NATO and Russia: Trust, but make military plans

[Raggz]

Source: The Economist

The allies reach out to the Kremlin, and start to think about the unthinkable


IN THE heart of NATO’s military headquarters, SHAPE, near the Belgian city of Mons, an unspoken revolution is taking place: planners are thinking about how to defend eastern European members from Russian attack. For years after the cold war, the orthodoxy was that Russia did not pose a threat, so NATO did not need to draw up contingency plans to protect newer members, such as the Baltic states.

That has now changed, NATO officials say, though nobody wants to speak about it publicly...

The Kremlin has given them reasons to worry: the Russian-inspired cyber-attacks on Estonia in 2007, Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008 and the large military exercises in western Russia in 2009 that culminated in a mock nuclear strike on Warsaw.



Read more: http://www.economist.com/node/16693761?story_id=16693761

---

The Cold War is warming up, just a bit

[dipsydoodle]

1. Not LBN

Should be in GD whatever or maybe even the Humour Forum.

[Meldread]

2. Someone should inform the EU then.

When is Europe going to stop mooching off the US when it comes to defense? They love to criticize us constantly, and yet at the same time run to us for protection the moment it looks like they'll need it. They dump tons of resources into their nice cushy social programs, meanwhile here in the United States - because we're supposed to be the world's daddy, I guess - we dump tons of resources into our military to defend them. Naturally, when it comes time for Europeans to actually endure some hardship they weep tears of blood, "BOOHOO! I have to actually work six entire months out of the year and pay taxes to fund the lucrative social programs which I enjoy!" Meanwhile here in America people are working not one job, but two or three jobs - without any benefits - throughout the entire year.

Ugh. That came out as an unintentional rant, but I'm so annoyed with how easy European's have it compared to Americans. We just need to pull our troops out of Europe and other countries and tell them that they need to man up and defend themselves. Either that, or they raise taxes and start shipping cash over here to help us fund our insane military industrial complex. Otherwise, we should tell the world to take care of itself and begin to dismantle it.

[Diclotican]

3. Meldread

Meldread

By all means, please be free to leave NATO, all the treaties US have with many europan country's, like base rights, right for naval forces to dock for repair, and refit when needed in peace as in war... Please feel free to leave europe, and also leave a alliance US for more than 60 year have benefited from, to have bases in the middle of Europe, and also not to forget, the communications systems who we, in europe for the most part was building for the USAF, USNAVY USARMY and the rest of the alphabet soup who is the US military.... And if US did that, turn their back on NATO, that would not be so benefitial as you might belive... No bases in Europe, no "son of star wars" project in Poland and Tsjekkia, no bases in any parts of Europe, and a couple of thousands KM between Europe and US.... Oh yes US would absolutely benefit from that one:sarcasm:

It is true that in the last 60 year or so, we in Europe have been dam lucky to have our big brother US to help us out, in the event of war with Russia... We have had the posibility to keep our military expences down, and to build up a social welfare system, that no one in US can match at current... But if You really belive that our welfare system is for free, you are really mistaken by a long shoot.. Mot Europeans, must work to pay for their welfare system included our "free" Healt Care, who even today US are not even close to, and even then many americans claim Obama to be a communist.... You se, even tho we don't pay with our childrens blood for healtcare, we pay our share of taxes to get a free healtcare when needed... Wel the system is different from country to country, but you se, we dosent get it for FREE as you might belive... And many have also a second work, for some time if they need some extra money...

And if you had at least try to read the history of Europe, for the last 60-100 year, you would take back your claim that we are just screaming for help from our big brother everytime we are in trouble... Last Time I checked, US got into the habit of helping us out, after they got attaced first.. First time it was the germans, who sunk the Louistinia in 1916, but then US got into the war the year after in 1917 when the war for the most part was over - even tho it ended in 1918 first... And when Germany invanded Poland in 1939, and Frence fall in 1940, it was allmoust two years after that, than the US finaly got into action, becouse the Empire of Japan had hit you hard and brutal in Hawaii where the US NAVAL forces was located.. Thankfully, the Carriers was out in the sea, and Japan dosen't hit the oil refairnery, where the pacific forces got most of their fuel from... If they had..... The history had been somewhat different I would say...
In the meantime, Europe, and most important UK got their hand full, and was ALLMOUST DEFEATED before the US cared to show up, and had the policy that everyone who could send their ship to US, could also get weapons from them.. The UK was saved in the neck of time, when Your FDR in spit of what the Congress wanted, was secrerly helping the UK out, with money, and with weapons, who had to be sailed from US to UK by ship... The Congress and Senate was not in any mood to help out Europe, in a war US dosen't had nothing with as many was telling between 1939 and 1941-42....

