Why Is It Our Duty To Defend the World?

[d08]

You make some great points. I think the US is as much to blame as the Euros however. We have complained for years that the euros were not holding up their end, but we never did anything tangible. Many US policymakers are probably quite happy with the status quo in fact. They like having europe dependent on us.

We also exacerbated the problem by pushing NATO expansion into former Soviet satellite states. It was reckless and needlessly provocative. Are we really prepared to go to war with Russia over Estonia?

Our whole international policy is bizzarely upside down. We tolerate all kinds of economic aggression, deferring to euro-dominated groups like the WTO. At the same time, we go around searching for regional or single country disputes to meddle in.

Depressingly, the leaders of both parties vie to see who can push this failed neo-con policy the hardest.

Let's say NATO wouldn't have included Baltics and Central Europe and in that scenario it would've been a question of time until Russia re-created the Soviet Union territorially. Do you think a modern Soviet Union type organization with 250+ million people wouldn't have eventually swallowed up Germany, France and the whole of continental Europe? In this scenario UK doesn't stand a chance either. Now you have by far the most powerful union on the planet that ranges from northern Japan to West African islands. This is exactly what the US doesn't want - a more powerful aggressive enemy. You need to think beyond A and B here. Russia isn't a country that will stop expanding, the desire to expand its border is deeply routed into their culture, even if it means a significantly lower standard of living.
As of now, Western Europe is incredibly weak and will continue to weaken until a power vacuum appears and an Ukraine-like scenario happens. While UK, France and Germany bicker over details, Russia marches slowly forward. This is my view for the upcoming decades.

 

[Lucrum]

Let's say NATO wouldn't have included Baltics and Central Europe and in that scenario it would've been a question of time until Russia re-created the Soviet Union territorially. Do you think a modern Soviet Union type organization with 250+ million people wouldn't have eventually swallowed up Germany, France and the whole of continental Europe? In this scenario UK doesn't stand a chance either. Now you have by far the most powerful union on the planet that ranges from northern Japan to West African islands. This is exactly what the US doesn't want - a more powerful aggressive enemy. You need to think beyond A and B here. Russia isn't a country that will stop expanding, the desire to expand its border is deeply routed into their culture, even if it means a significantly lower standard of living.
As of now, Western Europe is incredibly weak and will continue to weaken until a power vacuum appears and an Ukraine-like scenario happens. While UK, France and Germany bicker over details, Russia marches slowly forward. This is my view for the upcoming decades.

http://www.rosettastone.com/learn-russian

You might want to get it while it's on sale.

 

[d08]

The EU nations don't belong to the UN? The same UN that issued numerous resolutions on the WMD's Iraq supposedly had.
There haven't been any terrorist attacks in the EU? I seem to recall a few.

UN didn't find any chemical weapons manufacturing, only remnants. US surprise attack happened as the UN inspectors were in the country (20th March 2003). As the storyline goes, inspectors were inspecting and it was clear at that point they won't find anything relevant - the neo-conservatives wanted the attack to take place while they still had any momentum left.

Make no mistake, both the Afghan and the Iraqi wars have been US/UK led. Or do you think Romania or Estonia had a major bone to pick with Saddam?
It was all about the NATO articles, obligations toward allies.
It would be interesting if after all this, US estranges itself from Europe.

Major terrorist attacks in Europe were after the US led wars. There were some relatively minor attacks before by some rogue groups but nothing to warrant a full-blown war.

 

[Lucrum]

UN didn't find any chemical weapons manufacturing, only remnants.

True

US surprise attack happened as the UN inspectors were in the country (20th March 2003).

Surprise? Bush announced a deadline. Iraq ignored it. That's not a surprise.

As the storyline goes, inspectors were inspecting and it was clear at that point they won't find anything relevant - the neo-conservatives wanted the attack to take place while they still had any momentum left.

Wow, that is some seriously revised history. I was thinking the UN inspectors had been expelled by Iraq, hence the numerous UN resolutions calling for Iraq to let them return. Not to mention most of the worlds intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMD's. They had in fact used chemical weapons in the recent past.

Make no mistake, both the Afghan and the Iraqi wars have been US/UK led. Or do you think Romania or Estonia had a major bone to pick with Saddam?
It was all about the NATO articles, obligations toward allies.
It would be interesting if after all this, US estranges itself from Europe.

