty memory, but wasn't the Kosovo deployment (at least) a NATO deployment, and not a UN one?

The point is, the USA does not provide anything like the majority of UN peacekeepers, and it never has done. Indeed, the current security situation in Iraq has drawn out concerns that the US military is geared towards war-fighting and not peace-keeping, and has had to retrain to cope with the different demands of the two. Historically, the USA has provided logistical support, it's true, but from the figures I linked to in my last post, most UN peacekeepers are currently deployed in Liberia and Congo, where there is no little or no US infrastructure (airbases, etc) to provide such support.

I don't think popular American opinion has ever really realised what it is the UN does; it seems that unless US troops are deployed as part of any UN operation, that operation isn't really happening, or isn't really important.

I don't think that is especially hypocritical - after all, despite this popular clamour in the US media and public, successive administrations continue to fund the UN, if only with ill-graced grumbling, so SOMONE in America understands that the UN, despite its many faults, is ultimately worthwhile.

Thought I should bring up that the list for troops provided for U.N. peacekeeping operations are (according to the bottom footnote) those authorized, run, and paid for by the United Nations. Those operations are separate from non-U.N. peace operations authorized by a U.N. Security Council resolution but run by an international organization or lead nation, such as the current NATO force in Kosovo or the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The list also does not include U.N. peacebuilding missions, such as MINUGUA in Guatemala, or UNAMA in Afghanistan.

When I look at that list, it would seem that virtually no US forces were involved in Haiti, for example...which we know is far from the case. We have been very involved in peacekeeping operations authorized by UNSC resolutions, but we usually lead our own troops. As you mentioned, Kosovo was a NATO operation (implicitly endorsed by the UN and its resolutions) and our troops under the command of Clark, an American (not a foreign commander). It's just the way we do things.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere...

"...but we usually lead our own troops <snip> It's just the way we do things"

Why? What's so special about US forces that they can't take orders from other nationalities, when every other UN force, and the NATO or US-led coalitions that the USA favours pretty much guarantees that other nationalities will have to take orders from Americans?

The US is keen for other countries who take a more active role in UN operations ("do the heavy lifting" is the euphemism of choice), but generally takes a dim view of unilateral action not specifically under UN mandates - I remember some disapproval of French troop deployments in West Africa, specifically Cote D'Ivoire before the UN mandate was in place.

So why is it okay for US troops to avoid playing second fiddle to foreign commanders on UN operations, even if the commaders are close allies (say, British), but not okay for other countries to avoid taking part in US-led actions (say, like the French did in the invasion of Iraq)?

Are we back into the territory of "hypocrisy" that the debate questions explore?

(I'm not necessarily claiming that we are, just that it seems there is mileage in that line of argument.)

The answer is really quite simple.
1) It is because U. S. soldiers, sailors, and Marines take an oath to protect the U.S., not Kofi Annin or Jaques Iraq.
2) Our troops take rigorous, disciplined, and regimented training. Having someone not familiar with how our troops are trained and organized would lead to chaos.




No one in the U. S. was really expecting the French to "help". But what we did not expect was for the Chiraq regime to be taking money from Saddam while trying to advance his causes internationally.
Seeing how the French forces behaved in Africa, I'm glad they weren't along.
UN

"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without an accordian" - Jed Babbin

I guess if we're hypocrites, we have a lot of company...

Constitutionally we cannot place troops under a supreme commanding authority which isn’t ultimately responsible to the US president. The Commander in chief clause Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution reads: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." It guarantees that the President is empowered to act as the "first general" over America's fighting forces.

I am strongly opposed to tampering with the above. It is part of the checks and balances of our system that ensures that our military remains united under one command, accountable to a democratically elected civilian authority. American troops have fought in coalition forces under allied theater commanders, but those commanders answered to the Combined Chiefs of Staff, which included the U.S. Joint chiefs, whom themselves answered to the President.

I don’t know the circumstances for other governments regarding Constitutional delegation of military authority. I would imagine it must be different from ours if they are willing to place troops under (ultimate) foreign command authority. If they make that choice they should do so freely and without coercion….and I am unaware of any coercive actions by our government forcing command authority over foreign troops of an unwilling government. If so, that would be hypocrisy, absolutely.