The ONLY reason the US have "helped out" Europe, or at least the Western part of Europe, is becouse US BENEFITED GREATLY FROM IT... US benefited from the bases the cold war was given US in Europe, and it also benefited US from all the new markeds Europe opened up, as a resoult of a desperate need of rebuilding... You know US got to know modern warfare, not on their own soil, but on european soil, whre most of Europe was bombed down and out.....

But again, I are just a silly european, who dosen't know how happy I am who have the GREAT US to defend us from the evil Russian empire, who want to enslave us all....

Diclotican

[Meldread]

5. You're missing the broader point I was making.

I didn't articulate it very well because it was mostly a rant. I was being hyperbolic re: Europe not paying for their social programs. That was intended as a pot shot at Greece where, even under austerity, they'd still have a better social safety net than here in the United States.

Here in the United States people don't work second or third jobs because they need some extra money - they do it because it's necessary to survive. It's necessary to put food on the table, and in many of the cases where people have to do it they have no healthcare. Thus, if they happen to get seriously ill they're likely going to be forced into bankruptcy. This is the reality for millions in the United States.

Meanwhile we spend tons and tons of tax dollars on a huge military that encourages foreign military adventures (i.e. Iraq). I'm not opposed to having a military alliance with European countries, and if Russia were to actually attack Europe I believe the United States should send aid. Yet, at the same time I do not understand why it is necessary for the United States to build defense systems in Europe - IMO, I'd rather see the EU doing that.

My ultimate point was this: I'd like to see Europe take the leading role in its own defense. The United States can share technology and expertise, so long as the Europeans pay at least 80% - 90% of the cost. On the other side of the pond, the United States can begin to downsize our military to suit our own national defense needs rather than the defense needs of other nations. I do not believe that is an unfair stance to take.

I want to see an equally shared partnership, rather than the United States having to bare the brunt of the obligation. Europe belongs to Europeans, and when it comes to its defense Europeans should be the primary force to both fund and defend it. As allies, the United States should offer help when needed or requested, but that help should be supplemental - not the primary force.

Alternatively, Europe could at least assist the United States in funding our massive military.

[Diclotican]

6. Meldread

Meldread

Wel, Maybe some of it was lost in translation also, english is not my first language, and I am afraid to say, that some of the english language is more difficult to "translate" than most of it.. Specially the Meaning of the dam language can be different.. Specially as long as you can not se the face of they who wrote it...

Greece is just one of the european country, and not even a large european country, and have been living way over their means for many year now.. Thanks to willing banks, both nationally and internationally they now have a real problem on their hand, who can if the worst is to come, can wreck EU for a long time.... And even jepardie the Euro zone.... (not that we have the euro anyway)

I know, have been reading some of it, and I also know that one of the most important things, to go bankrutcy, is when your healt fail, and you are looking at bills as long as a bad year... That is really wierd, that you can go personal bankrupt, becouse you have to pay for nessesary hospital stay...

Yes, I know that US over the last 60 or so year have been spending a lot of tax moneys, to safeguard european allies.. But you also have to rembembert hat many european country have had a lot of loans to the US after world war two.. In fact some have loans who go back the whole way back to word war one, and have yet to pay it back.. And most of the loans Europe was give after world war two, was loans who had to be paid back one way or another.. The great Marshall plan was not free as many americans tend to belive, but it was interest free loan, who was going over like say 50 year.. And we have not yet been telling about all the industry europeans got, or was buying from US in the 19450s and 1960s when their own industry was been build up, and most of it was been used to pay for other means, and not to say pay down loans many europeans got from US now with interest and it all...

And over the last 60 year or so, european allies have been buying a lot of US hardware, like fighter jets, to the tunes of a least of couple of billions eatch time. Norway and some other european have also been lured into the project with the F35, whoes cost overrun is legendaric by now... I would bet the 48 fighterjets Norway want to have of the F35 would be fare more expensive than 50 Eurofighter, or JAS39 Gripen N would be in the end... Even tho the Stealth feature of F35 is a cool feature for the military guys...

