Should NATO be disbanded?

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Because there is absolutely nothing to be gained from invading Poland? As pointed out before, if Chechnya could give so much pain to Russia, imagine what a country several times the size would do.

The only person in Russia who seriously talks about this is that Zhirovnovsky nut.

[ARescan]

NATO is perfectly ok; however, the UN is awful.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

Won't be disbanded, they will officially change the name and the mission, maybe the League of Nations for Freedom, or something like that, the kind of stuffs Giulliani and Mc Cain spoke about in 2008 then, well at least if UN doesn't become stronger in a near future, that would happen...

A Russia is not a danger at all with Medvedev as president, Medvedev is your friend, he hasn't stopped to oppose and criticize Putin during the last months, but, when Putin will be back in 2012, what would happen if no big changes, he would certainly not invade Poland, but he could enjoy the...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VwkyrTb6go

[Senator Libertas]

Yes, NATO's reason for existence disappeared twenty years ago.

[JSojourner]

Yes, NATO's reason for existence disappeared twenty years ago.

An historic moment in Atlas history.  I agree with Libertas. 

Even though I believe in firm and fierce retaliation for attacks like 9/11...and though I would certainly welcome the participation of any nation willing to aid in the capture of the mass murderers...NATO is a largely useless organization. 

Well, check that.  I see some sense in a European peacekeeping alliance, but one involving European nations and not relying on American/Canadian military or financial muscle.  This was my (very unpopular) position when Clinton joined us to the Balkan peacekeeping effort.  How was this an American sphere of influence?  Why couldn't France, Britain and the rest run the show and get the job done?  (I think they would have done just fine.)

That said, I gotta be honest.  I've never seen a military operation so expected to fail turn out so successfully.  And bloodlessly.

[Free Palestine]

Yes, NATO's reason for existence disappeared twenty years ago.

An historic moment in Atlas history.  I agree with Libertas. 

Even though I believe in firm and fierce retaliation for attacks like 9/11...and though I would certainly welcome the participation of any nation willing to aid in the capture of the mass murderers...NATO is a largely useless organization. 

Well, check that.  I see some sense in a European peacekeeping alliance, but one involving European nations and not relying on American/Canadian military or financial muscle.  This was my (very unpopular) position when Clinton joined us to the Balkan peacekeeping effort.  How was this an American sphere of influence?  Why couldn't France, Britain and the rest run the show and get the job done?  (I think they would have done just fine.)

That said, I gotta be honest.  I've never seen a military operation so expected to fail turn out so successfully.  And bloodlessly.

Careful now, I might start to like you.

[JSojourner]

Yes, NATO's reason for existence disappeared twenty years ago.

An historic moment in Atlas history.  I agree with Libertas. 

Even though I believe in firm and fierce retaliation for attacks like 9/11...and though I would certainly welcome the participation of any nation willing to aid in the capture of the mass murderers...NATO is a largely useless organization. 

Well, check that.  I see some sense in a European peacekeeping alliance, but one involving European nations and not relying on American/Canadian military or financial muscle.  This was my (very unpopular) position when Clinton joined us to the Balkan peacekeeping effort.  How was this an American sphere of influence?  Why couldn't France, Britain and the rest run the show and get the job done?  (I think they would have done just fine.)

That said, I gotta be honest.  I've never seen a military operation so expected to fail turn out so successfully.  And bloodlessly.

Careful now, I might start to like you.

It's been known to happen.  But I promise to back some big government welfare program in short order!  ;-)

Nah, I am not an interventionist but I am a hawk when the country is attacked.  And I hate to say it, but I am still guided by the old-fashioned notion that war should be hell.  Not because I believe in retribution.  But because, like Robert E. Lee, I believe "it is a good thing war is so terrible, lest men grow too fond of it."

[Bo]

Yes, NATO's reason for existence disappeared twenty years ago.

An historic moment in Atlas history.  I agree with Libertas. 

Even though I believe in firm and fierce retaliation for attacks like 9/11...and though I would certainly welcome the participation of any nation willing to aid in the capture of the mass murderers...NATO is a largely useless organization. 

Well, check that.  I see some sense in a European peacekeeping alliance, but one involving European nations and not relying on American/Canadian military or financial muscle.  This was my (very unpopular) position when Clinton joined us to the Balkan peacekeeping effort.  How was this an American sphere of influence?  Why couldn't France, Britain and the rest run the show and get the job done?  (I think they would have done just fine.)