For what it is worth, the rules of engagement differ depending on the respective governments. The British have different rules of engagement than we do (at least I know this is true for pilots), for example, regardless of command, so it would seem that some element of control remains intact by mutual agreement. I’m not educated enough on the matter to know how it works precisely (and Mr P is out of town so I can’t ask him like I usually do for tough questions )

The problem with this Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and the crux of what Julian is getting is, why the hell does the rest of the world have to put up with this imperial notion that puts all our troops and foreign policy at the mercy of the White House?

This is the sort of self important justification one might expect of Julius Caesar or Ghengis Khan and the truth is, the only reason why US troops are exempt from allied command is because America is richer than every one else and will tell every one else where to go if it doesn't get its own way.

So whilst the world goes to hell in a hand basket, we all have to mollycoddle the big fat American ego in case it decides to throw a tantrum...

...and then, just when things are looking bleak, you all go and elect some one like GW Bush.

Really? What ultimate foreign authority did we permit to be placed over our troops during the first and second world wars? We weren't so rich back then.

Edited to add:

A quote for you, from Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto (paraphrased):

"The reason that the American Revolution created a republic that has done so well for so long, while the French and Russian revolutions degenerated so quickly into tyranny, was that the American Framers didn't try to create a government capable of doing great good in the hands of brilliant and well-intentioned people. Instead, they tried to create a government that couldn't do too much to ruin the country in the hands of a bunch of corrupt morons. And they did a pretty good job of it".

The checks and balances in the Constitution are there for a reason. I trust that before any Internationalist conceptions of a new, "better" world order overridding them.

Mrs. Pigpen

The notion of the checks and balances works only if you still believe the American Republic is alive and well and not just the outer husk of nation actually run by an oligarchy of military industrial interests.

These days, when ever I hear about the much vaunted checks and balances of the American Republic I am reminded of Senator Byrd's speech on the eve of the Iraq war:Link.


None. I don't understand how this contradicts what I'm saying either. In point of fact the USA was very rich in 1941, so rich in fact that it was able to dominate the Pacific theatre whilst engaged in Europe AND whilst aiding the other allied powers with weaponry and equipment.

The wealth of the USA was vast compared to the other nations involved, and the pattern that was set in the second world war continues to this day. From that point on, the world has danced to America's tune.

The notion that US troops are never under any one else's authority because of the constitution may be valid in the context of the constitution, but it makes no difference outside of it. The constitution has no authority outside of the USA and yet, any nation that is allied to the USA must abide by its authority and place its troops under American command. Any nation that refuses to do this, for example France, quickly finds itself in the cold shadow of US economic power.

The bottom line, for me is, Danish troops are being commanded by the President of the USA but no Dane will ever be permitted to command American troops. Our country has no other option than to do as we are bid for, unlike France, we cannot afford to upset the USA. GW Bush wanted our soldiers and so we gave them. Why? Because the alternative was to face American anger and be pushed out into the cold.

Like so many other nations, we are dependent on the USA for so much. Since the second world war Denmark has been gradually pulled deeper and deeper into the gravity of America's influence. In the 1960's for example, it was totally unthinkable for Denmark to send troops into a combat zone since the cold war allowed us to remain inside our nation, at the ready. Since the end of the cold war however, its become plain that we have no say in the defence of our country. The best we can do is barter for favourable terms. When the USA wants to build a military installation on our land we cannot refuse because we cannot afford the consequences of refusal.

In alliance with the USA we are become nothing but a vassal state to US military/political interests. Sure we've prospered under this alliance, but so what? A well fed slave is still a slave.

Danes, like the Brits are second class citizens in this new post cold war age. We are not accorded the same rights as US citizens, nor are our soldiers who serve under US command. We can even be abducted and tortured on a whim and our politicians have no way to prevent it.

America walks all over us, ignores our laws and rights and talks about the sanctity of a piece of paper called the Constitution.

