Originally posted by FMF Where is it you think I implied that "the facts of the cases are identical"? Sounds like a straw man. As for how they are related, well they are both massacres - or mass murders, if you want - committed against innocent civilians and perpetrated by the U.S. military and there is a question mark over whether the U.S. military will be able to deal with the case ap ume the later will end up the same way.
U.S. military justice is under scrutiny, yes.[/b]
Well, Leon Panetta is already talking about seeking the death penalty in this case, so I think it's somewhat unlikely that this will end in an honorable discharge.
Originally posted by normbenign Where did the fear of standing armies go? Could we come close to balancing our budget, by eliminating all foreign based troops, even when there isn't a conflict? Why are we in Afghanistan, 11 years after the 9/11 attacks?
Can the United States afford to be globocop?
A democratically elected and representative UN (without any SC vetoes) could arbitrate disputes between nations and send military force as needed to resolve them.
No one nation can be in the role of cop because no one nation could ever do the job adequately and fairly.
Originally posted by spruce112358 A democratically elected and representative UN (without any SC vetoes) could arbitrate disputes between nations and send military force as needed to resolve them.
No one nation can be in the role of cop because no one nation could ever do the job adequately and fairly.
"UN = US troops"? Is this a reference to the Korean War? Seems a bit odd to refer back to a military conflict that happened 60 years ago. What do you mean by it?
Originally posted by FMF "UN = US troops"? Is this a reference to the Korean War? Seems a bit odd to refer back to a military conflict that happened 60 years ago. What do you mean by it?
FMF, I think you may be placing words in whodey's mouth. He did not mention Korea.
Originally posted by spruce112358 FMF, I think you may be placing words in whodey's mouth. He did not mention Korea.
Well I was asking him to clarify. As far as I am aware, the U.S. contributes less than 1% of the troops used in U.N. military operations. So presumably whodey's "UN = US troops" 'assertion' harks back to the Korean War. Perhaps he will clarify what he means by "UN = US troops".
Originally posted by FMF Well I was asking him to clarify. As far as I am aware, the U.S. contributes less than 1% of the troops used in U.N. military operations. So presumably whodey's "UN = US troops" 'assertion' harks back to the Korean War. Perhaps he will clarify what he means by "UN = US troops".
Of the 82,539 troops currently on UN peacekeeping duty, 16 are Americans (0.02 % ).
As a percentage of the world's population (4% American), that is more than 200 times too low.
edit: The USA should have 3300 or so troops committed.
edit: Unless we think the UN is an undemocratically constituted debating society.
Originally posted by normbenign Could we come close to balancing our budget, by eliminating all foreign based troops, even when there isn't a conflict?
Not even close.
The budget deficit is well over a trillion dollars, even in the most optimistic projections.
All US defense spending combined is about a trillion dollars, including all expenses related to maintaining any armed forced at all.
Even if we cut out the military all together, we'd save maybe a trillion, but lose all the tax revenue paid by all people employed by the military and all the tax revenue we get from people employed in the military-industrial complex that produce goods for the military. Then, we'd have to use taxpayer dollars to figure out how to compensate for the enormous hit to the economy that would be inflicted by laying off millions.
All foreign engagements combined in a give year probably don't cost more than about $100B (and that's a very liberal estimate)... a drop in the bucket, dwarfed by TARP and these stimulus packages.
Originally posted by FMF What do you think whodey meant by "UN = US troops"?
I think He may be thinking about the hot interventionist type war the U.N might involve itself in rather than the peace keeping duties it carries out just now. In the former category the U.N might overly rely on American muscle but without an American veto.
More of a premonition of the future than an historical claim.
Originally posted by kevcvs57 I think He may be thinking about the hot interventionist type war the U.N might involve itself in rather than the peace keeping duties it carries out just now.
After a 60 year lay off? Inconceivable. Which makes whodey's "UN = US troops. Thanks, but no thanks" one of the most rapid cases of straw-man-deployed-straw-man-knocked-down that I've seen on this Forum for a while.
Originally posted by FMF After a 60 year lay off? Inconceivable. Which makes whodey's "UN = US troops. Thanks, but no thanks" one of the most rapid cases of straw-man-deployed-straw-man-knocked-down that I've seen on this Forum for a while.
Not sure why you keep referring to the Korean war the U.S was hot for that war and dragged everybody else into it.
I am not saying I agree with Whodey I am simply trying to ascertain what his concerns might be.
He is pretty consistent in his arguments against U.S involvement in foreign conflicts.
Originally posted by FMF After a 60 year lay off? Inconceivable. Which makes whodey's "UN = US troops. Thanks, but no thanks" one of the most rapid cases of straw-man-deployed-straw-man-knocked-down that I've seen on this Forum for a while.
Originally posted by kevcvs57 Not sure why you keep referring to the Korean war the U.S was hot for that war and dragged everybody else into it.
I am not saying I agree with Whodey I am simply trying to ascertain what his concerns might be.
He is pretty consistent in his arguments against U.S involvement in foreign conflicts.
The Korean war was the last example where what essentially amounted to a US army was fought under the UN banner; so "UN = US" can presumably refer to no more recent enterprise.
Massacre in Kandahar
13 Mar '12 03:031 edit
Back to Top