That said, I gotta be honest.  I've never seen a military operation so expected to fail turn out so successfully.  And bloodlessly.

Careful now, I might start to like you.

It's been known to happen.  But I promise to back some big government welfare program in short order!  ;-)

Nah, I am not an interventionist but I am a hawk when the country is attacked.  And I hate to say it, but I am still guided by the old-fashioned notion that war should be hell.  Not because I believe in retribution.  But because, like Robert E. Lee, I believe "it is a good thing war is so terrible, lest men grow too fond of it."

I don't get why you thought the Yugoslav operation would be a failure. All Clinton had to do was bomb Serbia/Yugoslavia and force them to withdraw from Bosnia. It wasn't that hard and it was relatively quick and with few casualties. And BTW, I agree with Clinton's justification that a genocide cannot occur in NATO's backyard and that it would be too traumatizing for Europeans to see another genocide occur on their soil so many years after the horrors of WWII have ended. I wish Clinton would have done more to stop the Rwandan Genocide, but the thing is that the media constantly showed the war and genocide in Bosnia (and later Kosovo) while virtually ignoring the Rwandan Genocide.

[Free Palestine]

Yes, NATO's reason for existence disappeared twenty years ago.

An historic moment in Atlas history.  I agree with Libertas. 

Even though I believe in firm and fierce retaliation for attacks like 9/11...and though I would certainly welcome the participation of any nation willing to aid in the capture of the mass murderers...NATO is a largely useless organization. 

Well, check that.  I see some sense in a European peacekeeping alliance, but one involving European nations and not relying on American/Canadian military or financial muscle.  This was my (very unpopular) position when Clinton joined us to the Balkan peacekeeping effort.  How was this an American sphere of influence?  Why couldn't France, Britain and the rest run the show and get the job done?  (I think they would have done just fine.)

That said, I gotta be honest.  I've never seen a military operation so expected to fail turn out so successfully.  And bloodlessly.

Careful now, I might start to like you.

It's been known to happen.  But I promise to back some big government welfare program in short order!  ;-)

Nah, I am not an interventionist but I am a hawk when the country is attacked.  And I hate to say it, but I am still guided by the old-fashioned notion that war should be hell.  Not because I believe in retribution.  But because, like Robert E. Lee, I believe "it is a good thing war is so terrible, lest men grow too fond of it."

I'm the same way.  I think that we were initially justified in going to Afghanistan, in order to anally rape Osama bin Laden (not literally).  However, we are not justified in remaining in order to stabilize the country, or whatever.

[JSojourner]

Yes, NATO's reason for existence disappeared twenty years ago.

An historic moment in Atlas history.  I agree with Libertas. 

Even though I believe in firm and fierce retaliation for attacks like 9/11...and though I would certainly welcome the participation of any nation willing to aid in the capture of the mass murderers...NATO is a largely useless organization. 

Well, check that.  I see some sense in a European peacekeeping alliance, but one involving European nations and not relying on American/Canadian military or financial muscle.  This was my (very unpopular) position when Clinton joined us to the Balkan peacekeeping effort.  How was this an American sphere of influence?  Why couldn't France, Britain and the rest run the show and get the job done?  (I think they would have done just fine.)

That said, I gotta be honest.  I've never seen a military operation so expected to fail turn out so successfully.  And bloodlessly.

Careful now, I might start to like you.

It's been known to happen.  But I promise to back some big government welfare program in short order!  ;-)

Nah, I am not an interventionist but I am a hawk when the country is attacked.  And I hate to say it, but I am still guided by the old-fashioned notion that war should be hell.  Not because I believe in retribution.  But because, like Robert E. Lee, I believe "it is a good thing war is so terrible, lest men grow too fond of it."

I'm the same way.  I think that we were initially justified in going to Afghanistan, in order to anally rape Osama bin Laden (not literally).  However, we are not justified in remaining in order to stabilize the country, or whatever.

Pretty much agreed.  Nation building worked after WW 2 but there were actual nations in place before the devastation.  I could support US involved as an equal partner in certain projects like Haiti or Afgahanistan.  But I would like to know when other rich nations are going to kick in.

Roch--  I hear you.  I was not necessarily expecting a military defeat.  I was expecting the inauguration of a wider war, possibly with Russia. And even without that, I certainly did NOT expect the Balkan intervention to happen without one single U.S. casualty.  That, above all else, is the most amazing facet of that little experiment.  Not sure who to credit for that...Wes Clark? The Clinton Administration?  Our soldiers and airmen?  Dunno...but I am happy it played out the way it has.

