Politics

I've got news for you. US industry was selling war-related material to the Nazis and the Bolshies prior to WWII as well. My father worked for a company manufacturing machines tools. They sold to Germany and then to the Russians. It was the Great Depression and a job was a job. So what if the Nazis and the Commies killed each other off. A pox on both their houses. However, none of this should come as a surprise. It happens all the time. France and Germany were supporting Saddam Hussein with loans and under the table deals for oil. The UN itself conspired in the biggest fraud in history, namely the 'oil for food' program in Iraq. It doesn't pay to expect too much from people. Of course, when the French are shown to be crooks, no one blinks. When the Americans do something shady, it becomes a cause celeb. Maybe we should simply lower expectations to the French level. That should reduce criticism of America. BTW, I like the French, though not for their criminal behavior. Cheese. It's all about cheese.

Wish I had time to post in more detail, but in short - I think America is just moving troops to where they are actually needed, as well as getting a political boost from bringing some home. I don't think this is a move towards an isolationist policy - as I recall from the last Presidential election, it was felt to be quite a positive thing that Bush wanted to focus on home affairs, but 11th September changed all that. While I don't agree with what Bush has done about world affairs, he clearly had to do something - burying his head in the sand wasn't an option. Personally I think a six month study of why there is so much tension in the Middle East and thinking how we might relieve it would have been better than invading countries, but to be fair, I'm not sure Palestine actually IS a solveable problem, no matter how much people work at it.

the thing about Palestine is that the more you work at it, the easier it is to mould into what you want.... oh no hang on, that's plastercine.

My parrot ate a clock.....now Polly ticks.

We think you mean the world's greatest ****** RD!

A facile solution that occurs is that Disney could build two exact replica Palestines and have them anchored in the ocean just off Israel. Then the Israelis move into one, and the Palestinians into another and nobody gets to live in the real one, which is a holy land for three religions and should be kept only for visitors and pilgrims. Sure, it'd be expensive, but I don't think the current arrangement is particularly cheap.

that too.

"I'll agree with that David... ie...early 1900's, pre-WWII..yes, agreed... We were hardly responsible for Mussolini, and the League of Nations was reinvented and now the UN. What good has that body done?" I wasn't suggesting the US was responsible for Mussolini coming to power but if the League of Nations had been stronger he might well have been overthrown in the 1930s. Foreign escapades such as the invasion of what's now Ethiopia provided a major distraction from his ridiculous domestic policies. A powerful League of Nations could have stopped this fairly easily - the Italians' military record against people who have weapons technology beyond spears is not all that hot - and ultimately other things may have been very different.

I basically agree with Andrew about the troops. As I posted earlier, moving troops out of Europe to where they are really needed has been in the works for more than 10 years, and it will take another 10 years to accomplish. Some of the troops will not move very far, as bases are being built in Poland to accept some of the troops leaving Germany. Troops have to remain in Europe for logistical reasons: it is closer to the Middle East than South Carolina, for example, and we can't put them any closer because no one will take them. Moreover, never underestimate the long-term danger of Russia. It took the Duchy of Moscow about 900 years to expand from the size of Trafagar Square to one of the largest empires in history. They are not going to give up that mind set overnight. As for Korea, all of those changes are being made with full consultation of the South Korean government. America has single-handedly foot the bill to protect South Korea for fifty years. The troops are there to discourage the eraserhead who rules North Korea from pulling an Anschluss with the South. North Korea is an extremely dangerous totalitarian dictatorship which is willing to starve its own people to death to maintain ideological purity. Someone like that is worth intimidating if it keeps them in their dung hole and off the battlefield. As for Israel/Palestine, I think there is a solution, but it requires too many people volunteering their own oxen for goring right now. Once Yessir-Yourafart is out of the picture, perhaps something will shift, but he has no interest in ending the conflict because his whole schtick is based on perpetuating the conflict. He has been a terrorist for 50 years and is not about to stop now. As for Bush, I was a big supporter from Sept 12, 2001 to about March of 2002, though I had a terrible sinking feeling in my stomach when Kabul fell after just a couple of weeks. There is nothing more dangerous than giving an American an easy win. I was hoping it would be a very difficult and lengthy slog that would discourage additional adventurism, but sadly, the Taliban collapsed like a cheap suit in a piss-storm. That led to Iraq. The most hideous aspect of it was not even the invasion itself. Nor was it the lack of WMD, which I never personally believed they would find anyway. It was the total absence of a plan to win the peace. They didn't have even so much as a 'to do' list on the back of an envelope. That is the astounding part.