Yogurt, you accuse the French of war crimes but yet think that US is stainless of such an act? Look at Vietnam War and think about all those napalm that was dropped. US is too quick to blame others but yet refuses people to judge their actions. Here are some links about Vietnam and its brutuality:

http://mondediplo.com/2000/04/15vietnam

http://hnn.us/articles/1802.html

Examples:






Moif



Moif, I found your analysis very true. Same applies to Turkey. During the Cold War, we were nothing but an American Missle Base and now, we are not even worth that much. A few months ago, we even had a case where American war material was secretly being transported to Iraq from the port city of Iskenderun against the law passed by the Turkish government that we should not take sides at the Iraq War. (I can provide a link but it is in Turkish and I doubt it will be of any help.) Yet we could do nothink but to protest.

You had to go back 40 years to find a parallel for something that happened just a few months ago?
Our joint ancestors committed genocide on the Neanderthals also, but we know that is not acceptable today. Time has a strange way of changing perspective. Also things that were done in the past happened in the context of the world at that time. You can project today's world back into history and say "what if?", but that changes all the rules

To your second point, the U.S. would have a pretty hard time hiding our mistakes or misdeeds, considering that they are on page one of the New York Times every morning. (They even take the time to invent some so that they make up for any they might have missed) .

OK, firstly, let me dispell a few myths that are being thrown around here, then we can get back to the argument at hand.

- The US caused the USSR to collapse/ The US caused the USSR to bankrupt itself with increased military spending.

I don't want to get too far off track here, but this was never true, and with the opening of Soviet Archives has been thouroughly discredited. Soviet Military spending was static throughout the 1980s barring a slight blip in 1984-85 which resulted from the Typhoon class submarine program. The USSR never spent any significant money on Star wars or anti-star wars related technology because they determined early on it was not a practical threat, and that one did not need to spend any signifiant money to defeat it.

Proof in fact, in the recently deployed and under mass-production Topol-M ICBM, with variable speed and tragectory making it impossible to intercept, a legacy of the Soviet era. The USSR collapsed due to the collapse of commodity prices in 1984 which prevented growth or modernisation of their economy, internal corruption which was endemic to the system, and the well motived but poorly executed openness and social liberalisation of Gorbachev. The US, while it certainly had a hand in the collapse, by keeping up the pressure and not relenting, cannot possibly be given the credit for causing the actual end. Had Gorbachev never existed, the USSR would still exist, weaker to be sure, but enjoying the current boom in commodity prices such as oil.

- The French ignored the plight of Rwandans/ allowed Rwandans to be massacred.
(Oh, and Rwanda was 11 years ago, not a 'few months ago')

This just needs a basic level of understanding of the Rwandan tragedy to dismiss. Yes the French did nothing, neither did anyone else (there were 17 countries deployed there at the time) not because they were evil, but because there was nothing they could do. The only national forces that made any attempt to intervene were the Belgians, and they were massacred for their trouble.

In fact, when (2 months after the massacre began) the UN created a safe zone in South-West Rwanda to be guarded by UN troops (June 22nd, 1994) they sent in French forces to maintain and protect the zone, a job they did very well. Far to the contrary of your point, it could be said that the French were the ONLY nation willing to deploy combat forces Rwanda and use them in the face of such a massacre. The US refused.


Back to the case at hand. Frankly, the size of the US military budget is a bit of a red herring. As has been pointed out, yes the US military budget is massive, but only in proprtion to the massive size of the US economy. I do not think there is any real cause to attack the US on this score.

Perhaps a more significant number is the fact that the US is responsible for over 40% of all international arms sales worldwide, Vastly more than any other nation in the world. Second is Russia at 16%, then France at 10%, Germany at 7%. Furthermore, of this massive US number in arms sales, over 50% of US sales goes to the third world.


Anyways, that is neither here nor there. In the end, you cannot condemn the US by simply its real-dollar military budget, you can however condemn it for how it decides to use that budget.



Oh, and as another factual aside, during the First world war, US troops fought under foreign control, first British, then French after March 28th, 1918.