Off course, ultimately US want to defend themself and not playing around with the rest of the world, i can understand that.. And we share tecnology and experise as it is... And in some cases, the US is really secretive, as with the F35 stealth, and lot of it equitment who they more or less is telling one of their older allied, that is to secretive to us to handle.. And that most of the upgrades and so one, have to be made by the guys from Locheed Martin.. Even tho our Airforce have been reparing, and uprade the F16 for the last 30 år so year (first fighter got to Norway in 1980)

We have a shared partnership, but I would say the last decade, where the US have been using NATO as a mear tool box for their actions all over the world, have damaged the alliance more than a war with Russia ever would have made... The NATO alliance was damaged really hard when US was trying their best to push NATO into beliving that Saddam Hussain was a great trath to the world - and that they more or less effectively wegded a damaging split between US, the old NATO alliance, and the new members from the former Warzawa pact alliance.. Bush and the neo-cons was a larger danger to the alliance than Russia ever was...

Wel, if you were to downzise your military 50 percent of what it is today, it would still be a larger military than most country have, and you wil proberly keep the most advanced toys as it is.. And US could maybe even close some bases, in some middle east country, in asia and so on... You have over 1000 bases all over the planet now, and if US is to going on a diet to face the fact of a economical meltdown, some of the bases in asia and other places could with ease have been closed, or at least mouthballed to the economyical meltdown is finished and US have the bones to rebuild what was lost....

I doubt that Russia would attac any european country anytime soon, the fact is that Russia are in no shape to wage a LONG WAR in europe for the moment.. They can to a lesser amout tell country like Georgia to shape up, or take the consequenses, but in no way to force their will on bigger european country like germany or poland... Russia are NOT the danger it once was, when the red army was standing guard between east and west - and the us and its allies was standing guard on the other side... The world was maybe more easy to read then, but the fact is that Russia dosen't have the forces to go to war, and Kremlin know it soorly wel too.. It wil take least a decade to rebuild the administration and to rebuild the sceleton of the red army (it is still named the red army for a reason) and then maybe 5-10 year to build up the russian armed forces to anywhere near the old Red Army who retreated in 1989-1992 from east europe... Russia have a lot of problems inside their own country, who have to be fixed before they can show force outside..

Or, US can stop founding a military force, that they can't provide for. Even if you diet your armed forces 25 to 50 percent of what they are today. They still would be the meanest force to recon with.... Its ironic that most country after the cold war ended desided to stop funding their larger armies, the US started to rebuild their own, and is today larger than the next 20 nations who is the largerst one... And is spending near 50 percent of ALL military spending in the world... That is a lot of money, who could have been spendt on far more important things - like brigdes, or other infrastrastructure.. Or to maybe keep a tab on the private military to hire who like Xe is more or less independed of government control.. It is a REASON most country, have keen interest in been the only one who have the posibility to have armed forces we in Europe is maybe "old", but we learned the hard way, in the feudal times, that private armies was seldom of the best... And Im afraid that US is to learn it, when Xe and other groups like this, wil try to attac the government in a tight spot... Belive me, it would not be a pretty sight

Diclotican

[Meldread]

7. All of that is true, but -

All of that is true, but you're still missing the larger implication of having a huge military all in the hands of one nation. Nations have a tendency to be self-centered and self-serving. People want what is best for them, even if it comes at the expense of others. This is true for all nations, including the United States. Having a huge military means the United States does not have the same incentives that European countries have to cooperate and work together. As with Iraq (and maybe soon with Iran), if a nation doesn't do what we want we have the power to destroy them. There is less incentive for diplomacy or more creative means of dealing with problem nations.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving the United States as the worlds sole super power, many neo-cons looked at our huge military and decided that since we have it, we should use it. They've come to dominate the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, our military service is stratified. The wealthy and the elites of the United States do not have people who serve in the military. Those who sign up are primarily poor kids seeking a better future with little or no prospects for a better life otherwise. The military is guaranteed employment with benefits (including healthcare).

All of this is ultimately going to lead us to a bad conclusion.

Also, as for those unpaid loans we have... don't ever expect to see that money. The United States is going to go bankrupt. :P Seriously, there is absolutely no way the United States can pay off its debts.