Why do we need American troops in Europe? The Eastern states aren't trying to hold the Warsaw Pact together, now they're all knocking on the Eurpean Community door. Though the Germans will be sorry to see the Americans go, they provided lots of jobs. Politically, a bit of isolationism might be welcome as Iraq's being seen as more and more of a mistake (even by Republicans) - though then the rest of the world can hardly scream for the Americans to sort out the next conflict which arises.

I think Bush was merely announcing the changes rather than being responsible for them - but it strikes me it will be Southern Korea, much more than Europe, that will be wondering if it's a good idea.

I hope Denver doesn’t mind me posting a different question to this thread. For all those who said that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with its oil - it must seem strange that continued insurgence there can have such an enormous effect on the world price of oil. Since I presume that the producers still get the same price per barrel - who gets the extra $20 (or more) that the price of a barrel has increased over the last few months?

We're in the free world Mykle, post anything you like. I'm not in charge of anything.... Oil,...well overall oil consumption is up this year, errrr...3.5 or so percent in the US, even greater in places like China and oh hell, I can't remember. Everyone is using more oil though, not just the US....We're back to the laws of supply and demand here...Too many dollars chasing too few goods, we're going to see the prices rise. There are some other things going on in world oil markets also which you don't hear about very much. In the US, there is legislation that requires exceptional capital expenditures and modifications to refineries, which has had an impact on US prices. The oil price thing may be a long term situation, not just seasonal, oil production is at or near capacity and demand is rising, it's not going to take much to upset the cart. Until we either expand global production or reduce global usage, it will never end... Someday it will all crash as the worlds known oil reserves are predicted to be gone between 2035 and 2070 (depending on whos estimate you wish to believe). The Iraqi insurgents think they have a trump card with attacking oil pipelines, but all they are doing is hurting Iraq in the long term. Stupid is as stupid does.

Thanks for all that Denver, but do you know where the extra money goes?

After Nixon's withdrawals, Carter tried to organise a mass withdrawal from South Korea and basically got hamstrung by his underlings, who refused to support him. America should get the fuck out of South Korea. America and its troops are regularly demonised by certain groups, often on the basis of misconceptions. I don't see why they need to stay there any longer, antogonising the North. Without the presence of the 'Imperialist Aggressors', the increasingly open and prosperous China can make inroads in opening North Korea up, as can Russia, potentially. Or something. Don't know eff all about it, really... but one day I'd love to write a biography of General Park Chung Hee.

Haven't a clue.

Is this a good idea? Neutral. Is America leaning towards isolationism? No. GB is looking to cover as many electoral bases as possible. Not only can he give the likes of Saddam a good kicking, he's also a leader who brings 'our boys' home. But he's not reducing the number of troops stationed in places which are actually dangerous and, more generally, he's shown no sign of reducing the US's strategic meddling in other people's business. Is GB getting even with Germany for not doing what he wanted? Maybe. Although post-Cold war, there's no sensible reason to have loads of US troops in Germany. Does any of this mean anything anyway? For us in Europe it means: (a) we're more likely to get some form of EU army. (b) Nato's long-term existence is in serious doubt.