[Torie]

Whether NATO is disbanded or not, will not make much difference, since nations act in concert when they want to, and don't when they don't, irrespective of what pieces of paper say, or organizational structures being in place that can theoretically be used, but in fact are almost ceremonial at this point (part of the "problem" is that there are very few militaries around now in a high tech world that can effectively project their power much anyway; some of the European militaries are welfare schemes where the troops do make work, and are probably less "dangerous" than a street gang). It is kind of a moot point at this point.

[dead0man]

some of the European militaries are welfare schemes where the troops do make work, and are probably less "dangerous" than a street gang).

All of the "important" Euro countries have very competent, modern militaries that are man for man, on par with the US.  Yes, even the best rely too much on the US for force projection, but I wouldn't want to fight any majorish war without the help of the UK and Germany.

[Bo]

some of the European militaries are welfare schemes where the troops do make work, and are probably less "dangerous" than a street gang).

All of the "important" Euro countries have very competent, modern militaries that are man for man, on par with the US.  Yes, even the best rely too much on the US for force projection, but I wouldn't want to fight any majorish war without the help of the UK and Germany.

Don't forget the massive French military. French power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bo]

Roch--  I hear you.  I was not necessarily expecting a military defeat.  I was expecting the inauguration of a wider war, possibly with Russia. And even without that, I certainly did NOT expect the Balkan intervention to happen without one single U.S. casualty.  That, above all else, is the most amazing facet of that little experiment.  Not sure who to credit for that...Wes Clark? The Clinton Administration?  Our soldiers and airmen?  Dunno...but I am happy it played out the way it has.

I understand your fear of U.S. casualties but how come you thought Russia was going to step into the conflict? First of all, Russia does not border the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, the USSR didn't necessarily have the best relations with Yugoslavia. Third, why would Russia care about what happens in the former Yugoslavia? It was a pretty poor region (especially back then), and it wasn't even under the USSR's sphere of influence during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't want to start a war with the U.S. over some small countries that have little importance to Russia, and Russia had it's own fair share of problems back then. Finally, I'm sure Yeltsin remembered what helping Serbia in 1914 and expanding WWI resulted in for Russia--two revolutions, massive genocide, and 75 years of economic stagnation. To be honest, I never heard anyone else saying that they thought bombing Bosnia would lead to a war with Russia. This is the first time I heard of this opinion. Of course, I was a small child back then, so maybe this sentiment and opinion was much more widespread in the early-mid 1990s than I think it was.

[JSojourner]

Roch--  I hear you.  I was not necessarily expecting a military defeat.  I was expecting the inauguration of a wider war, possibly with Russia. And even without that, I certainly did NOT expect the Balkan intervention to happen without one single U.S. casualty.  That, above all else, is the most amazing facet of that little experiment.  Not sure who to credit for that...Wes Clark? The Clinton Administration?  Our soldiers and airmen?  Dunno...but I am happy it played out the way it has.

I understand your fear of U.S. casualties but how come you thought Russia was going to step into the conflict? First of all, Russia does not border the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, the USSR didn't necessarily have the best relations with Yugoslavia. Third, why would Russia care about what happens in the former Yugoslavia? It was a pretty poor region (especially back then), and it wasn't even under the USSR's sphere of influence during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't want to start a war with the U.S. over some small countries that have little importance to Russia, and Russia had it's own fair share of problems back then. Finally, I'm sure Yeltsin remembered what helping Serbia in 1914 and expanding WWI resulted in for Russia--two revolutions, massive genocide, and 75 years of economic stagnation. To be honest, I never heard anyone else saying that they thought bombing Bosnia would lead to a war with Russia. This is the first time I heard of this opinion. Of course, I was a small child back then, so maybe this sentiment and opinion was much more widespread in the early-mid 1990s than I think it was.

Were you alive back then?

There was a lot of concern that Russia would flex what military muscle she had in defense of her historic allies in the region. Russo-Serbian ties go back long before the Cold War.

We got lucky, in that Russia -- at the time -- didn't even have gasoline to powers its military vehicles.  If I didn't know that at the time, I sure learned it quickly. But the major concern would have been disabusing the United States of the notion that Europe was a place where it could work its will.  The notion of spheres of influence is one that is still cherished in some parts of the world. Russia has never liked us flaunting our military power in an area it considers more its backyard than our own.

