Except that Singapore has been allying itself with the United States for years because it has been mutually beneficial, and only becomes more so as China grows. The government of Singapore (and many other Pacific Rim countries) find that they would rather have US influence than Chinese. I can't really fault them for that.1) Yes, I do quake at the thought of my ally. From a political standpoint, I would say that it isn't so much an alliance than it is a dependence. The relationship is serves the both of our nation's interest. However, what is freely given can as easily be withdrawn. Under these current political circumstances, there would be many complex political implications or consequences if that protection is withdrawn, however that does not mean that they cannot do so. To whom does my nation's sovereignity belong to? To the citizens? To my government? No, it belongs to those who can take it away. Just as the 2008 Georgian/Russian conflict proved, S.Ossetia owes it's current indepence to Russia, and to the world's lack of intervention. If NATO had decided otherwise, Gaddafi would stll be in control in Libya. Military might determines sovereignity, not constitutions nor righteousness. But military might is dependent on economical might, hence why Singapore will be safe as it is for now, because of this relationship. That doesn't change the fact that we're at their mercy. One should never ally to the strong, but rather against the strong.
Simply put, because N.K. has a rather powerful patron, China, and a much greater ability to retaliate than Iraq did short of resorting to NBCs. China wants, and has wanted, NK to function as a buffer state between itself and the staunchly American allied South Korea and Japan, its long time regional rivals. The North has also spent the last 50 years preparing to deter any move against its sovereignty, such as the thousands of long range artillery pieces capable of firing South of the border and killing large numbers of civilians.2) Much of the world as it is (Except Russia, who seems to take perverse delight in frustrating the American government). A bold claim I admit, one that you're sure to refute. Though, here's a thought. Why did we (I'm assuming you're American, which you proabably are)invade Iraq (My nation included), but not N.Korea?
And they do block Russia or China, for instance? Let us not pretend that the US is unique in this regard, merely powerful.Both nations at that point in time were "developing" weapons of mass destruction. Both nation's leader's have terrible human rights records. So why Iraq? I'll not use that washed out claim that America was there for the oil, albiet it being probably true. I'm merely pointing out that though we may criticise American actions, most world government's never actually block American actions.
You mean Obama ignored the advice of the regional foe of the US for the last 8ish years to take down the person who was responsible for 3,000 American civilians while being hidden by an alleged US ally?When Obama ordered Osama's execution, they ignored Iran's government and moved in their forces, and eliminated their target without warrant or . My question is this. Had it been any other nation that had recieved that information, and proceeded with that course of action (assuming they had the capacity or capability), how would the world have reacted?
Point? The US is not the armed branch of the UN.3) You're right, there is no suprise in that. I was merely pointing out the obvious relationship between the spending on military, and political power. Key word was "veto". This thread was asking about whether America should cut down on it's military spending, which equates to "Should America cut down on political influence?" Should might determine right on a global, international platform? I agree that a certain amount of military might is needed to enforce UN's mission to:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
Luckily the five members all see the world through different eyes, as the recent Syria scenario proves.Funny, that it should be worded thus. If the five members should determine a conflict is not a "breach of peace" or does not conform with the laws these power nations agree to set. What happens then?
They do have this, see Syria.4) You're right. The UN is not a democracy. Wrong choice of a word.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
It works on equality and self determination. Which means that in principle, all nations are qual, and all nations have a right to make decisions and employ them. In self determination, all nations should be heard on the council, and general assembly. Does that not sound a lot like democracy? Since it is in the interest of mutual peace? Not unconditional peace? I agree that some nations shoul carry more weight, in proportion to the global population, like India or China. But by how much?
Because these are operations that only the US is capable of conducting? Thats why we are talking about two incidents rather than the dozens of other interventions.5) True that. Most stationed "peacekeepers" are indeed contributed by neighbouring nations. As in Africa, Bosnia, Israel and other such places of conflicts. However, under whose flag did most major "UN missions" operate under, such as the Korean war, or the first invasion of Iraq?
And the French, and British, and Chinese, and Russians, ..... the list go ons.I believe it was the star spangled banner... I was wrong to say that an UN army is composed of American troops, but America forms a substantial bulk of any invading army, that is of course invading withthe consent of the Americans.