I think America withdrawing 70k troops from Europe is a good thing, long run. It will have an impact on the German economy that relies on this presence, but what led the Germans who worry about it to believe it would be a permanent situation? 50 years ago, they were expecting Hitler to be a permanent solution, that didn't quite last either. Europe is in far better shape politically than it was 90 years ago. They can survive with the US being there in mass. Is America leaning towards isolationism? I think so. It's in our nature. Bush is playing this chip now for the election. He's just not saying it. Is G.B. getting even with Germany for not doing what he wants? I think it works out this way, but probably wasn't a design goal. It's political timing, a little message to the Germans. We'll just do this and see what happens next time somebody starts beating on our door for help. Does any of this mean anything? Sure it does! A lot of Americans are tired of having been sucked into European affairs, 2 world wars and such...Some think now's the time to be moving on maybe. The thing in Iraq is headlines, it's politics and it's oil. Well, that's not all quite right. The thing in Iraq is something. It's giving the idiot zealots that want to harm us a place to go die. Helps keep it out of the back yard. We're fighting that war with our little finger. We're bringing the troops back from Europe to fill the hole in our own economy.

"Is America leaning towards isolationism? I think so. It's in our nature." Yes but the US abondoned isolationism after Pearl Harbour, since then, to varying extents, it's run an interventionist foreign policy. This development doesn't change that in any significant way. Maybe Bush will look to do less things that involve largescale deaths of US soldiers but he's not going to stop meddling whether it's in Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, to name but four. Since World War II the US has a lengthy, blood-stained track record of military or more murky interventions in the affairs of other countries for strategic and economic reasons. This isn't going change under Bush or Kerry, is it?

I thought America participated mainly in WWII to avoid a great big Europe becoming a significant threat to it? Lots of little countries hardly represent a danger, but one big one might have done at the time. Otherwise, would it not have stepped in before half of Europe was on its knees? I don't think America ever does anything which doesn't serve it's own purposes. Am I wrong?

Ben, I would agree in part with what you're saying. America will look after its own interest. But, I ask you also, what country doesn't look after its own interests? We're not unique in that regard. I think the problem is our size, we're more capable of acheiving our "self interest" goals than most other countries, which has its rewards and its drawbacks. Before America entered WWI, it would have been quite possible that we entered on the side of Germany. The Germans made some serious political and military blunders that prevented that from happening. Now, Imagine what the world would be like today if America had been on the other side during that war. We were isolationist in the early 1900's, this is where we (the US) changed course. I think we're swinging back in that direction now. WWII, different thing altogether...it was in our national interest to enter that war, but we did not want to get in that war. We stayed out of it until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor at the end of 1941, which was well past the inception of that conflict. We entered it logistically much earlier with the lend-lease act and by our support of Great Britain in 39-41. One could also argue that we provoked Japan into attacking us, but I don't see anything in the history that substantiates that theory. Of course, the Japanese may disagree with that as well. Japan attacking the US probably saved Great Britaiin from being overrun by the Nazi's. I think Churchill and Roosevelt knew that all along. It was inevitable we get involved though, there was too much at stake for everybody. We needed a pretext. Japan provided it.

It's refreshing to hear an American say that the US might have been on Germany's side initially. I agree that there was no clear moral agenda in WW1, and much of it came down to who made the most foolish blunders.

While WWII was a much more serious conflict, I have always thought from a standpoint of history, WWI had a far more profound impact on what the world is today than any other conflict in recorded history.

What? More profound than the 2003 forum wars?

But the US didn't enter that war until late 2004...Need some extra leftover ships?

"We were isolationist in the early 1900's, this is where we (the US) changed course. I think we're swinging back in that direction now." Yes but you (the US) also changed course for World War 1 then changed back again and pursued an isolationist policy between the wars. The prime example being the refusal to join the League of Nations, a major factor in that body being completely impotent, which was a major fact in Mussolini strutting his stuff around the world in the 1930s and in Hitler believing he could do the same.

I'll agree with that David... ie...early 1900's, pre-WWII..yes, agreed... We were hardly responsible for Mussolini, and the League of Nations was reinvented and now the UN. What good has that body done?

radio do you know who is supplying the arms to the militants in iraq, that might give you a clue to where americas future problems lie. It would be worth trying to fight for peoples human rights in your country, before it becomes to late..