My primary objection, however, was that England, France and other NATO countries were more than capable of doing the job themselves...without our help.  And I have long insisted that, when practicable, Europe should be permitted to tend to her own problems without the much-resented input of her cousins to the west. 

[Torie]

some of the European militaries are welfare schemes where the troops do make work, and are probably less "dangerous" than a street gang).

All of the "important" Euro countries have very competent, modern militaries that are man for man, on par with the US.  Yes, even the best rely too much on the US for force projection, but I wouldn't want to fight any majorish war without the help of the UK and Germany.

The UK has a very competent military. Germany?

[Free Palestine]

Roch--  I hear you.  I was not necessarily expecting a military defeat.  I was expecting the inauguration of a wider war, possibly with Russia. And even without that, I certainly did NOT expect the Balkan intervention to happen without one single U.S. casualty.  That, above all else, is the most amazing facet of that little experiment.  Not sure who to credit for that...Wes Clark? The Clinton Administration?  Our soldiers and airmen?  Dunno...but I am happy it played out the way it has.

I understand your fear of U.S. casualties but how come you thought Russia was going to step into the conflict? First of all, Russia does not border the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, the USSR didn't necessarily have the best relations with Yugoslavia. Third, why would Russia care about what happens in the former Yugoslavia? It was a pretty poor region (especially back then), and it wasn't even under the USSR's sphere of influence during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't want to start a war with the U.S. over some small countries that have little importance to Russia, and Russia had it's own fair share of problems back then. Finally, I'm sure Yeltsin remembered what helping Serbia in 1914 and expanding WWI resulted in for Russia--two revolutions, massive genocide, and 75 years of economic stagnation. To be honest, I never heard anyone else saying that they thought bombing Bosnia would lead to a war with Russia. This is the first time I heard of this opinion. Of course, I was a small child back then, so maybe this sentiment and opinion was much more widespread in the early-mid 1990s than I think it was.

Were you alive back then?

There was a lot of concern that Russia would flex what military muscle she had in defense of her historic allies in the region. Russo-Serbian ties go back long before the Cold War.

We got lucky, in that Russia -- at the time -- didn't even have gasoline to powers its military vehicles.  If I didn't know that at the time, I sure learned it quickly. But the major concern would have been disabusing the United States of the notion that Europe was a place where it could work its will.  The notion of spheres of influence is one that is still cherished in some parts of the world. Russia has never liked us flaunting our military power in an area it considers more its backyard than our own.

My primary objection, however, was that England, France and other NATO countries were more than capable of doing the job themselves...without our help.  And I have long insisted that, when practicable, Europe should be permitted to tend to her own problems without the much-resented input of her cousins to the west. 

Which is why I think America's foreign policy is putting the American people at risk.  We're risking a Cold War with China over selling weapons to Taiwan.  I ask, which of these would be more beneficial to the American people?

1) Cut off relations with China.  No pencils or other cheap goods.  Potential for nuclear annihilation.

2) Taiwan having weapons.

[JSojourner]

some of the European militaries are welfare schemes where the troops do make work, and are probably less "dangerous" than a street gang).

All of the "important" Euro countries have very competent, modern militaries that are man for man, on par with the US.  Yes, even the best rely too much on the US for force projection, but I wouldn't want to fight any majorish war without the help of the UK and Germany.

The UK has a very competent military. Germany?

No idea.  I know that in the Balkan conflict there was some sort of caveat disallowing the presence of German, Italian or Hungarian troops outside their own borders.  I seem to remember that as a reason for them not participating on the ground.  (Well, Hungary wasn't yet part of NATO anyway.)  Italy did some flight mission work but I think Germany stayed out entirely.  At least until combat was clearly over.

I could be wrong, but I think now there are even some non NATO forces on the ground there...Ireland, to be specific. 

[Bo]

Roch--  I hear you.  I was not necessarily expecting a military defeat.  I was expecting the inauguration of a wider war, possibly with Russia. And even without that, I certainly did NOT expect the Balkan intervention to happen without one single U.S. casualty.  That, above all else, is the most amazing facet of that little experiment.  Not sure who to credit for that...Wes Clark? The Clinton Administration?  Our soldiers and airmen?  Dunno...but I am happy it played out the way it has.