[Diclotican]

9. Meldread

Meldread

I can understand that, and specially the last decade have proven withouth doubt, that a great nation, like your own, with a huge military tend to want to do what they want, regardness of what friends, allies and other means... In most of Europe, specailly after world war two, we tend to be somewhat less interesting of having a great military force, than to build friendship over the borders... The orginal EU was not to make a union for every european country, but to safeguard that old enemeis, like France, United Kindom and Germany was not out to gut eatch others troath in a 20 year time... And it is interesting to look, that old enemies in the end discovered that it was more money in peace, than in war.. And I seriousy doubt that any of them would go to war anytime soon, becouse the border is less important now, than it have been for many decades.. We might have to go back to the time for Charlemange to have the same consept as it is today, when you can travel from Vardø in the north of Norway, to the two enclaves in North Africa, where Spain still have a footprint.. Withouth a passport.. Wel, you need a document to tell who you are, but even a Visa Card, or the driver lisence is enough even tho it can be smart to also have the passport in hand, just to be sure..

And I would say that the Iraqi war was one of the biggest "doo-doo" the US have ever been doing, going on regardness of what everyone else had in mind, and even when the whole story breake down in direct lie and pure BS, continue to wage the war, and to not even have plans for what become after the war was over.. Before the US and allies was to invade Europe in 1944, they had plans for what to do after the war - and thankfully to that, the period after the war, was far less stressfull than it could have been, for millions who was living in ruins in the big city's in Europe.. The Marshallplan was one of the smartest moves the US ever got, to sement friendship and alliances in Europe after world war two...

Poor have allways been used to wage war for the rich, and in europe we have allways know that. The funny part is that americans still belive for some reason that they can do different from "old europe" who have just 1800 year of experience with it.. But what is new, is maybe that so many young kids are enlisting, becouse it is NO job to make in US, and that the lists of soldiers is large as hell.. The rich ones who have pillaged america for so many years, would discover the hard way that if you pillage to mutch, it tend to blow up in their face... Even with Xe, with gated comunites and its like, when the public got enough, no private army in the world would have a chance in hell.. You know the REAL reason the russian revolution startet in 1917?.. It was not becouse the communist, Lenin or others from the bolsjevic party.. It was when the russian peopole get enough of starving, a hopeless war where ten of thousands was killed, a corruption out of propotions, a Country out of control, where the old regime was beliving to be in power, even when they was ruling on a sea of mistrust, or outright enemety from the large population..

Just becouse US have not had an revolution since the 1770s it is not that US can have one before the next 20 year or so have happend. But as long as you are still told that you are the greatest country on the face of the earth - and as long as most americans is looking at American Idol and not fight for their right, the right you have would erode to nothing, and most americans would wake up one day, in a outright Dictartorship.. Others who have been in that spot have also discovered the hard way, that if you let the government erode your right, you migh loose it all..

No, I doubt that US would be able to pay back the loans they have collected over the years.. In fact US have been bankrupt since the early 1980s, one of the few reason US have not been bankrupt is becouse US have the Dollar, who is the fiat currency in the world.. Without that, US would have been broke alleready... If the prosect of your debt is going as some have told, US would not be able to pay even the full interest by 2025-2030.. That could be an intersting show, to se what happend when US are not able to pay even the interest of their loans.. Maybe China would be somewhat crossed about THAT?

I seriosy do not hope for a war with Iran too, I know the bells are ringning, war bells, and that more and more is posision itself for the posibility to go to war against Iran to..At least an air war, where Irans nuclear power stations and other instalations is to be targeted and destroyed.. My guess is that US would have enough with Afghanistan and Iraq, as they are not by large finished there.. But I guess im wrong, and that Obama would go the same way that Bush jr was doing, waging a war, to show that he is a mighty man with a big stick...

Diclotican

[Raggz]

12. Diclotican, what about Russia

Does Europe see a need for NATO?

[Diclotican]

14. Raggz

Raggz

Most of Europe see absolutely a need for NATO, becouse many have a deep rooted fear of Russia.. Many european country do have a real nasty history, both from the not so long past, to many houndreds of year ago... But compared to what Russia was 20 year ago, the military power of Russia is just a ghoste of what it was... And many of the former Warzaw pact nations want to be member of the alliance.. Even states in the former USSR want to be member of the dam alliance.. Even RUSSIA want to be member of the NATO alliance, as high ranking admirals and generals was telling in Brussel in 1994 in the first joint session between generals in NATO and Russia , and scared half the generals staff there dead, and the other half scared allmoust to death...

What Europe as a whole need more than anymore, are NOT a new cold war between Russia and the rest of Europe.. What Europe as a whole need, is at least 50 year of peace and prosperity for the whole continent.. Then MAYBE the eastern parts of Europe, who are by large the most poorer place can build themself up, to take their place as fully members of Europe, and other membership, like NATO and EU.. What Europe need are at least 50 year, with less military buildup, and more build up in the sivilian sector.. Peace is what Europe need more than anything else...