I haven't had a great interest in the logistics of the Iraq war, but from news reports, most of the arms are coming in from Iran and Seria, mostly Chinese and Russian made military equipment, baught on the middle-eastern markets from the leftovers of the cold war and from North Korea. I could be wrong, I haven't followed it much.

Who armed the Afghans then. Any idea?

eh, you hit the nail on the head working for human rights in your country will save your nation but you have to start now. History predicts that nations who abuse human rights fall. Every great nation has went the same way and its usually sooner than later. In the Uk just now they are abusing human rights under a pretext of mental health. History also shows that nations who do this and think they go unchallenged usually take it form natural disaster. Some smart scientist wrote about it and he was quite right in his summary. And i would argue to say that the arms are being manipulated on to the market and are not there just by chance. I love the states and have many relatives over there and hey dya know my grans sister nursed dylan thomas on his death bed.yeah history. Defending human rights will save america..

Isolationism in the US dates back to the very beginnings of the nation and was institutionalized in the Monroe Doctrine (the President, not Marilyn), which prohibited 'entangling foreign alliances.' That made perfect sense for a weak, poor country just trying to get off the ground, especially one located far enough from the Great Powers of the day that it could reasonably avoid trouble simply through geography. In short, they did not want The Great Game to be played out in North America. As recently as the 1880-1890s, the US had essentially no military. This was a dangerous position during the age of empire, and it prompted Teddy Roosevelt to build the Great White Fleet and take a couple of piddly colonies and start a dopey war with Spain, not because he wanted the Phillipines or Cuba, but because he wanted to scare off the real colonial powers (Britain being of course numero uno at the time). There was a substantial concern that Britain might want to re-conquer the US, now that it was worth something, and absent a military capability of some sort, the US would have been defenseless. During the build-up to WWII, there was a massive isolationist movement called America First, which held rallies all over the country in an effort to force the government stay out of the war. Joseph Kennedy Sr, then Ambassador to the Court of St James, declared publicly that the US should make a separate peace with Hitler and allow him and Stalin to carve up Europe. FDR fired him. Hitler made a huge strategic error by declaring war in the US after the US declared war on Japan. Absent that blunder, it is theoretically possible the US would not have entered the European war or at least not until much later. It's hard to say at this point, but Hitler gave FDR the excuse he'd spent years hoping for, so there it was. America's entry into WWI hastened the end of the war primarily because the other powers wanted to end hostilities before the US could demand a greater role in the peace. And yes, the nation retreated into isolationism after the victory, but so would anyone else under the circumstances. It's unrealistic to expect any nation to act altruistically. It simply doesn't happen. As for the troops in Europe, this move has been planned for a long time and would have taken place regardless of GWB. It will also take 10 years to complete, so nothing will happen any time soon. He announced it now because he can't bring troops home from Iraq and he hopes that by merely getting the words 'bringing home the troops' into the news, the electorate will be too stupid to recognize that Europe and Iraq are not the same place. In any other year, he'd probably be right to think that, but my sense is that his credibility is so low, only the true believers are buying what he's selling. As for WWI, the issue of 'right and wrong' was not so clear cut. There was no Hitler, just a bunch of last-gasping kings and emporers. A pox on all their houses was probably the general feeling. Besides, as noted earlier, some people thought of Britain as being a much bigger potential threat to the US than Germany. No one wanted Germany to rule all of Europe, but since one would have been hard-pressed to find anyone in Europe who could explain why WWI was being fought, America's ambivalence is understandable.

Well done Justyn. A few footnotes.... The US sold arms and supplies to both sides of the conflict prior to entry into world war I. We were making a profit. I think, if I recall correctly, Winston Churchill amongst other notables in England, was against the American entry into WW I, mainly because he felt that England would be victorious without the US and all we would do would be to interfere with the divying up afterwards. The league of nations was the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, but his own personal crusade to see it come to life and political ineptness kept the US from adopting the charter. The main objection at the time was the US giving up it's sovern rights. We never bought the idea of being the attack dog at the whim of some european power(s)...We're back in the role again, some in the world want the US to be the "enforcer", some in this country as well.