> Behalf Of Dan Minette > > So, I take it that you are opposed to the Clinton doctrine? If a dictator > is practicing genocide, the world should keep hands off? The US > should have > told Europe to handle the Balkins by itself? If a million people > died, that > would have been better than what happened? >
No, I include moral interventions as part of the external interests. And I see that as being something that should be done under a UN or regional grouping, such as with NATO or SEATO etc. But much preferred under UN auspices. In those instances the moral value is always greater with the more nations involved. I can point proudly to the multi-national force Australia put together to intervene in East Timor as an example. Had Australia gone in alone (as we were prepared to do), Indonesia and Malaysia could quite easily have put up the argument that it was just Australia throwing its weight around, acting the colonialist and christian imperialist against a muslim neighbour. Instead, what happened was that, with US diplomatic help, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, and other countries all contributed. Not only did it get forces on the ground, it was done in a way in which Indonesia was forced to back down. Otherwise we might still have Australian/Indonesian aircraft sniping at one another, for example. As I see it, should say Zimbabwe fall back into civil war or outright oppression (something that is not too far away from actuality) European, African, Asian etc countries could announce that they will intervene on humanitarian grounds. I don't know how much of an effect that would have on Mugabe, but it should certainly give many in his government cause to reconsider. No one nation need have the forces capable of intervening, but together they do. In those sort of cases, too, US diplomatic, logistic and intelligence support of course would be handy. But again, like East Timor, there would be no need for direct US involvement on the ground. To me, that makes for a much more rational and morally justifiable intervention. It would be very hard for off the cuff opposition that US-alone involvement traditionally brings. Dan:> > Why in the world are you comparing the US government to the Nazis. Who > attacked Germany? Have we invaded Canada? Have we annexed Cuba? I tried to make clear that philosophically there is no link. If I failed, I'm sorry. What I am concerned with is that the US, which already far outspends all other national defence budgets is contemplating a further increase. Already the US has total military dominance: there is no single nation and possibly only one combination of powers: All of Europe, China, Russia AND Japan that could come even close to matching the US militarily. So why does the US want to build even more of a gap? Isn't enough enough? Don't you have domestic programs you'd rather spend the money on? Such a dominance will eventually lead to people fearing, rather than admiring the US. I think that that would be a bad situation all round. As the sock puppet says, "Fear breeds anger, anger breeds hate, ..." ;-) > > As I posted before, the spending on weapons for the US fell from > about 9% of > GDP in the '60s to about 3% last year. With the "massive buildup", I > estimate it will go to 3.5%. My guess is that the Nazi buildup was in the > 30% range. True, in percentage terms of GDP what is 3 or 3.5 percent? But look at the GDP! The US is dominant in ALL measurable facets except perhaps life expectancy: economically, technologically, culturally, philosophically and militarily. Apart from China and India you're also the most populous nation. You have world interests, but then so do others. I would far rather see an America that sees itself as an equal partner with world society than as one that dominates. At the moment it seems that you want to extend that military domination. > Also, it seems, from your arguement, that the US should stop protecting > Europe's and Australia's interests. It would cut down the US's > spending on > the military if it assumed that Australia would be responsible for the SE > Asia area, that it will not be responsible for any problems in > Europe, etc. We should be responsible for our interests. If that includes trade routes to our major trading partners, then so be it. As it is, through aid and other programs we have generally good relations with all our neighbours. If the US also has interests in the area, I have no problem with the US deciding that it may need to intervene also. But why not do so in conjunction with other countries that also have the same sort of interests? We've been providing military and other aid to the Philippines, for example, for decades. Many of their officers are trained here. Our universities are full of Indonesian, Malaysian, Filipino, Taiwanese, Korean etc students. Very, very few bureaucrats in SE Asia have not had involvement with Australia. But we are not and should not be the local Sheriff, and certainly not, as John Howard our PM tried to declare a few months back, America's Deputy Sheriff. If someone needs our help, we have traditionally provided it. All of that means we have a much lower likelihood of having to commit troops to or, worse fight against, any of our neighbours. We are in a position, militarily, where we can voice our disapproval about local policies (just ask Mr Mahatir of Malaysia) but we certainly won't dominate anyone. We usually stand strongly for western values of freedom. We just happen to have aircraft that can put a bomb into any of the Presidential palaces, at night and in a monsoon, at any time. At the same time, we have a defence force that numbers about 55,000 - total, so noone has any reason to fear that we'll do anything unilaterally. We learn to cooperate and convince, not dictate. Isn't that a rational policy? > > That is an option favored by part of the population of the US, > BTW. What do > you think would happen if the US returned to the philosophy it > held between > the world wars? Indeed, cut it down. Europe yelled and screamed when Bush > suggested that we phase out of the Balkins. Why? According to your > principals, thats exactly what should happen. > I still want the US to see itself as part of the international community. I just don't want it to see itself as automatically deciding alone what is right and what is wrong. As I've previously written, once the US parks a single carrier group off someone's border (or even the nation next door) you've got air superiority. So, for SE Asia why not a coalition of Australian, US, Japanese and say Thai forces for example working together to protect mutual interests? Or any combination, so long as it is a combination. Do enough of that and you'll realise 1) your people don't have to be at the pointy end, and 2) you don't need such a huge defence force to be effective. And the rest of us will all feel more kindly towards the US. Brett