What Europe need, is to use diplomats, to defuse military confronts between Russia and the rest of the continent.. Not to JUST show the flag everytime a thing arrise.. Most europeans,know what war IS, and what it does with peopole...

Diclotican

[Raggz]

18. Diclotican

... But compared to what Russia was 20 year ago, the military power of Russia is just a ghoste of what it was... What Europe as a whole need more than anymore, are NOT a new cold war between Russia and the rest of Europe...

No one wants a new Cold War, but some like me fear one.

Without US force as a threat, Russia could invade many nations today. I believe that the Russian leadership considers this. Do you?

[Diclotican]

19. Raggz

Raggz

Wel, Russia Could invade many nations, if US was to pull out of Europe all togheter... But even tho the russian leadership do consider the posibility, it is still a long way from considiering this, to inteplent it, to go to war.. War is far more expensive than say trade, and for the moment Russia is getting a lot of hard currency, from oil and gas to western Europe... Currencey they desperately need to rebuild an infrastructur who for the most part have been lacking even basic funding for good know how many years.. But a war in Europe, even if Russia was to invade some european country would be verry expensive for Russia, both in manpower, and in treassary. Russia would need millions of armed men, in uniform, equipment with food and all the need a modern army have, to even get control in most of Europe.. And they also have to provide elementary needs for the sivilian sector, something that no modern army is excactly equipment to do.... US could not do it in Iraq, even tho US have a MODERN army, and all the know how, how to do it, The Russian army have been stared for more than 18 years, and are still in the transform to a new, modern army consept.. That would take at least a decade to do, even more maybe too... And compared to US, where the GI is treated decent, the russian concript, who are in for two years, are often treated badly by their lower ranking officers.. Brutality is more the norm in the russian armed forces than the opposite.. And over all, the morale in the russian armed forcers is LOW, and would not be to high anytime soon.. They had to do something with the policy of brutality in the armed forces then...

And I doubt that US would pull out of Europe anytime soon, they would rater pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and maye a couple of other nations, before they would pull out of Europe all togheter.. And in the even that US DID pull out of Europe, do you don't belive that Russia and EU, and other nations in Europe would go into a muturnal understanding about what to do?.. History speaking Russia have not been the most agresive nation in Europe.. Both the world war, where russia was innvolved, was started by others, And longer back in history, russia often had been the attaced nation, not the other way around...

I also fear a new cold war, as we dosen't know how it would look like, it could be far different from the past one, who split Europe in two for more than 50 year... And in any means, it could be more difficult to maintain, as a status que than the past one.. Then everyone know where the border was, and both parties also understand to play by the same rules.. In a new "cold war" Im not so sure that every parties involved, would understand to play by the same rules... If USA got a new Bush, from the clan itself, or another style republican, with a sent for war, and is discovering a new cold war, where a ressurect Russia are playing the other guy in the game... Good know what would happend then..

Anyway We should be glad, that we dosen't had a GWB in the White House under the past cold war, it would have been a nightmare if we, have had lets say a GWB clown in the White House under the Cuban Missile crises, who allmoust ended in nuclear holocaust...

Diclotican

[Meldread]

16. You have a strong historical awareness.

You have a strong historical awareness. That type of awareness and understanding doesn't exist in the United States - on any level of our society. Even recent history is easily forgotten, ignored, or shaded to fit a certain world view when convenient.

Understand, when it comes to things like Iraq many in the United States had a different view than the rest of the world. It is never the case in all the worlds history that leaders and their people did not find some justification or rational for their actions. I am certain that even Hitler didn't consider himself a bad man, but a good and upstanding leader attempting to lead his people to greatness! These are the delusions that people and leaders face. Here in the United States many view Iraq as a mistake -now-, but at the time of the war even though it was billed as essential to national security (as most wars are) it was also justified as a liberation effort. The same is true right now in Afghanistan.

American political leaders and military folks convince themselves that what they are doing is necessary and good. They're trying to spread democracy and freedom around the world! How can anyone argue with that, right? That's the way they view it. The problem is that democracy must come from the people, and cannot be imposed through force or violence. It has to be willfully chosen by the people.