I understand your fear of U.S. casualties but how come you thought Russia was going to step into the conflict? First of all, Russia does not border the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, the USSR didn't necessarily have the best relations with Yugoslavia. Third, why would Russia care about what happens in the former Yugoslavia? It was a pretty poor region (especially back then), and it wasn't even under the USSR's sphere of influence during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't want to start a war with the U.S. over some small countries that have little importance to Russia, and Russia had it's own fair share of problems back then. Finally, I'm sure Yeltsin remembered what helping Serbia in 1914 and expanding WWI resulted in for Russia--two revolutions, massive genocide, and 75 years of economic stagnation. To be honest, I never heard anyone else saying that they thought bombing Bosnia would lead to a war with Russia. This is the first time I heard of this opinion. Of course, I was a small child back then, so maybe this sentiment and opinion was much more widespread in the early-mid 1990s than I think it was.

Were you alive back then?

There was a lot of concern that Russia would flex what military muscle she had in defense of her historic allies in the region. Russo-Serbian ties go back long before the Cold War.

We got lucky, in that Russia -- at the time -- didn't even have gasoline to powers its military vehicles.  If I didn't know that at the time, I sure learned it quickly. But the major concern would have been disabusing the United States of the notion that Europe was a place where it could work its will.  The notion of spheres of influence is one that is still cherished in some parts of the world. Russia has never liked us flaunting our military power in an area it considers more its backyard than our own.

My primary objection, however, was that England, France and other NATO countries were more than capable of doing the job themselves...without our help.  And I have long insisted that, when practicable, Europe should be permitted to tend to her own problems without the much-resented input of her cousins to the west. 

As I previously mentioned (see bold) I was alive back then. However, I knew absolutely nothing about politics. I understand your concern that Europe should worry about it's own problems. However, European leaders needed guidance and direction from the U.S. (despite having the ability to handle it themselves) because they were very scared to use their militaries in almsot any instance after WWII (and it is understandable why). Thus, was Clinton supposed to say no to them? What else could Clinton have done--push the Europeans harder? I'm not sure that would have worked, and he probably pushed them as much as he would. Besides, the media was constantly showing the Bosnian War (I believe) and thus he would have looked really bad if he sat on his butt and did nothing about it.

[Bo]

Roch--  I hear you.  I was not necessarily expecting a military defeat.  I was expecting the inauguration of a wider war, possibly with Russia. And even without that, I certainly did NOT expect the Balkan intervention to happen without one single U.S. casualty.  That, above all else, is the most amazing facet of that little experiment.  Not sure who to credit for that...Wes Clark? The Clinton Administration?  Our soldiers and airmen?  Dunno...but I am happy it played out the way it has.

I understand your fear of U.S. casualties but how come you thought Russia was going to step into the conflict? First of all, Russia does not border the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, the USSR didn't necessarily have the best relations with Yugoslavia. Third, why would Russia care about what happens in the former Yugoslavia? It was a pretty poor region (especially back then), and it wasn't even under the USSR's sphere of influence during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't want to start a war with the U.S. over some small countries that have little importance to Russia, and Russia had it's own fair share of problems back then. Finally, I'm sure Yeltsin remembered what helping Serbia in 1914 and expanding WWI resulted in for Russia--two revolutions, massive genocide, and 75 years of economic stagnation. To be honest, I never heard anyone else saying that they thought bombing Bosnia would lead to a war with Russia. This is the first time I heard of this opinion. Of course, I was a small child back then, so maybe this sentiment and opinion was much more widespread in the early-mid 1990s than I think it was.

Were you alive back then?

There was a lot of concern that Russia would flex what military muscle she had in defense of her historic allies in the region. Russo-Serbian ties go back long before the Cold War.

We got lucky, in that Russia -- at the time -- didn't even have gasoline to powers its military vehicles.  If I didn't know that at the time, I sure learned it quickly. But the major concern would have been disabusing the United States of the notion that Europe was a place where it could work its will.  The notion of spheres of influence is one that is still cherished in some parts of the world. Russia has never liked us flaunting our military power in an area it considers more its backyard than our own.

My primary objection, however, was that England, France and other NATO countries were more than capable of doing the job themselves...without our help.  And I have long insisted that, when practicable, Europe should be permitted to tend to her own problems without the much-resented input of her cousins to the west. 

Which is why I think America's foreign policy is putting the American people at risk.  We're risking a Cold War with China over selling weapons to Taiwan.  I ask, which of these would be more beneficial to the American people?

