h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

the line between superpower and bully is very thin. Right now we are being accused of not leading the free world, but when we do we are accused of being bullies, imperialists, etc. Thats why most americans don't give a damn what Europeans think because whatever we do it's wrong to you guys. A superpower is a nation that exerts influence in the world, a bully nation is one that forces it's will on the world. Nazi Germany was a bully nation, the US was and still arguably is a Superpower, not a bully nation. New Zeland doesn't allow ships with nuclear weapons into their ports, have we gone in and forced them too? A bully nation would because they are afraid that if one nation stands up to them then all the others might too. We let other countries do what they please for the most part.

I agree. The American point of view has historically been to take care of their own, and let the rest of the world do what it will. It was only after we were dragged unwillingly into a pair of European wars that we started acting like the world's caretaker. The world has responded with a resounding "No thank you!" So now we want to return to the policy of isolation that began with our first president, and we're being damned for that, too.

Well, too bad. We've had enough of the rest of the world's opinions of us, and we really don't care anymore. We don't need to be liked. But, contrary to world opinion, we are not the cause of all of your problems. Still, it's nice to have someone to blame, isn't it? After all, if Hussein didn't have America to blame, he would have been ousted years ago.

Yo, all the rest of the world ask is that the USA takes resoncabilties for & plays a part in fixing problems of a world nature. All western European Nations have been working very hard over the last few years to meet their responcailities under the Kyoto Treaty, the UK is well ahead of it sheduled targets at the moment, the USA has made little movement towards its targets. As for being a bully, how would you descibe the attitude of the goverment of the USA regards the payment of its UN dues ?

The US has provided for the UN in military and diplomatic clout, and, as usual, received little respect in return. I would think that the overwhelming cost of our military forces in places like the Persian Gulf (where we still enforce UN sanctions), Macedonia, and Bosnia would have deferred some of the payments.

And that's not even discussing the fact that without US support, the UN would have been the same paper tiger the League of Nations was, and would have gone the way of it long since.

thats is not what I consider a satsifactory answer

I think that it is kind of stupid for both sides, we have our troops deployed for the UN and are asked to pay... on the other hand we should pay because other nations have troops deplyed as well (we have more but thats kind of petty). The Colonel is right tho, US support is needed for the UN to function.

It also needs financhial support & the US has far less troops deployed than other nations.

far less, how so? all other nations combined? maybe

From UN website

All Member States share the risk of maintaining peace and security. Since 1948, 123 nations have contributed military and civilian police personnel at various times. As of 31 October 2000, 89 countries are contributors of almost 38,000 military and civilian police personnel. Of this number, the top five are: India, 4,460; Nigeria, 3,441; Jordan, 3,400; Bangladesh, 2,394; Ghana, 1,894. The small island nation of Fiji has taken part in virtually every UN peacekeeping operation, as has Canada. States which are not Members of the United Nations also contribute. Switzerland, for example, provides money, medical units, aircraft and other equipment to peacekeeping.
©United Nations

The Constellation battlegroup is patrolling the the Persian Gulf right now. I know, because my brother is in the group. How many carrier battlegroups have the other member nations deployed, specifically for the UN? The sanctions they are there to uphold were imposed by the UN.

In addition, the only air forces in the region patrolling the no-fly zones are British and American. The American resources outnumber the British by something like 10-1.

What other hotspot is the UN involved in? Well, Americans were nearly caught in the middle of a Macedonia-Serb rebel conflict just a bit ago. Americans were deployed to Bosnia when that whole thing was started, and it was Americans who were taken hostage by the rebel forces.

But let's not forget the Persian Gulf War, which was conducted by the UN. Despite the contributions of many nations, the American resources in the region still vastly outnumbered the rest of the coalition combined. We're not talking about dollars and cents now, we're talking about lives being risked. Had that war not been so carefully orchestrated, it would have been Americans who bore the brunt of the cost.

But now, let's talk about dollars and cents again. The US bore the cost of that war. The UN was supposed to defray the cost, with other member nations who couldn't provide so much in military aid to contribute to the war effort financially. That was a huge disappointment.

American lives, American dollars. That's your "United Nations."

n addition, the only air forces in the region patrolling the no-fly zones are British and American. The American resources outnumber the British by something like 10-1.
not true, go do your research.

"The Constellation battlegroup is patrolling the the Persian Gulf right now. I know, because my brother is in the group. How many carrier battlegroups have the other member nations deployed, specifically for the UN? The sanctions they are there to uphold were imposed by the UN."
How many other nations have Carrier Battle Groups ? I know the Royal navy has ship in the area as do sevral other nations.

I'm afaid they count, this is not a UN operation, the troops are not under UN command.

The US does not allow its troops to fall under UN command. Every time we have participated in an international action, we have foughtretained command over our own. This goes back to WWI. the economic sanctions against Iraq are ordered by the UN. The US and Britain enforce them under their own leadership, with the UN's blessing.

Specific numbers are hard to find. The best I could do were some numbers from Feb '98, when there was some buildup going on, and international support was still there. At that time, 45 British combat aircraft were in the region. 275 American combat aircraft were in the region. That's a ratio of 6.1:1. But that doesn't consider the support aircraft, such as AWACS platforms and refueling tankers. With their numbers added in, the ratio will be something on the order of 10:1. the numbers have changed since then. The US has removed forces. The UK has removed forces. At one time it was 10:1, and it may be the same now.