When we ultimately leave Iraq and Afghanistan it is only a matter of time before they fall into civil war and chaos. It will be bad, and everyone knows it. That's one reason we remain in a place such as Afghanistan, because it is difficult for people to accept that once we leave the Taliban will come back to power... and we both know what that means, and what it will look like - especially for women.

As a whole the American people see ourselves as a force for good in the world, but because we have such a lack of historical awareness we end up repeating mistakes made by others.

I personally believe that conventional warfare is coming to an end. With so many ways to kill mass numbers of people – from nukes to biological weapons (and perhaps in the future even worse things) – it becomes to risky for nations to go to war. Terrorism and proxy wars (with lots of cash flowing in to support one side over another) is likely to become the new norm.

I don't know what role the United States will eventually come to play in the future. Our military is suited toward fighting conventional nation-to-nation warfare. This is one reason there is such a big focus on insurgencies, because they are enemies with faces, names, and addresses that can be fought. Terrorists are 'unknowns' that have no nation to call home. The problem is that insurgencies are localized issues, often created by the presence of an occupational force (i.e. the United States).

Here in the United States our nations infrastructure is old and crumbling while we send our money overseas to build up the infrastructure of nations that we're occupying. Meanwhile China and other developing nations are also building modern infrastructure.

Our government has become hopelessly divided among partisan lines leading to virtual gridlock of important issues that need to be solved. Just look at how things went here over the healthcare debate. We have virtually zero chance of implementing the necessary changes to tackle our fiscal crisis. It would require a scaling back of our military and social programs as well as higher taxes. All of these things are unacceptable to one party or another, or in the case of scaling back the military - both.

Meanwhile more and more Americans are slipping away from the middle class and into poverty... I do not think it is a stretch to call the United States a nation in decline. I do not know what will be our ultimate fate, but I am certainly concerned for the future. I do not foresee a revolution similar to what has taken place in other nations under similar circumstances.

I suspect that once the worst is upon us, and if gridlock remains that one or both political parties will dissolve / decline and a new third party will emerge as a dominant force. I cannot say what their political ideology would look like though. I'd say there is a rumbling for something like that right now in the United States, it's just that no group has managed to successfully step forward and properly tap into it. The so-called "tea parties" tapped into it on the right but not the left.

[Diclotican]

17. Meldread

Meldread

Maybe I am little off, of most pepole, as history have been somewhat of an passion for me since, wel im not sure, since I learned to write and read I guess... Was plowing true books when I was a kid, and for some reason this stick to me... Math on the other hand.... There I am a thinfoil man im afraid... But when it comes to history, i know a few things.. Who most peopole either dosen't care to know, or dosen't know about in all..

American knowlegde about the world, and more important, the wiew americans have of the world is something that Intrque me.. On the other hand americans I have meet is educated, decent, hardworking peopole, who fitt in wel where they came.. On the other hand, they have a wiew of US, and the world that is confusing to say at least.. To me, it looks little simplistic, a wiew where the savage of the world for some reason can be cleared, as long as US are there...

Im maybe ignorant here, but US is a young nation, with a young wiew of the world.. Most of US history are less than 234 year old, and the actions of your leader the last 60 year, have been, at least difficult to understand, and mostly confusing.. But specially the last decade or so, your leaders have shown a side of US, who most of the world are not exactly admiring.. And many admired US for many decades.. I had a father, who could not say a bad word about US, and who admired US for their wealth, and the posibility of man.. TO him US was, a place where everyone could make it, if not rich so at least comfortable... He even worked in US for a while, as his brother did before him, and was making som decent money by the way..

When it came to Hitler, and World War Two, Hitler dosent se himself as a bad person, thats true, as Bush jr dosen't see himself as a bad person, even tho his actions was rather on the bad side of what to do.. To invade two country, and to ruin all hope of some form of peace in the middle east for a LONG time... But most look at Hitler as a evil man, and history would not be to kind to Bush jr either im afraid.. Even after 65 year, books is coming out who condem Hitler for what he did, as new information and new arcives is been opened... Im afraid that GWB would have a similar fate when our children, and their childrens is opening the secred arcives of today, to se what happend between 2000 and 2020ish..