Okay. I looked that up and you are right. In that specific case our armed forces were only a fraction of whsat they needed to be, and underequipt, so American troops were placed under Allied command in "amalgamated forces". Foreign command was intended to be temporary from the first, although a few remained in amalgamated forces at the war's end. The arrangement was intended to deal with an emergency situation, so I'd argue that it would apply only to similarly extenuating situations. Yes, I agree, if the free world would end as we know it and there were no other feasible options there might be some cause to bend the rules. The way things stand today I can't see any compelling enough argument to do so.

We have amalgamated forces today, too (which you probably know). There is shared command of U.S. forces serving under British direction in Afghanistan, but that is constitutional because the goals of their missions and, presumably, the terms of engagement are subject to the civilian control of the President, through a domestic chain of command. IMO, that is the way to do things. It provides joint authority for joint roles without overriding the Constitution. I don't know why any nation would do otherwise. Considering the ROE are often different depending on the country they might all do it that way as far as I know. Personally I think control of one's military is fundamental to sovereignty and I don't understand any rational for anyone handing the reigns entirely to a foreign power.

Actually this point made me soewhat confused, when people where saying that U.S troops only follow the president and so forth.

I presume you guys know that quite a deal of the NATO missions both Denmark and Sweden has been in control. Mostly because they are far better at Peace missio9ns which the U.S are, quite frankly, bad at. Swedish commanders and troops controled a big amount (and a point here, Sweden is NOT in NATO) of the U.S troops both in Balkan, and thatotherplace i forgot the name of. Danish troops have also been in charge.

Just a point.

You mean a " New World Order"?
I imagine that this is the entire concept of the American point of view. We are always right, our Constitution says so and as long as we have the firepower to make everyone kneel to our demands , we shall do so, until you come up with something better that we cant bomb you for.
The French and Spanish are cowards, the Germans and Japanese owe us eternally, we can buy off anyone else in the Western/Eastern world, but problematic those North Koreans and Chinese.

Lets just stop dancing around. Saddam Hussein was a good friendly friend of the Reagan Administration, and they knew he was a 'baaad person' then and we used him and the Iraqi people for our own benefit against Iran. When our puppet Saddam got out of hand we defended Kuwaiit and put sanctions on Iraqi people. We put 12 years of suffering on Iraq, through no fault of Iraqis, THEN, we decide its better to fight terrorists there than here and invade, causing both civil war and war against colonial imperialism. It was 100 years in the making from the discovery of the first oil fields and the British getting their butts kicked out of Iraq.

And you think the US government are not hypocrites and America is not a nation to be hated? Does anyone think really that everyone in the world except us does not see an oil grab? Like we can fool these people?

Lucky to be born (with blinders on) american and not ANY other, because whether you are a citzen of Central or South America, the Middle East, or parts of Asia, few have not seen the ensueing poverty, war and upheaval of political meddling and puppet dictatorships put into power, democratic governments toppled by the US , leaders assasinated or kidnapped, hardly any of it benefitting anyone but americans themselves and only a few at that.

Osama was no angel either and we made him as well, then left Afghanistan to the Taliban in a power vacuum. However the Taliban were invited to Texas and Washingnton, given the red carpet treatment, until they would not give up Osama.

We are rife with Hypocrisy! We are in the very bloodline and lymph Hypocrites and corrupt as the day is long.

Im truly not sure if we have not become the most corrupt , destructors on the planet in our day and age, altogether believing, I suppose like the Romans, that we are good and just. It might all be called an eye for an eye, except, we wanted it this way because we needed an excuse.

The President need only retain control over the important "macro-level" decisions concerning the troops, the goals of the mission, strategies used to attain those goals. There is always (to my knowledge) some ultimate command authority (or at least a joint one, which might share power with other international authorities) who answers to the president regarding the actions of our troops.

Okay I understand your points, but could you explain what the difference is with other countries. The exact arguments can be used for instance in the case of the Dutch, Belgian, French, German, Italian, Polish, Spanish and Australian troops.
The Dutch military took an oath to protect Holland, not the Kofi Annan, the U.S. or George Bush. The Dutch have troops that are especially trained for peace missions and have done a lot of good in Afghanistan and Iraq. Still they are lead by the U.S. along the lines like "glad that you are here, now shut up and do what we tell you to do".

