Gothic.net Community - View Single Post

MrMaelstrom · 10-15-2004, 10:55 AM

I'm going to try and address the issue of United Nations and military capacity.

Right now, the US has (in my opinion) way to much sway in the UN.
You can say that it's somewhat understandable. They fund it. They provide the bulk of military hardware and manpower in their actions.

But I also put forward the notion that it's not in the US's interest that the situation changes.

Let's see, what makes the US a global power?
A supremacy in technology funding and research, which are funded by a powerful economy that in turn, is also able to fund an enormous military capacity.

Europe has long wanted to get out from under the US's umbrela of protection without giving the impression of being rude and unappreciative of past actions.
It's a battle that is fought for us (europeans) on the home front and abroad. On the home front, we can't seem to agree on anything.
Europe is far from having a concerted unissonous voice in foreign policy and defense.
The UK doesn't help with it's constant changing of sides concerning transatlantic issues (they're european when it suits them and side with the US when it suits them better).
The french are always competing with Germany for the dominant position on european issues. The little countries (like mine) end up having little or no say in it. Etc etc etc

Europe also has the ambition to compete on an economic level with the US. That would enable us to both compete on economic issues that at present state are dominated by a speculative market which uses the US dollar as the main currency, and enable us to fund our own defense.

I put forward the notion that these ambitions are not in the interest of the US for this: our military vulnerability makes us hostage to US policies. You can't veemently disagree with someone you count on to defend yourself.
And there are issues we veemently disagree with.

So we (europeans) feel humiliated when we find ourselves siding or looking the other way on issues that the US wouldn't have it's way so easily if we were not in such an inferior bargaining position. The security council's decision that enabled the Iraq invasion was made possible by France looking the other way.

If the US felt they needed to reach to some kind of a consensus on some issues, they wouldn't push their agenda so agressively.
I don't confuse this with other countries having their say in what is the US's own national defense.

This is where it becomes thorny. You can argue that the war on terrorism is a US domestic defense issue.

But I feel that reaching an agreement or compromise on foreign actions will make the US not stand out so much in a manner that makes them sometimes look like a bully, but it would also ease the pressure put on it's military abroad (with the rest of us providing a significant percentage of ground troops) that will also enable the US to better secure it's own territory (you can never secure your borders and patrol your territory with a 100% efficiency, but I feel that on both levels your not as secure as your leaders would like you to believe).

This should provide enough ammo for debate, I believe.

10-15-2004, 10:55 AM	#12
MrMaelstrom Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lisboa, Portugal Posts: 1,608	I'm going to try and address the issue of United Nations and military capacity. Right now, the US has (in my opinion) way to much sway in the UN. You can say that it's somewhat understandable. They fund it. They provide the bulk of military hardware and manpower in their actions. But I also put forward the notion that it's not in the US's interest that the situation changes. Let's see, what makes the US a global power? A supremacy in technology funding and research, which are funded by a powerful economy that in turn, is also able to fund an enormous military capacity. Europe has long wanted to get out from under the US's umbrela of protection without giving the impression of being rude and unappreciative of past actions. It's a battle that is fought for us (europeans) on the home front and abroad. On the home front, we can't seem to agree on anything. Europe is far from having a concerted unissonous voice in foreign policy and defense. The UK doesn't help with it's constant changing of sides concerning transatlantic issues (they're european when it suits them and side with the US when it suits them better). The french are always competing with Germany for the dominant position on european issues. The little countries (like mine) end up having little or no say in it. Etc etc etc Europe also has the ambition to compete on an economic level with the US. That would enable us to both compete on economic issues that at present state are dominated by a speculative market which uses the US dollar as the main currency, and enable us to fund our own defense. I put forward the notion that these ambitions are not in the interest of the US for this: our military vulnerability makes us hostage to US policies. You can't veemently disagree with someone you count on to defend yourself. And there are issues we veemently disagree with. So we (europeans) feel humiliated when we find ourselves siding or looking the other way on issues that the US wouldn't have it's way so easily if we were not in such an inferior bargaining position. The security council's decision that enabled the Iraq invasion was made possible by France looking the other way. If the US felt they needed to reach to some kind of a consensus on some issues, they wouldn't push their agenda so agressively. I don't confuse this with other countries having their say in what is the US's own national defense. This is where it becomes thorny. You can argue that the war on terrorism is a US domestic defense issue. But I feel that reaching an agreement or compromise on foreign actions will make the US not stand out so much in a manner that makes them sometimes look like a bully, but it would also ease the pressure put on it's military abroad (with the rest of us providing a significant percentage of ground troops) that will also enable the US to better secure it's own territory (you can never secure your borders and patrol your territory with a 100% efficiency, but I feel that on both levels your not as secure as your leaders would like you to believe). This should provide enough ammo for debate, I believe. __________________ Undead again...