Iraq Veterans vulnerable to commit suicide

[S.A.M.]

Indeed. And I'm unsurprised that you are unable to make sense of it.

If the wars are pointless, why does America pursue them? If the nations are defenseless, why doesn't America win? If Communism was a bogeyman, where did those armies that invaded and occupied Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, etc. come from? The nuclear missiles that menaced the West for so many decades? Why did so many other countries sign up for NATO?

The wars are pointless because they are simply a continuation of colonialism. Why the US pursues them is for hegemonistic aims, as evidenced by the 700 military bases and 2000 nuclear warheads distributed worldwide.

As for why other countries signed up, because apart from the US other countries are willing to work together. NATO was an offshoot of the Brussels Treaty

The Treaty of Brussels, signed on the 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. This treaty established a military alliance, later to become the Western European Union. However, American participation was thought necessary in order to counter the military power of the Soviet Union, and therefore talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately.

Of course, the scope of NATO was limited

Further, the article limits the organisation's scope to Europe and North America, which explains why the invasion of the British Falkland Islands did not result in NATO involvement.

In 1954, the Soviet Union suggested that it should join NATO to preserve peace in Europe.[3] The NATO countries ultimately rejected this proposal.

And almost instantly there was a crisis

The unity of NATO was breached early on in its history, with a crisis occurring during Charles de Gaulle's presidency of France from 1958 onward. De Gaulle protested the United States' hegemonic role in the organisation and what he perceived as a special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. In a memorandum sent to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on 17 September 1958, he argued for the creation of a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with the United States and the United Kingdom, and also for the expansion of NATO's coverage to include geographical areas of interest to France, most notably Algeria, where France was waging a counter-insurgency and sought NATO assistance.

How did any of those wars increase American power? I don't dispute that power politics is a real force throughout the world history, but that doesn't mean American actions are based solely on cynical Realpolitick. Indeed, Americans policy has often been criticized as too idealistic.

I think the last 50 years have shown that power was increased by installing governments favorable to US ambitions regardless of the suffering of the people or the society.

Ask any of these countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ents#1940-1945

For example, how do you square American efforts such as the creation of the UN and Peace Corps, or the undermining of the Anglo/Franco/Israeli attack on the Suez with your view of America as driven purely by the violent pursuit of power?

Simple; the US ignores the UN but attacks anyone else who does the same. Else it vetoes resolutions not in its favor and favors only those who work with it. An excellent forum for power play.

The Peace Corps is a good organisation, but ultimately powerless.
How many Americans know anything outside their own country?

The entire motivation for the deal (and the formation of NATO) was that half of Europe WAS under occupation at the time.

As compared to under dictators validated by US arms and funds? Oh wait, different color of people.

[S.A.M.]

Lots of people. It's just that other things, such as the fate of the entire world, are more important.

Yeah everyone is so focused on the fate of the world. A few million deaths in other countries are just collateral damages. A few dictators, a few armed conflicts armed and funded by US "aid", a few thousand starving children.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean I'd let my frustration lead me into abusing the definitions of words. Atrocities are things like massacres of civilians. Political decisions as such don't really count.

Yeah, like sending arms by the truckload or plane load. People dying at the other end is just a coincidence.

Huh? No, those countries struggled for years to escape the chains of Soviet oppression, although they were glad to have our support. And, yeah, many of them were grateful to the point of effusiveness. They were among our staunchest supporters in the recent wars, for example.

No kidding. I'm surprised the US did not advise the USSR to simply label them as terrorists and bomb them out of existence. Now if only the US would look at the people it has been oppressing under dictators and by arming conflicts in the same light.

[quadraphonics]

The wars are pointless because they are simply a continuation of colonialism. Why the US pursues them is for hegemonistic aims, as evidenced by the 700 military bases and 2000 nuclear warheads distributed worldwide.

That's a strange definition of "pointless." Why would America want to continue colonialism, a practice that we fought against from out very beginnings until its final collapse some 200 years later?

Remind me how many of those military bases are there are the pleasure of the host governments? All of them, isn't it?

As for why other countries signed up, because apart from the US other countries are willing to work together.

So the reason others signed up is because they wanted to work together, but that's not why America signed up? Why else would you enter into a mutual defense pact?

Of course, the scope of NATO was limited

Indeed, and the reasons for this are well-documented as well. The treaty was limited to apply to North America and Europe because several of the European signatories still possessed colonies outside of those regions, and America refused to sign up for any treaty that would oblige us to come to their aid in defending their colonies from the independence movements that were springing up. We wanted to counter the Soviet threat in Europe, not act as a guarantor of continued colonialism. So, again, we see the United States acting on its long-standing, deep-seated opposition to colonialism.