1) Cut off relations with China.  No pencils or other cheap goods.  Potential for nuclear annihilation.

2) Taiwan having weapons.

China is a big baby--it always complains about America's close ties with Taiwan but never does anything real about it because they known that their economy is as dependent on the U.S. as the American economy is on China.

[President Mitt]

Yes, it should.

[Free Palestine]

Roch--  I hear you.  I was not necessarily expecting a military defeat.  I was expecting the inauguration of a wider war, possibly with Russia. And even without that, I certainly did NOT expect the Balkan intervention to happen without one single U.S. casualty.  That, above all else, is the most amazing facet of that little experiment.  Not sure who to credit for that...Wes Clark? The Clinton Administration?  Our soldiers and airmen?  Dunno...but I am happy it played out the way it has.

I understand your fear of U.S. casualties but how come you thought Russia was going to step into the conflict? First of all, Russia does not border the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, the USSR didn't necessarily have the best relations with Yugoslavia. Third, why would Russia care about what happens in the former Yugoslavia? It was a pretty poor region (especially back then), and it wasn't even under the USSR's sphere of influence during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't want to start a war with the U.S. over some small countries that have little importance to Russia, and Russia had it's own fair share of problems back then. Finally, I'm sure Yeltsin remembered what helping Serbia in 1914 and expanding WWI resulted in for Russia--two revolutions, massive genocide, and 75 years of economic stagnation. To be honest, I never heard anyone else saying that they thought bombing Bosnia would lead to a war with Russia. This is the first time I heard of this opinion. Of course, I was a small child back then, so maybe this sentiment and opinion was much more widespread in the early-mid 1990s than I think it was.

Were you alive back then?

There was a lot of concern that Russia would flex what military muscle she had in defense of her historic allies in the region. Russo-Serbian ties go back long before the Cold War.

We got lucky, in that Russia -- at the time -- didn't even have gasoline to powers its military vehicles.  If I didn't know that at the time, I sure learned it quickly. But the major concern would have been disabusing the United States of the notion that Europe was a place where it could work its will.  The notion of spheres of influence is one that is still cherished in some parts of the world. Russia has never liked us flaunting our military power in an area it considers more its backyard than our own.

My primary objection, however, was that England, France and other NATO countries were more than capable of doing the job themselves...without our help.  And I have long insisted that, when practicable, Europe should be permitted to tend to her own problems without the much-resented input of her cousins to the west. 

Which is why I think America's foreign policy is putting the American people at risk.  We're risking a Cold War with China over selling weapons to Taiwan.  I ask, which of these would be more beneficial to the American people?

1) Cut off relations with China.  No pencils or other cheap goods.  Potential for nuclear annihilation.

2) Taiwan having weapons.

China is a big baby--it always complains about America's close ties with Taiwan but never does anything real about it because they known that their economy is as dependent on the U.S. as the American economy is on China.

I don't think the potential risk is worth supplying the Republic of China with arms.  As I asked, how exactly does our support for the tiny country benefit the American people?  Wouldn't it be better to not have hostile relations with a country with over a billion people, the largest army in the world, and nukes?

[Bo]

Roch--  I hear you.  I was not necessarily expecting a military defeat.  I was expecting the inauguration of a wider war, possibly with Russia. And even without that, I certainly did NOT expect the Balkan intervention to happen without one single U.S. casualty.  That, above all else, is the most amazing facet of that little experiment.  Not sure who to credit for that...Wes Clark? The Clinton Administration?  Our soldiers and airmen?  Dunno...but I am happy it played out the way it has.

I understand your fear of U.S. casualties but how come you thought Russia was going to step into the conflict? First of all, Russia does not border the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, the USSR didn't necessarily have the best relations with Yugoslavia. Third, why would Russia care about what happens in the former Yugoslavia? It was a pretty poor region (especially back then), and it wasn't even under the USSR's sphere of influence during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't want to start a war with the U.S. over some small countries that have little importance to Russia, and Russia had it's own fair share of problems back then. Finally, I'm sure Yeltsin remembered what helping Serbia in 1914 and expanding WWI resulted in for Russia--two revolutions, massive genocide, and 75 years of economic stagnation. To be honest, I never heard anyone else saying that they thought bombing Bosnia would lead to a war with Russia. This is the first time I heard of this opinion. Of course, I was a small child back then, so maybe this sentiment and opinion was much more widespread in the early-mid 1990s than I think it was.

Were you alive back then?