"How many other nations have carrier battlegroups?" - That is exactly my point. Carrier battlegroups are expensive. They cost billions to build. The personnel cost millions to train. The battlegroup requires massive resources to sustain it when forward deployed... gas, food, pay, repair costs, shore support, weapons, etc. Who is paying for all of that? The US. We're not asking for anyone else to pay for it. And if the UN wants to use it, we're willing to accomodate them. But why should we do that, AND pay dues? We're paying our dues in sweat and blood.

a quick diversion about missile defense plans:

----
Further development now under the auspices of the Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO) and the Joint Theater Air Missile Defense Organization (JTAMDO):

The Cruise Missile Defense ACTD Phase I demonstration was completed in January 1996 with four intercepts of simulated land attack cruise missiles by ship-launched air defense missiles directed by a surrogate radar located on a mountain top simulating an airborne sensor. A Phase II Cruise Missile Defense ACTD is being considered as an FY 1997 candidate.

Concept Proven


Precision/Rapid Counter-Multiple Rocket Launch (PRC-MRL):

Develop and demonstrate a missile defense system which fields improvements to rocket launch detection, command and control, and counterfire necessary to effectively neutralize multiple rocket launch threat (as demonstrated by North Korean multiple rocket launchers along the DMZ)

Concept Proven
Deployed
Successful Deployment with the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea.

---

If we can hit cruise missiles, why does everyone say not the bigger blaistics! for more info go to milnet.com


statistics are hard to find after '98 for some reason. I ran into that last simester when I was researching a proj for english. I'll see if I can at least get a ratio out of someone in the military.

a quick diversion about missile defense plans:

----
Further development now under the auspices of the Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO) and the Joint Theater Air Missile Defense Organization (JTAMDO):

The Cruise Missile Defense ACTD Phase I demonstration was completed in January 1996 with four intercepts of simulated land attack cruise missiles by ship-launched air defense missiles directed by a surrogate radar located on a mountain top simulating an airborne sensor. A Phase II Cruise Missile Defense ACTD is being considered as an FY 1997 candidate.

Concept Proven


Precision/Rapid Counter-Multiple Rocket Launch (PRC-MRL):

Develop and demonstrate a missile defense system which fields improvements to rocket launch detection, command and control, and counterfire necessary to effectively neutralize multiple rocket launch threat (as demonstrated by North Korean multiple rocket launchers along the DMZ)

Concept Proven
Deployed
Successful Deployment with the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea.

---

If we can hit cruise missiles, why does everyone say not the bigger blaistics! for more info go to milnet.com


statistics are hard to find after '98 for some reason. I ran into that last simester when I was researching a proj for english. I'll see if I can at least get a ratio out of someone in the military.

a quick diversion about missile defense plans:

----
Further development now under the auspices of the Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO) and the Joint Theater Air Missile Defense Organization (JTAMDO):

The Cruise Missile Defense ACTD Phase I demonstration was completed in January 1996 with four intercepts of simulated land attack cruise missiles by ship-launched air defense missiles directed by a surrogate radar located on a mountain top simulating an airborne sensor. A Phase II Cruise Missile Defense ACTD is being considered as an FY 1997 candidate.

Concept Proven


Precision/Rapid Counter-Multiple Rocket Launch (PRC-MRL):

Develop and demonstrate a missile defense system which fields improvements to rocket launch detection, command and control, and counterfire necessary to effectively neutralize multiple rocket launch threat (as demonstrated by North Korean multiple rocket launchers along the DMZ)

Concept Proven
Deployed
Successful Deployment with the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea.

---

If we can hit cruise missiles, why does everyone say not the bigger blaistics! for more info go to milnet.com


statistics are hard to find after '98 for some reason. I ran into that last simester when I was researching a proj for english. I'll see if I can at least get a ratio out of someone in the military.

These conversations seem to be taking a "drunkard's walk" around the initial thread!

I would like to point out something from a previous post, and then try to get back on track: the US does not pay dues, but we have given over some extremely expensive real estate for the UN buildings to sit on. For that matter, one of the other major voting nations, Russia, does not pay dues anymore, do they? For that matter, how major IS what's left of the USRR in terms of the UN? The system still seems to work, though.

On the climatic issue: Does it really matter if the damage is self-inflicted or not? The US (and any other non-complying nations) must do what they can to implement changes is CO2 production; getting the Bush-baby to see the error of his ways is an important step here. Does anyone have some constructive ideas on how to do this? I probably have a file by now with the FBI, I've written that often, lately!

The US is not a bully, hmmmmm. lets take a wee shufty at Tasmania. In the mid 1990's Tasmania wanted to follow Switzerland's example of giving heroine addicts heroine - to turn them from crime (as heroine is cheap when it isn't illegal) and into productive members of society. It worked with the Swiss example, it could work in Tasmania. The US ambasador came along and threatened to pull their license to grow the opium poppy (a large industry in Tasmania) if they went ahead with this - most of the UN drug task force is US people. So many jobs depended on opiate production that Tasmania wasn't able to try the Swiss experiement. Bully - well, it certainly seems like that.....
BCNU - Crescent

sorry to go off the track...

Yowuzupman said:
>New Zealand doesn't allow ships with nuclear weapons into their ports

I just have to say thats one thing I do admire the ol' kiwis for.

In order to get Bush and the American people to comply with the reduction in emissions then it is the responsability of the U.N to hit them where it hurts, money.
Slap on an import tax for any goods to go into the States. This would have already have been done to a smaller country.And the tax raised could go to enviromental projects. If they refuse to cooperate with the rest of the world then they can help by paying for it.