Wel I have to admit, it took a LONG time before WE in Europe got the message, and we have maybe made more war over the last couple of centuries that many want to have a memory of.. But at least, after world war two, where most of Europe was in rubble, we learned the hard way, that war is not nessesary the best way to solve problems. I guess Hitler was the last "emperor" to try to rule Europe by iron fist - the cost of war, way streatches the cost of sivilian life.. Europe have been building up everything the last 60 or so year.. Still after 60 year, they are still rebuilding the ancient city of Dresden, who was, say we say it, remodelered by the US Airforce in 1944.. Most of it is finished by now, but it is still damage in Dresden, dating back to 1943-44 when US and british airforce was burning the City to the ground.. But thankfully for history, the city's was not just rebuilded in a new fachion, it was painstakely rebuild over many, many years.. And they did a decent work in Dresden, as in many other central and eastern european city's who today is marveles when it came to arcitecture.. Even tho most of the buildings is younger than the war, they looks like they have been standing for many, many year...

Thats right.. Democracy, and freedom must come from the inside of the peopole, something that I have been claiming for many year now.. Demoracy is eternal vigilance against dictatorship and tyranny.. Somethting Im afraid many have forgot, specially in the US, as they belive US to be different from every other nations, as no tyrann have ever ruled USA...Yet, and I would say you was dam close to it, when GWB was in power.. But many of the instruments is in place, GWB was just not the right man to take it, and use it.. Next time you wil not be THAT lucky Im afraid... And US is doing SOOO good when it came to Democracy in country like Iraq and Afghanistan this days dosent they?. How are it again in Iraq. No government even tho the elections is more or less 6 months in the past.. Becouse the groups who is involved want to play powerplay, rather than trying to rebuild what 13 year of sanctions, and a brutal ongoing war is doing with the country....

As nations to nations war, was the last century warfare, Im afraid that terror acts, and war against terrorism wil be the new type of warfare.. Not that US, and others would face conventional warfare now and then, but the posibility is to high to wage a war where you can be hit by your own weapons, and not to point out, it is more than posible that some of them also have a nuclear device or two to hit US with if they are trowing in a tight spot...

I would say US have to deside, wil they have the greatest infrastructure on the face of the earth or wil they have the biggest military forces in the world.. They can't get it all. Today US are spending a lot of money, they dosen't have to stay in the top, to be the biggest power in the world.. But sooner or later, even US have to deside, if they want to have peace, or be ruined by their own misfortunes... The rest of the world "can" go away from US dollar,and go away from trading with US. Most of what was build in US, is today manufactured elsewhere.. What was doing US so great 30 or so year ago, are not nessesary the same today. As other parts of the world have evolved from what was the case for many year ago...

And the irony is that once a backwater nations like China, is today building their own infrastructure, using the most advanced tools aviable, when many western nations are fighting for every new project they have to start, and where infrastructure are not nr 1 priority anymore.. That is not just an US problem, the same is all over the world where infrastruture is in need of repair and rebuild, but where the politicans is rather fighting themselfs, than to do the right thing, and make the money posible to build new roads, no highways, new high speed raillines and so on... And in difference from US, we in Europe at least, is allerady paying a lot of taxes, and it looks like it wil take a long time before it wil be something out of it....

US must know, and it looks like it wil be the hard way, that empires have a limit.. Before the other way is pushing a little.. And you have some of a problem, if US are not to scale back on their military spending.. US have not the ability to spend that money you are spending, for the infitie time in future.. US wil still after 25-30 percent decline in military spending, be the most important military power in the world.. Even if you cut back 40 percent of spending, US would be one of the most important military forces in the world.. When is enough enough, when US is spending 50 percent of BNP on war machine.. When every nations is under the army heel of the US government?. When is enough enough?

And then you have the sleping of more and more middle class americans, into the abbyss of dirth poor.. That is a dangrous path to take for any nations.. Mostly becouse US then can be unstable.. Peopole who have nothing to loose, tend to make rather dangrous move sometimes.. The french revolution in 1789, or the russian revolution in 1917, was more an hunger revolution, than political upwaking for the big masses.. In 1789, ideas like Partylines dosen't even exist in France, and I doubt the french farmers and workers in the City's cared to mutch about party politic when they was storming the Bastille either... Rather they wanted bread and butter for their families, and a revange for at least 800 year of been put under the heel of their overlords...

US can be something different than the old regimes of Europe.. They can LEARN from the mistakes of the past, and decline into a more secure, and safe place.. A place where your amasing ability, and your positive outlook to the world can be used to best use for yourself, and for the rest of the world.. I know that US have a lot to offer the rest of the world. If they just want to talk to us, as friends and not as advesaries and "friends" to be picked on, if we dosen't act as US want us to do... US dosen't need to go the same way as the roman empire, the doodo bird, or the old soviet union, who crack into 15 different nations... US can be different, from everything else we have known.. Even tho the mighty empire of today, would be on the dustbin in 30 or so year... I don't know, but US have suprised the world many times the last couple of decades..