There was a lot of concern that Russia would flex what military muscle she had in defense of her historic allies in the region. Russo-Serbian ties go back long before the Cold War.

We got lucky, in that Russia -- at the time -- didn't even have gasoline to powers its military vehicles.  If I didn't know that at the time, I sure learned it quickly. But the major concern would have been disabusing the United States of the notion that Europe was a place where it could work its will.  The notion of spheres of influence is one that is still cherished in some parts of the world. Russia has never liked us flaunting our military power in an area it considers more its backyard than our own.

My primary objection, however, was that England, France and other NATO countries were more than capable of doing the job themselves...without our help.  And I have long insisted that, when practicable, Europe should be permitted to tend to her own problems without the much-resented input of her cousins to the west.  

Which is why I think America's foreign policy is putting the American people at risk.  We're risking a Cold War with China over selling weapons to Taiwan.  I ask, which of these would be more beneficial to the American people?

1) Cut off relations with China.  No pencils or other cheap goods.  Potential for nuclear annihilation.

2) Taiwan having weapons.

China is a big baby--it always complains about America's close ties with Taiwan but never does anything real about it because they known that their economy is as dependent on the U.S. as the American economy is on China.

I don't think the potential risk is worth supplying the Republic of China with arms.  As I asked, how exactly does our support for the tiny country benefit the American people?  Wouldn't it be better to not have hostile relations with a country with over a billion people, the largest army in the world, and nukes?

U.S. relations with China aren't that bad, actually. It's more of an on-and-off thing, similar to how many romantic couples act. They have feelings of both love and hate for each other. BTW, isn't the U.S. worried about losing it's influence in Asia? That's partially why we still have troops in Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and several other Asian countries, despite the fact that WWII and the Cold War are already over for a relatively long time.

[Free Palestine]

Roch--  I hear you.  I was not necessarily expecting a military defeat.  I was expecting the inauguration of a wider war, possibly with Russia. And even without that, I certainly did NOT expect the Balkan intervention to happen without one single U.S. casualty.  That, above all else, is the most amazing facet of that little experiment.  Not sure who to credit for that...Wes Clark? The Clinton Administration?  Our soldiers and airmen?  Dunno...but I am happy it played out the way it has.

I understand your fear of U.S. casualties but how come you thought Russia was going to step into the conflict? First of all, Russia does not border the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, the USSR didn't necessarily have the best relations with Yugoslavia. Third, why would Russia care about what happens in the former Yugoslavia? It was a pretty poor region (especially back then), and it wasn't even under the USSR's sphere of influence during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't want to start a war with the U.S. over some small countries that have little importance to Russia, and Russia had it's own fair share of problems back then. Finally, I'm sure Yeltsin remembered what helping Serbia in 1914 and expanding WWI resulted in for Russia--two revolutions, massive genocide, and 75 years of economic stagnation. To be honest, I never heard anyone else saying that they thought bombing Bosnia would lead to a war with Russia. This is the first time I heard of this opinion. Of course, I was a small child back then, so maybe this sentiment and opinion was much more widespread in the early-mid 1990s than I think it was.

Were you alive back then?

There was a lot of concern that Russia would flex what military muscle she had in defense of her historic allies in the region. Russo-Serbian ties go back long before the Cold War.

We got lucky, in that Russia -- at the time -- didn't even have gasoline to powers its military vehicles.  If I didn't know that at the time, I sure learned it quickly. But the major concern would have been disabusing the United States of the notion that Europe was a place where it could work its will.  The notion of spheres of influence is one that is still cherished in some parts of the world. Russia has never liked us flaunting our military power in an area it considers more its backyard than our own.

My primary objection, however, was that England, France and other NATO countries were more than capable of doing the job themselves...without our help.  And I have long insisted that, when practicable, Europe should be permitted to tend to her own problems without the much-resented input of her cousins to the west.  

Which is why I think America's foreign policy is putting the American people at risk.  We're risking a Cold War with China over selling weapons to Taiwan.  I ask, which of these would be more beneficial to the American people?

1) Cut off relations with China.  No pencils or other cheap goods.  Potential for nuclear annihilation.

2) Taiwan having weapons.

China is a big baby--it always complains about America's close ties with Taiwan but never does anything real about it because they known that their economy is as dependent on the U.S. as the American economy is on China.