BTW Yogurth your second point is completely bogus. Supreme command over all the coalition troops does not have to be in the hands of American commanders. Military commanders from different countries can also set the goals, strategies, tacticts, logistics of a war, you do not have to be American. The fact that normally foreign troops afield are lead by their own commanders does not contradict this.



I would rather reverse your statement. Seeing how the U.S. troops are behaving I am sure all the French are glad that they did not have committed themselves to this dirty and difficult and unjust war. American and British soldiers are loosing their lives on a daily basis in a war that could have been prevented or dealt differently if your government had just listened to the rest of the world a little bit more.





Moif I happen to share the same views as you have, the smaller western European countries are being trapped in powerpolitics of the U.S. (just replace Denmark, Danes with The Netherlands, Dutch) We just have to shut up, and follow orders. We have participated in the War in Afghanistan and Iraq as the real peace-troops (only one Dutch soldier died, and we were in Iraq from the beginning!).

And btw, talking about hypocracy just check out the U.S. stance towards the ICC. Apart from the fact there is a LAW in America that gives a president the opportunity to INVADE the Netherlands in case a U.S. soldier has to stand trial in front of this international court in The Hague! (Why do the normal international laws not apply to U.S. soldiers and military organisation ???????).

I have no earthly idea, as I am not familiar with the Constitutions of any of those countries. I can tell you plainly that if our president (and Congress, whose permission would be required) permitted our troops to be used under ultimate authority of Kofi Annan, my issue wouldn't be with Kofi, it would be with my government. I understand why Kofi would want the use of our troops, at his personal disposal. I can't blame him for that, but I can blame my own government and would take steps to counteract it (by any legal means necessary).

So .... correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this mean that the U.S. will only be part of U.N. peace keeping missions when they have the high command? Isn't this a bit hypocritical? I will play your game as long as you follow my rules and obey my commands? Doesn't this undermine the power, influence and creditabilty of the U.N.? Does this promote peace and stability? Just a few questions ...

At the very least, joint command over our own military forces, I'd say that is correct...

Not in any way I can thing of. Were we ever ambiguous on this issue?

We will permit "you" to use our troops as long as you abide by the rules of which they agreed to? Okay, yes. That's right. If it "undermines the credibility of the UN", that isn't our concern. We have never been ambivalent on this point. We commit troops to the UN only if the Constitutional rights of those in (ostensible) service our government remain intact (aka our military members).

Why should our troops commit themselves to the service of the UN? They'd have to have any entirely different oath in that case. The oath now goes ...." I (John Doe) do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" The new version would have to be something like, "I, (John Doe) do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution that I am not protected by, and not always subject to if under a non-Constitutional authoritative UN government body...."

On a similar vein, do I have the right to go down to the affluent district of Las Vegas and take Andre Aggasi's automobile and drive it around town? Hey! He is willing to drive it on our streets and follow our street laws! He is a member of Summerlin just as I am! I've seen him next to me at the stop light. Why can't I take his property and drive it myself? What if I am a better driver than he is? What if I let him drive my car around? Do I then get to drive his car (regardless of any issues of consent)? Of course, in the case of Agassi's car we aren't speaking of actual lives. Andre Agassi being forced to turn his car over to me because he is a resident of Summerlin is by far more reasonable than, say, my husband being forced to turn his military service and life over to the UN....

Edited to add: I missed this earlier...

International laws do apply to US soldiers. There are issues of sovereignty here, and I explained my position on the ICC in my first post on this thread. It isn't hypocritical to demand the same rights for our soldiers as any other American would be entitled, when they are placed in harm's way under our government's bidding. That is the agreement when our troops sign on for military service. This certainly doesn't mean they are free to commit crimes. And regarding the "Hague invasion act", a point is in order. The Netherlands are a member of NATO. As such, we are obligated to defend them from invasion. By law we'd be obligated to attack ourselves (along with every other member of NATO) if we invaded. What would have to come first is the dissolution of NATO and I doubt it would ever come to that. I'm sure, however, that use of our resources and forces for UN activities would be non-existent if it started usurping our soveriegnty and trying our troops under the unConstitutional ICC rules.