Major terrorist attacks in Europe were after the US led wars. There were some relatively minor attacks before by some rogue groups but nothing to warrant a full-blown war.

But now you're arguing the US and NATO should continue these same "neo-con" policies...to save your butt...from the Russians?

 

[Martinghoul]

It's interesting that you discount the Russian agenda completely and focus on US foreign policy. So many have done this.

Russia has its own agenda here, related to Putin's declining popularity (before the Olympics and Crimea) and the stagnating Russian economy. A "patriotic" war always props up support, the effect is multiplied for Russia if you understand the Russian mentality at all.
Despite most people in the west believing in the all-powerful global US influence, this one actually was started by the political opposition and/or because of Russian internal issues.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. To me, your interpretation doesn't make sense, given the timeline of events, the evidence of American foreign policy actions and the previous precedent.

Let's say NATO wouldn't have included Baltics and Central Europe and in that scenario it would've been a question of time until Russia re-created the Soviet Union territorially. Do you think a modern Soviet Union type organization with 250+ million people wouldn't have eventually swallowed up Germany, France and the whole of continental Europe? In this scenario UK doesn't stand a chance either. Now you have by far the most powerful union on the planet that ranges from northern Japan to West African islands. This is exactly what the US doesn't want - a more powerful aggressive enemy. You need to think beyond A and B here. Russia isn't a country that will stop expanding, the desire to expand its border is deeply routed into their culture, even if it means a significantly lower standard of living.
As of now, Western Europe is incredibly weak and will continue to weaken until a power vacuum appears and an Ukraine-like scenario happens. While UK, France and Germany bicker over details, Russia marches slowly forward. This is my view for the upcoming decades.

Say what? You have this amazing insight into Russian character and culture how exactly?

 

[Martinghoul]

Let's say NATO wouldn't have included Baltics and Central Europe and in that scenario it would've been a question of time until Russia re-created the Soviet Union territorially. Do you think a modern Soviet Union type organization with 250+ million people wouldn't have eventually swallowed up Germany, France and the whole of continental Europe? In this scenario UK doesn't stand a chance either. Now you have by far the most powerful union on the planet that ranges from northern Japan to West African islands. This is exactly what the US doesn't want - a more powerful aggressive enemy. You need to think beyond A and B here. Russia isn't a country that will stop expanding, the desire to expand its border is deeply routed into their culture, even if it means a significantly lower standard of living.
As of now, Western Europe is incredibly weak and will continue to weaken until a power vacuum appears and an Ukraine-like scenario happens. While UK, France and Germany bicker over details, Russia marches slowly forward. This is my view for the upcoming decades.

I forgot to mention that you're not addressing the actual concern here...

If you're correct and Russia does represent an existential threat to Western and Central Europe, why is it that only 3 European member states abide by the NATO charter that stipulates a minimum level of military spending? Surely the European NATO members should be as interested, if not more, in guarding against the threat of Russian expansion?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

The fact is that Russia did not take any actions regarding Ukraine until a western-backed coup removed the elected presdient and replaced him with a government with neo-nazi elecments. One of that government's first edicts was to ban the use of russian language, despite the large russian ethnic population in the east.

Ukraine had various economic ties with russia that amounted to a huge subsidy. Russia also had an important naval base in Crimea.

To think that the country could be turned from its russian focus into a european outpost with no reaction from Russis was very naive. I woudl suspect the western intelligence agencies are in fact secretly pleased with how modest the russian reaction was.

 

[Trader666]

It was all about the NATO articles, obligations toward allies.

That's a common misconception. Here's what Article 5 actually says:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

 

[nightcarrier]

Probably, its not your duty to defend the world, but right now you have saved us from ourselves ).
After hard "NO" said by mr.Obama (when it was said in right way) our mr.Putin postponed his plans in Donetsk and Lugansk. It really saved lives and billions of dollars. Appreciate.
Where is your profit? May be in Boeings/Visa/MasterCard future work in Russia. And free capital outflow from MICEX to NYSE, to be honest.

 

[Lucrum]

Sec. of Defense Hagel to Review Allowing Transgendered Soldiers

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/12/sec-of-defense-hagel-to-review-allowing-transgendered-soldiers/

The world might want to get ready to defend itself. At the rate we're going we won't be able to defend ourselves much longer.