OT: Is this man a quack, or does he know what he's talking about?

[Mace]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

I had assumed that all NATO countries would get protection.

-Andrew

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to Mr Cohen, interviewed while out in Oz last week for Australian-US defence talks and asked if the defence envelope would include Australia, 'all trust-worthy, dependable US allies will share in the technology'!

This would suggest that protection goes further than NATO, as Australia is part of the ANZUS alliance, but I suppose it depends on the definition of 'trust-worthy' or 'dependable'!

Mace

hmmm....better dig that bomb cellar just in case!

[This message has been edited by Mace (edited 07-24-2000).]

[Disaster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Galland0:

Well,

Personally I don't trust any goverment period. Each one in every country of the world is run by a very few individuals who

can create or avoid war much in the same way we as citizens have good days or bad days at work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Governments these days are huge complex organizations that are ruled by budgets, are subject to the whims of their own cultures and are as vulnerable to human psychology as the places in which we work. I wouldn't say 'few' but these are still organizations where inertia and mistaken policies have a major effect in our lives. Fortunately, unlike in other ages, there is more power sharing and oversight. The more people contest the reins of power, the less chance there are for 'conspiracies' or oligarchies.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

IMHO WWII was the result of unfinished business in WWI. And on and on back, feuds because of fueds, and sadly each war will bring more and more deadly weapons to bear.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree with such a pessimistic view. While certainly history has had a great many nightmares that humans as a race should be ashamed of, I think the forces of globalism and the free exchange of information will do much to help people, at least, recognize that there is a better life. Who, for example, is preventing us to talk in this matter? In many other countries, of course, this freedom is restricted. But I see this as a losing struggle against the adoption of technology. When people can have hope, they won't spend so much time bickering over things in the past. Yes, we have Kossovo and Rwanda. Yet, as in contrast to say the last century, countries have an interest in putting money into those places. You can argue exploitation all you want but money is being transferred and, more importantly, information.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Yes I am intriged by history, absolutely love wargames, but I am not one to believe the TV, newspapers, or radio. It is all propaganda.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All propaganda? Even what we say to each other on the Internet? Unless you think even what we say is propaganda (including yourself!) then this can't be true. If you are free to even challenge the dominant viewpoint then that means it isn't all propaganda. In the mass media there certainly are agendas. And these are from groups, not overriding conspiracies. But we live in a marketplace for ideas and don't have to accept them. Once again I have to bring up organizational politics. The mass media are complex organizations, just like governments. Their faults are cultural.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Didn't the U.S. stop backing Chang Kha Shek

and opt to back Mao because Mao was getting better results against the Japanese.(Could of missed Korea)

Grandfather was there...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no evidence that the U.S. switched to helping Mao rather then helping Chang Kai Chek. Stilwell did want to help Mao because of the reason you stated but he never was allowed to do anything more than hold discussions with him and provide advice. Stilwell in fact was very much upset with the Generalissimo because he refused to prosecute the war against the Japanese, instead harbouring his resources for the expected struggle against Mao. Any lack of U.S. support for Chek after that was because of this constant struggle to get results from him. Once the armistice was signed, Mao won the war against the Nationalists all his own.

In your Vietnamese example, you should also lay the blame on the French. It was the French who insisted on regaining their lost empire in Indochina and lead to the rise of the Viet Minh. The French could have retained a presence in Asia by fostering the independence of that country. Instead, they tried to turn the clock back in colonialism. They had the same problem in Algeria, offering the locals seats in the parliament instead of independence.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And the U.S. laughed in the face of Fidel Castro rather than use diplomacy.(Could of missed the Cuban Missle Crisis)

We all were there...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is true the U.S. could have offered more than the Soviets. But given Fidel's character, he would still have leaned toward the Soviets. Why? Because it was his chance to thumb his nose at U.S. imperialism in the western hemisphere. It has long been the dream of the intelligensia in Latin America to be independent of U.S. hegemony in the western hemisphere. The U.S. could have outbid the Soviets but the price would have been steeper than haughty U.S. administrations would have been willing to pay. Remember, this was the same era when the U.S. thought nothing of helping their corporations topple fledgling governments in America. The term 'banana republic' is a reference to the United Fruit Company's hegemony over many countries' economies and states.

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>hmmm....better dig that bomb cellar just in case!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. I never figured any of those things would've worked, anyway.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[Disaster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

LOL. I never figured any of those [bomb shelters] things would've worked, anyway.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure they would have worked. As a ready made mausoleum. That way they wouldn't have needed to bury you twice. Or have you cremated more than once.

[Andre76]

Quote:

Russia has, since 1993, openly declared a military policy involving preemptive nuclear strikes against percieved conventional threats (...)Given Russia's increasing reliance on nuclear weapons for basic security, this seems plausible.

-Andrew

I think the Russians is smart enough to not use nuclear force if it's not a *very* critical situation. Look at Tchetjenia (how is it spelled?). They lost one war and is now struggelig with a new one and they have't used any nuclear bomb so far, so they can't be that trigger happy.

André

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the Russians is smart enough to not use nuclear force if it's not a *very* critical situation. Look at Tchetjenia (how is it spelled?). They lost one war and is now struggelig with a new one and they have't used any nuclear bomb so far, so they can't be that trigger happy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, they regard Chechnya(?) as their own province, so I'm not sure that applies. Also, the Chechan forces aren't exactly moving to invade Russia or anything. And they're using crappy Russian equipment

And of course it all depends on what Russia thinks "very critical situation" means. Their military is in shambles, and as DESERT STORM proved, even a Soviet-equipped military that isn't in shambles can still be easily overrun by the United States and its allies. NATO has been working to expand right up to the Russian border, and that could be construed by the Russian General Staff as a threat. Pry apparently feels that the General Staff and upper echelons of the Russian military are full of paranoid Cold War relics. I'm still not sure if I believe that.

I'm still interested in the May 1992 Turkey thing. Can anyone help me out? Did Russia actually make veiled threats of nuclear war with Turkey during the Armenia-Azerbaijan War, as Pry claims?

-Andrew

[This message has been edited by Mirage2k (edited 07-25-2000).]

[Disaster@work]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

Well, they regard Chechnya(?) as their own province, so I'm not sure that applies. Also, the Chechan forces aren't exactly moving to invade Russia or anything. And they're using crappy Russian equipment <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the Russian perspective, Chechens are terrorists who they blame for a string of bombings that rocked Russian cities last year. Also, Chechens have long been regarded as an important Mafia group who engage in kidnapping, smuggling and drug trafficking. While the rest of the world complains about how ruthless Russian gangsters are the Russians themselves use the Chechens as their own bugbear. The Chechens have mounted raids into Russian territory, including one raid that ended in a hostage taking of an entire facility with hundreds of people. Russians have a long history of antagonism with people in the Caucuses and the steppes who in history were only recently conquered in the 1800s. Russia was once ruled by horse nomads who settled in these areas. Their history has been a long struggle against invaders. Their only perceived solution has been a policy of imperialism against peoples who were recent enemies.

The American analogy would be if the Navajo or the Mormons tried to break away and engaged in highly public acts (such as bombing Federal buildings) to intimidate the federal government into accepting independence.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I'm still interested in the May 1992 Turkey thing. Can anyone help me out? Did Russia actually make veiled threats of nuclear war with Turkey during the Armenia-Azerbaijan War, as Pry claims?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm also interested in hearing more about this. From what I know from recent news is that Turkey is trying to extend its influence over all Turkic peoples who reside in the Caucuses through third party aid, schools and 'friendship' organizations. This is part of their policy of gaining leadership in the region and becoming the pipeline of choice for oil coming out of the Caucuses.

[This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 07-25-2000).]