Well, I don’t know if I would label it hypocrisy, more so the agreed upon course for the future of the U.S as those calling the shots so perceive as the fit route to take. I think most any nation has one of these, politically conservative policy overall basically. It just becomes apparent at the U.N when the member states cannot resolve an issue that fit’s the plans I guess. Either someone has to pay to much, or someone does not care to commit troops to some action, or where the war in the eastern block differs from the mid east to members states participation.

One also has to remember that the current occupiers of the U.S are openly very conservative, so one I guess should not be shocked if a me first behavior comes about in regards to the international scene. Sometimes I guess it sucks that all have to live on one planet, but hey, what can you do really.

I think it would be worse if the U.S gave no aid, I don’t know if I agree with the whole idea of feeding a starving person if they agree to do jumping jacks for you, but survival does not have to be a pretty and or nice thing all the time, all one has to do is watch the discovery channel to learn that. I don’t know for sure, but I doubt the U.S is the first nation to expect favors for favors, its something looked on poorly in most professional settings, but when you spend a dollar, you don’t get that one dollar in particular back, so I don’t know how much blame you can truly land on the U.S giving the situation in the world and human history overall.

As much as it may appear I am defending the position of the U.S in my post for its actions, I am truly just speaking freely as I see things, which of course is open to debate as is the main function of this website, thus my personal interest in it.

I do know that globalization is most likely behind much of what the woes and benefits people see today, and to constantly look out for one self may not be the best way to make friends or live freely from enemies in such an environment, more so when some for of absolute empirical truth on everything does not currently exist for decision making. Many great empires have come and gone, either through warfare, trying to stay on top or just making plain out bad decisions in life, so I would hope that the U.S does not feel so mighty as it cannot fall, or like in batman we may have to learn why we did. For that I could agree the U.S may be hypocritical.

The fact we are trying to say Mrs Pigpen is that no other country makes excuses not to commit any troops unless they are in control of it. We Turkish have a lot of troops in peacekeeping missions but we don't even have the slightest control over what goes there. UN is an independent body (at least on paper) and should be so. If you do not agree with the way UN is acting, you are free to withdraw whenever you like.

Why should we Turkish have to live up to the rules US makes? We don't have anything to say on global events and we are no more than a US vassal. On several cases such as the Iskenderun event , US have violated our sovereignty and we could not say a damned thing. Myself and many in my country share the belief Artemise said a couple of posts ago. Is there any reason we should not feel that way?

Note: If you don't know about Iskenderun event, send me a personal message and I will translate the newspapers for you. I don't think there were many international intrest in the event but it was horrifying.

I don't know a thing about the Iskenderun event. I do know that we have numerous security agreements with Turkey. We give your government a lot of money in exchange for use of your bases, and whatever else is agreed upon. If you don't like the arrangements your government has made with us in exchange for money the one to blame is your government. If we have violated your country's sovereignty I am unaware of it. If we have, that is wrong, absolutely, but there seems to be a common theme on this thread running along the lines of...you (the US) should give us your resources and troops and we (other countries) dictate the terms in which we use them whether you (the US) like the agreement or not. No. We come to a mutual agreement on the terms in which our own troops are used, just like every other country (in our case part of that understanding is that the Constitutional protections of our soldiers remain intact). As we have hundreds of thousands of soldiers, many stationed around the globe, this issue is of much more compelling concern to us than most other nations. If you don't like it, don't take the money, refuse the deal and find another way to fund your defense. It is irrelevant to me what other nations do with their soldiers. If everyone started beating their children I wouldn't beat mine, so if other nations don't wish for the same protections for their soldiers that is their concern. However, I am unaware of any country that allows its troops to be used in a way that is contrary to the policies of its own government....yet that is exactly what you are suggesting we do. Not just suggesting it, demanding it and accusing us of hypocrisy if we don't. The US government is unique with respect to the role of commander-in-chief of our military. That position belongs only to the president of the United States.

Was this what you were referring to? SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER