Next World War

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
This leads to the point about giving aid to Pakistan to make sure it doesn’t go bankrupt. If you follow your logic here and insert Pakistan into where you have China and India into where you have the US I think you will begin to understand. With China all you can do is pressure them economically into giving more freedoms to their people. All countries are different and I don’t think you can apply the same strategy to China as you did with the USSR.

---

Let's just keep in mind one more thing: the huge amount of military aid the US is giving Pakistan, such as the F16s (that deal was screwed up finally, I think) or the latest Non-Nato Ally status. I don't think providing military aid to an economically backward country would solve any of its problems. I hope you agree with it. I have also been against the economic aid simply because much of it has been diverted to anti-Indian operations. I hope I make myself clear.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Again to put it into perspective for you, is it better that the British were still in control of India and Pakistan? There probably wouldn’t have been the wars over Kashmir between India and Pakistan and India and China so countless lives would have been saved. Would you rather be under British rule still? How much is freedom worth?

---

To be very frank, as a ruler and as also a subject, I think even before you talk about democracies and freedom to speech, what matters is being able to live your life. You really need to ask yourself the question how much the freedom is worth, when you won't live to enjoy the free speech, you won't live to enjoy any of the benefits of that democracy. Before you try to twist this statement, let me ask you this: Do you think an Iraqi government after Saddam will really bring the kind of freedom you have envisaged for the Iraqi people? I don't think so. That's because they have been living under a completely different style of rulership, which is a concrete mix of religion and power. Anyone who gets into the topmost position is going to get corrupted by the power. Again a common-sense test: During Saddam's rule, you didn't have so many conflicts. Immediately after Saddam is gone, so many parties and people are staking claim to power. Iraq is being pushed into chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Actually more nukes were made by both sides so you are right. Treaties made after have helped destroy a good portion of what was built up but it does tend to lead more to one of those weapons escaping governmental control due to the vast quantity.

---

Regardless of the number of treaties you make, as long as nations doubt the intentions of other nations, there will be arms races and nuclear threats. And it's not just the military might. Even political, economic and religious dominance can fuel the race.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
N Korea has done that at the expense of their own people. While people starve to death and languish under horrible conditions the government of North Korea deals in the international drug trade and the sale of banned technology to other countries. So what would you do about North Korea? Your not for invasion I know that, you don’t seem to be for aid, so what do you do? Forget about them entirely?
X

---

To be very frank, I can't give you a readymade solution which can work out of the box. We may have to go back a long way to undo the effects of all the mistakes everyone has made in this conflict.

To draw a loose parellel to the N Korean situation, take a look at the UN food programme implemented in Palestine. Because of the tensions in the region, they have had to stop this programme. Which means the Palestinians will now be even harder pressed for a simple living. Don't you think they make an excellent lot for potential suicide bombers? How much time and effort do you require to convince them that Israel is responsible for this, and since they are anyways going to die soon, better die being a martyr than starve to death. I hope you get my point.

.

Xanith, what's your solution for North Korea? I don't think even you would support an invasion realizing how much tougher they are than paper tiger Iraq. That's a war we drew once, would we really do so well now?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Xanith, what's your solution for North Korea? I don't think even you would support an invasion realizing how much tougher they are than paper tiger Iraq. That's a war we drew once, would we really do so well now?

---

I relize this wasn't pointed at me but any how:

It depends if we are fighting North Korea or China. Last time we were fighting the Chinese in Korea. That is why it ended up in a draw. The Korean military was crushed in the first year of that war, then China sent troops and equipment painted north korea insignias(sp) on them and kept the war going.

If china stays out of It, North Korea wouldn't stand a chance. Of course Japan and South korea would get nuked in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Xanith, what's your solution for North Korea? I don't think even you would support an invasion realizing how much tougher they are than paper tiger Iraq. That's a war we drew once, would we really do so well now?

---

Paper tigers? LOL

.

One of the problems with being really successful economically – besides having others resent you – is that one tends to think that he has the answers to other people’s problems. I suppose that is probably one reason why others get agitated with the US. Anyway, just like success in one enterprise does not always translate to success in another, so it is with countries and governments. Folks in the US tend to be rather generous. This is good when it comes to earthquakes, mudslides, etc., but it is not so good when it comes to promoting forms of government.

Our biggest foreign policy assumption over the last sixty years has been to believe that if everyone was like us, then everything would be alright, so let us change them. It has been a significant piece of many mistakes, and it is a colossal waste of resources.

One of the best moves that the US could make would be to stop messing with other peoples. It is not because their ways are better; it is because we have better things to expend resources on. So, if it is not a defensive need, do not do it.

What does this mean?

It means stop spending money that my children have not made yet to yank other people’s chains. It does not mean do not have an active foreign policy. Just be frugal and careful.

It means that going to places like the Balkans or Iraq is appropriate if it protects the USA in general. I do not know if that was the case this last time; however, it has distracted those particular terrorists away from targeting Europe and the US. It also means getting out when the threat is neutralized. It also means understanding the larger significance of taking such actions.

It does not mean encouraging lenders to dump money into hellholes all over the world by insuring the loans with taxpayer money.

It does mean sending Marines to Haiti to protect our citizens while they leave and to withdraw them when that mission is accomplished.

It does not mean sending Marines to Haiti to protect US citizens after they have refused to leave.

It means making sure, if possible, that no Chinese missiles can hit us. No one but the Chinese can fault us for that.

It means securing our borders and monitoring those from suspicious countries who enter our country. Every country should do that.

As far as WWIII is concerned, it might mean spending money to make certain that all nuclear weapons are accounted for and destroyed in the republics of the former Soviet Union – like what we did with Kazakhstan. It would be nice if the USA, Britain, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, India, South Africa, and China did the same, but that would leave nuclear capability in the hands of the French. Not a pretty picture.

I am sure that dirty tricks are in store for the western world for some time to come. The rest of the world deals with them all the time. But WWIII is domain of those with the really big weapons. As long as there is no first strike from a big player, I can not see a really hot war. That Putin, though. He is quite the wily joker, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PineyWoodsJimbo
That Putin, though. He is quite the wily joker, yes?

---

you need a sense of humor to run a powder keg like that.

MasterBlaster: I wasn't asking you, but you always have an interesting answer. I think we'd find the North Koreans to be far better now, but without any external support, we'd win....eventually. I doubt the Chinese would remain neutral, but I'm not sure that they'd get involved the same way they did last time.

Honeybee: I wrote that before I had heard the latest news. Still, I think Iraq is a paper tiger compared to North Korea. The latest news just makes the statement a little more meaningful.

Piney: I don't agree with all your points, but most of them. I have often thought about ideal systems of government. Even if we came up with one, forcing it on another group would only breed resentment. You have to lead them to it willingly, not force them into it.

You are absolutely right. That is why I think it would be best to interfer in other countries only when the general interests of Americans are at stake. By that I mean lives, not United Fruit or Exxon interests, but it really only becomes an issue in places like Haiti when you have thousands of citizens there who might become hostages or hamburgers.

Also, it is a good idea only to respond to the bad behavior of others, not start things up in the first place.

Otherwise, just leave other folks alone.

And North Korea. Those guys are tough little devils. Whoever said that Japan and South Korea would get toasted if that area heated up is probably right. Since their balls were on the block, it was a good thing to get those two countries involved when NK started its last round of extorting food. With them, you must guard against missle assaults, but for God's sake stay off the ground. Maybe MacArthur was right -- just sow a big swath of radioactive waste along the DMZ so it would be too unhealthy for them to think about moving south again.