I don't think the potential risk is worth supplying the Republic of China with arms.  As I asked, how exactly does our support for the tiny country benefit the American people?  Wouldn't it be better to not have hostile relations with a country with over a billion people, the largest army in the world, and nukes?

U.S. relations with China aren't that bad, actually. It's more of an on-and-off thing, similar to how many romantic couples act. They have feelings of both love and hate for each other. BTW, isn't the U.S. worried about losing it's influence in Asia? That's partially why we still have troops in Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and several other Asian countries, despite the fact that WWII and the Cold War are already over for a relatively long time.

I don't think we should have "influence" anywhere, through military means.  That is something called imperialism.

[Bo]

Roch--  I hear you.  I was not necessarily expecting a military defeat.  I was expecting the inauguration of a wider war, possibly with Russia. And even without that, I certainly did NOT expect the Balkan intervention to happen without one single U.S. casualty.  That, above all else, is the most amazing facet of that little experiment.  Not sure who to credit for that...Wes Clark? The Clinton Administration?  Our soldiers and airmen?  Dunno...but I am happy it played out the way it has.

I understand your fear of U.S. casualties but how come you thought Russia was going to step into the conflict? First of all, Russia does not border the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, the USSR didn't necessarily have the best relations with Yugoslavia. Third, why would Russia care about what happens in the former Yugoslavia? It was a pretty poor region (especially back then), and it wasn't even under the USSR's sphere of influence during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't want to start a war with the U.S. over some small countries that have little importance to Russia, and Russia had it's own fair share of problems back then. Finally, I'm sure Yeltsin remembered what helping Serbia in 1914 and expanding WWI resulted in for Russia--two revolutions, massive genocide, and 75 years of economic stagnation. To be honest, I never heard anyone else saying that they thought bombing Bosnia would lead to a war with Russia. This is the first time I heard of this opinion. Of course, I was a small child back then, so maybe this sentiment and opinion was much more widespread in the early-mid 1990s than I think it was.

Were you alive back then?

There was a lot of concern that Russia would flex what military muscle she had in defense of her historic allies in the region. Russo-Serbian ties go back long before the Cold War.

We got lucky, in that Russia -- at the time -- didn't even have gasoline to powers its military vehicles.  If I didn't know that at the time, I sure learned it quickly. But the major concern would have been disabusing the United States of the notion that Europe was a place where it could work its will.  The notion of spheres of influence is one that is still cherished in some parts of the world. Russia has never liked us flaunting our military power in an area it considers more its backyard than our own.

My primary objection, however, was that England, France and other NATO countries were more than capable of doing the job themselves...without our help.  And I have long insisted that, when practicable, Europe should be permitted to tend to her own problems without the much-resented input of her cousins to the west.  

Which is why I think America's foreign policy is putting the American people at risk.  We're risking a Cold War with China over selling weapons to Taiwan.  I ask, which of these would be more beneficial to the American people?

1) Cut off relations with China.  No pencils or other cheap goods.  Potential for nuclear annihilation.

2) Taiwan having weapons.

China is a big baby--it always complains about America's close ties with Taiwan but never does anything real about it because they known that their economy is as dependent on the U.S. as the American economy is on China.

I don't think the potential risk is worth supplying the Republic of China with arms.  As I asked, how exactly does our support for the tiny country benefit the American people?  Wouldn't it be better to not have hostile relations with a country with over a billion people, the largest army in the world, and nukes?

U.S. relations with China aren't that bad, actually. It's more of an on-and-off thing, similar to how many romantic couples act. They have feelings of both love and hate for each other. BTW, isn't the U.S. worried about losing it's influence in Asia? That's partially why we still have troops in Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and several other Asian countries, despite the fact that WWII and the Cold War are already over for a relatively long time.

I don't think we should have "influence" anywhere, through military means.  That is something called imperialism.

Look, I have no problem with selling weapons to Taiwan. We have done it for over 60 years and China didn't retaliate since. I am actually in favor of the U.S. selling specific (though not all) weapons to any country who wants them, even North Korea or Iran. That way, the govt. can make more money and thus be much more fiscally responsible. However, I am againt the U.S. having its military stationed in any foreign country, unless it is on a specific mission to protect American citizens (like Afghanistan). I think that South Korea and Japan can protect themselves. Besides, who is going to attack them? Russia? China? Indonesia? I don't see any attack on South Korea or Japan happening within my lifetime, regardless of whether or not the U.S. has troops stationed there. I seriously doubt even North Korea will attack South Korea or Japan.