And almost instantly there was a crisis

Indeed, France was angry that we were undermining their colonial ambitions, and wanted to revise NATO to require us to come to their aid in Algeria, something we had no intention of going along with. Having bought our backing for their efforts in Vietnam by holding the NATO treaty hostage in its infancy, they tried to play the same trick again. This time, however, we didn't fall for it.

[quadraphonics]

Yeah everyone is so focused on the fate of the world. A few million deaths in other countries are just collateral damages. A few dictators, a few armed conflicts armed and funded by US "aid", a few thousand starving children.

Indeed. Geopolitics is a big game, and the toll of the Cold War and War on Terror combined is still peanuts compared to the damage done in either of the World Wars. A frontal conflict between the two Cold War superpowers might well have eliminated life on earth entirely.

[S.A.M.]

That's a strange definition of "pointless." Why would America want to continue colonialism, a practice that we fought against from out very beginnings until its final collapse some 200 years later?

Remind me how many of those military bases are there are the pleasure of the host governments? All of them, isn't it?

Host governments. Not people. Are you saying the US would remove its bases if asked?

So the reason others signed up is because they wanted to work together, but that's not why America signed up? Why else would you enter into a mutual defense pact?

Power, of course, what else?

Indeed, and the reasons for this are well-documented as well. The treaty was limited to apply to North America and Europe because several of the European signatories still possessed colonies outside of those regions, and America refused to sign up for any treaty that would oblige us to come to their aid in defending their colonies from the independence movements that were springing up. We wanted to counter the Soviet threat in Europe, not act as a guarantor of continued colonialism. So, again, we see the United States acting on its long-standing, deep-seated opposition to colonialism.

heh that is funny. The Americans did not want to defend other people's colonies but want NATO to defend its arms and trade markets and petrodollar. Priceless.

Indeed, France was angry that we were undermining their colonial ambitions, and wanted to revise NATO to require us to come to their aid in Algeria, something we had no intention of going along with. Having bought our backing for their efforts in Vietnam by holding the NATO treaty hostage in its infancy, they tried to play the same trick again. This time, however, we didn't fall for it.

Instead, now its the US hegemony that has become a headache for world peace. Strange times indeed.

[GeoffP]

Sam, your hyperbole exceeds even your usual range today. Please desist; for someone who claims such an interest in details, you have a surprising capacity to skip over them.

[S.A.M.]

Indeed. Geopolitics is a big game, and the toll of the Cold War and War on Terror combined is still peanuts compared to the damage done in either of the World Wars. A frontal conflict between the two Cold War superpowers might well have eliminated life on earth entirely.

And yet, Americans are still willing to spend a trillion dollars on a pointless war but do not fulfill their obligations to aid. What a very strange people indeed.

[S.A.M.]

Sam, your hyperbole exceeds even your usual range today. Please desist; for someone who claims such an interest in details, you have a surprising capacity to skip over them.

Hyperbole? The cold war and the war on terror, not to mention the power struggles between the colonialists to hold on to their power, have caused countless millions to pay with their lives. And continue to do so. Thats what I call hyperbole.

[GeoffP]

Pointless? How so? Perhaps they imagined the USSR and the Pact, just across the border.

[GeoffP]

Hyperbole? The cold war and the war on terror, not to mention the power struggles between the colonialists to hold on to their power, have caused countless millions to pay with their lives. And continue to do so. Thats what I call hyperbole.

Are you perhaps saying instead it was pointless for both sides?

[quadraphonics]

Host governments. Not people. Are you saying the US would remove its bases if asked?

Yes of course. We've done exactly that countless times over the years.

heh that is funny. The Americans did not want to defend other people's colonies but want NATO to defend its arms and trade markets and petrodollar. Priceless.

Trade, unlike colonialism, is not immoral. Even trade in arms. NATO has very little to do with petrodollars, not that I'd compare those to colonialism, either.

Instead, now its the US hegemony that has become a headache for world peace. Strange times indeed.

I suppose if you consider the most stable, prosperous, peaceful era in human history to be a headache.

[S.A.M.]

Yes of course. We've done exactly that countless times over the years.

I'd like to know where, the only place I am aware of is Saudi Arabia post 9/11

Trade, unlike colonialism, is not immoral. Even trade in arms. NATO has very little to do with petrodollars, not that I'd compare those to colonialism, either.

Trade is immoral when it is conducted with dictators installed by you, who use aid money to buy arms supplied by you.

I suppose if you consider the most stable, prosperous, peaceful era in human history to be a headache.

Ask the Iraqis.

[S.A.M.]

Are you perhaps saying instead it was pointless for both sides?

Pointless for the victims and for the US, since they only know how to destroy a country, not enable it to function effectively.

[quadraphonics]

And yet, Americans are still willing to spend a trillion dollars on a pointless war but do not fulfill their obligations to aid.