Point?Funny that the 2003 invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, though was a clear breach of peace, America hasn't exactly been given "effective collective measures" to stop it.
God no, I wouldn't want to incorporate anyone else into our nation when we are already so differentiated politically socially and economically as it is. And if the US is such a threat, then why are so many nations turning to America for protection from the Chinese? The US is certainly not perfect, but that is why international relations are relative matters.6) It all seems rather far fetched to you. Not to those who aren't American. Each time you violate another nation's borers, as America might be planning to do to Iran (Whose military couldn't ever possibly hope to face up to the Americans), it makes other nations wonder about their own borders. It all seems rather non existent, should the Americans not agree with you. United States of the World. Has a nice ring to it doesn't it?
America has changed radically from what it was a hundred years ago. Go pick up a book discussing the tortuous process behind the US entering the Second World War. The isolationist tendencies in the US were so strong that basic preparedness and budgeting passed by margins of a single vote.7) Point taken. Most examples are old, but I still find them relevant when interpreting American motives and priorities. America hasn't changed much since a hundred years ago.
So the US should just give up things that it has spent billions and billions on developing and construction because its "hogging" it?They begun those invasions on similar premises as those to today. Read your history, find the parallels. They might not be exactly the same, but the circumstances have changed, the excuses have changed, but the nature of American policies have not. Creating self reliant countries, or creating American dependent nations? Which one? Take for example, most of the nations that were "occupied" by America gets it weapons supplies from America. (With the exception of Cuba) As raised earlier on military might determines sovereignity. During that 2008 Georgian conflict, Georgia realised that most of it's arms came from Russia, and Russia then refused to continue selling it arms. Singapore's planes (Which allows us to have air supremacy within our region) come from America. If denied to us, we lose a substantial portion of our military strength. We are VERY much dependent on America. Why else do you think China has raised it's military budget, and has been racing to build up it's arms industry? Self suffiency. If America truly wishes other nations to be self sufficient, they should then help to build up a credible arms industry, share military technology, and stop hogging it's monopoly over military arms.
It was promised in 1916, partially established in 1935 and then granted in 1946, when the US was arguably at the apex of its relative international power, in the Treaty of Manila.8) History has lessons for us all. Irrelevant to you perhaps, but I don't think that American atrocities commited in both America and Philipines are not exactly wonderful footnotes in history. I doubt the Americans had planned to leave Philipines, if it weren't for the Japanese invasion, and the subsequent national awakening of the Filipinos.
I am not being dragged into a body count discussion again. You are trying to draw parallels that simply are not there, "Drenched in blood" and your previous assertions of letting emotion cloud your judgement are being shown quite clearly.Again, check your history. I distinctly recall the supression of the Filipino people during their rebellion against American rule. Something not quite discussed today. Thousands of Filipinos dead, at American hands. American hands are drenched in blood. What of all the lives ruined in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nothing is ever said about them. All the fathers, and families killed. How is this fair, how is this just? Why does George Bush, elected twice as President of the United States of America walk away scott free? For every American dead, there are hundreds if not thousands of dead innocent civilians of oher nations.
That describes just about every single international power, ever.9-10) I'm sorry if I was rather blunt at this point. It's hard not to read American motives as Imperialistic ones when they bear so much resemblence to Roman ones. Conquest through culture, economy, and military might.
Again, this is such a vague and broad parallel that it can be applied to just about everyone. I wish Goldsworthy's article on the faultiness of this very parallel was available online but I cannot seem to track it down.Rome too, never invade without a "plausible" Casus Belli. Rome always claimed the higher moral ground, feigning intervention, and planting military presences.
So you are an idealist in a world of realists.What else do we call the thousands of American troops stationed around the world? No I don't wish for America to be replaced by China, or Russia. I don't wish for any nation to assume that tryrannical role. I wish for a world without borders, and respect for all peoples, that justice not be delivered through military means, nor righteousness determined by strength of arms. I call for America to scale down it's weapons development program. Be the first to disarm it's nuclear arms, and ban nuclear arms in general. No more stockpiles, no more fear.