The cost of the war has spiralled upward greatly from the figures that were advertized back when the decision was made. And no other nation in world history has ever spent so much on aiding so many.

You can persist in believing America is pure evil, but it's a silly idea. All polities contain conflicting elements, and to suggest otherwise is laughably simple-minded. Furthermore, to suggest that America hasn't done the right thing more often than not (and more often than most other nations in history) is not credible.

[S.A.M.]

The cost of the war has spiralled upward greatly from the figures that were advertized back when the decision was made. And no other nation in world history has ever spent so much on aiding so many.

It helps to have a lot of money to throw away too. The contract with OPEC to sell oil in dollars for instance, only required them to support the most backward of the ME kingdoms.

You can persist in believing America is pure evil, but it's a silly idea. All polities contain conflicting elements, and to suggest otherwise is laughably simple-minded. Furthermore, to suggest that America hasn't done the right thing more often than not (and more often than most other nations in history) is not credible.

I don't believe America is pure evil. I think US policy is blind and selfish and will destroy it along with everyone else.

[quadraphonics]

I'd like to know where, the only place I am aware of is Saudi Arabia post 9/11

Well, a big one was France after the NATO dust-up you were just going on about. There was also a central Asian country more recently, although I forget which one. Similarly, we will scale down our presense or move its location if the host government so requests, as we are presently doing in South Korea and Japan.

Now, why don't you name a single instance in which the host government has requested American troops and/or facilities be removed, and we have refused. The closest example I can think of is Cuba, but that's sort of a one-off case, as the basing agreement doesn't allow for Cuba to evict us.

Trade is immoral when it is conducted with dictators installed by you, who use aid money to buy arms supplied by you.

And exactly which US-installed dictators were defended by NATO? Do you even try to remember what it is you were talking about, or do you just spout whatever cute propaganda comes to mind first?

Ask the Iraqis.

Iraq is only one country. Compare that with the peace in Europe (which was, by far, the most dangeous place to live for the prior 100 years), Asia, the Americas, etc. And it's not as if things were exactly rosy in Iraq during the Cold War, or the first half of the 20th century, for that matter. Even in your wildest exaggerations, Iraq is not so bad as to invalidate everything else America has achieved.

[GeoffP]

Pointless for the victims and for the US, since they only know how to destroy a country, not enable it to function effectively.

Which is it you're talking about, as you skip back and forth across the centuries with perfectly myopic hindsight?

Ugh. Never mind. If I want this sort of thing I can go watch sci-fi.

[quadraphonics]

I don't believe America is pure evil. I think US policy is blind and selfish and will destroy it along with everyone else.

Okay, so you think American foreign policy is pure evil. The same objections apply.

[S.A.M.]

Well, a big one was France after the NATO dust-up you were just going on about. There was also a central Asian country more recently, although I forget which one. Similarly, we will scale down our presense or move its location if the host government so requests, as we are presently doing in South Korea and Japan.

The Korean military presence for instance, is due to an agreement that will expire only some years hence. The Koreans do not like the military presence at all, the government does. Wonder what will happen at the end of the agreement, since N Korea is still alive and kicking.

Japan's military was disarmed after the war, so I presume they have no choice but to keep the base, regardless of what the people want. Are they allowed to develop their military yet?

As for France, well, its not Japan is it? or some Third World country with no seat on the Security Council? I doubt the US could have refused. Interesting though, I shall ask my Korean friend about their anti-base activity.

There are many anti-base operations though. for example

http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml...9999&publish=Y

Now, why don't you name a single instance in which the host government has requested American troops and/or facilities be removed, and we have refused. The closest example I can think of is Cuba, but that's sort of a one-off case, as the basing agreement doesn't allow for Cuba to evict us.

Hmm looks like you did it for me.

And exactly which US-installed dictators were defended by NATO? Do you even try to remember what it is you were talking about, or do you just spout whatever cute propaganda comes to mind first?

All the ones in the ME of course. e.g. Israel, Afghanistan to establish Karzai, Iraq for the US led coup.

Iraq is only one country. Compare that with the peace in Europe (which was, by far, the most dangeous place to live for the prior 100 years), Asia, the Americas, etc. And it's not as if things were exactly rosy in Iraq during the Cold War, or the first half of the 20th century, for that matter. Even in your wildest exaggerations, Iraq is not so bad as to invalidate everything else America has achieved.

And of course peace in the US and Europe is what all of us lesser mortals should be willing to die for. Asia and Americas? Arabs?

Not a priority

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...#anchor1469361

[S.A.M.]

Okay, so you think American foreign policy is pure evil. The same objections apply.

I wonder how you would like being on the receiving end of a program for world peace decided for you. Oops thats called terrorism.