Im not to good into the history of your parties, but it is maybe best, that US had a third party, the twho party system where all other parties more or less are swallowed up, and not been allowed to go into governance is not good for democracy in the long run Im afraid of...

Diclotican

[jimmil]

4. It won't happen anytime soon....

The military/security industrial complex hasn't bled us dry yet. There are still a few billion dollars hanging around our economy that hasn't been sucked up keeping us "free". Soon enough, probably in my lifetime, the US economy will fail due to the huge burden being placed on on the people like most of us here. We can't afford the military and/or the new security agencies. We are heading to a total collapse soon enough.


Commentary: Why aren't conservatives blasting military industry welfare?Glenn Garvin | The Miami Heraldlast updated: July 27, 2010 12:36:11 PM

A most peculiar thing happened last week: The Washington Post ripped a federal welfare boondoggle to shreds, exposing tens of billions of dollars of waste, duplication and bureaucratic excess . . . and conservatives didn't erupt in astonishment and praise. In fact, they didn't raise a peep. That's because the welfare queens ripping off taxpayer dollars in this case aren't poverty pimps waving the bloody flag of race and class, but military-industrial hustlers exploiting the war on terrorism to build themselves opulent and powerful fiefdoms.

At a time when newspapers are shrinking, not many ran The Post's 16,000-word Top Secret America series, a rough map of the murky yet vast labyrinth of intelligence and defense agencies that securitycrats have burrowed into the federal budget since Sept. 11. But if you care at all about either the wholesale waste of federal dollars or the real capabilities of the U.S. government to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, The Post series is worth tracking down on the Internet.

If anything, its conclusion -- that we've created a surveillance-industrial complex "so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within or exactly how many agencies do the same work" -- is modestly understated.

• The known U.S. intelligence budget has increased 250 percent to $75 billion since Sept. 11, and that doesn't include most military spy agencies, where the major growth has been.

At least 1,271 government agencies and 1,931 private contractors now work on counter terrorism and intelligence programs. (Don't worry, South Florida gets its share of the pork: The Post says there are 78 "top secret" work sites in Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties.)

• More than 250 intelligence-related organizations have been created or given major expansions since Sept. 11. Some, like the Defense Intelligence Agency, have doubled in size; others, like the National Security Agency, have tripled. The NSA's Maryland headquarters alone covers 112 acres. Oops, let me correct that: The headquarters' parking lots cover 112 acres.

• To say a lot of the work of these agencies is duplicative, or even triplicative, doesn't begin to cover it. You need whatever derivation of -cative goes with 51, which is the number of federal organizations and military commands tracking the flow of money to terrorist networks. Did you even know we have a National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency? I don't know what that agency does that the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency and the Army Geospatial Center don't. But whatever it is, there must be a lot of it: The new headquarters building cost $1.5 billion and houses 8,500 employees.

• If the pen is really mightier than the sword, then we ought to be able to declare victory over al Qaeda and go home. Our battalions of desk-bound spooks churn out almost 1,000 intelligence reports a week. "I'm not going to live long enough to be briefed on everything," one despairing Defense Department official told The Post.

• About 854,000 people -- that is, a city a little bigger than Jacksonville -- have top-secret security clearances. (Nearly a third of them don't even work for the government; they're contractors.) Whether any of those people are actually able to shoot at terrorists isn't clear. One military officer interviewed by the Post recounted signing a secrecy pledge that forbade him to disclose anything about his work to his commander -- a four-star general.

Not only can the spies not to talk to each other, neither can their computers. Many of the vast databases collected by the various agencies are incompatible with one another. Perhaps that explains why despite a warning to the CIA from the bomber's own father, a jihadist plot to blow up an airliner over Detroit was discovered not by U.S. intelligence but by a passenger who saw the man setting his underwear on fire. Or how, despite a U.S. Army major's chatty e-mails with a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen, his plan to carry out a mass shooting at Fort Hood was detected only when the bodies started hitting the floor.

In short, The Post series described an insanely expensive collection of federal programs of dubious worth. Several top officials quoted by name, including CIA Director Leon Panetta and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, conceded grave doubts about the value of what the government is getting for its money.
These are precisely the elements that conservatives are quick to denounce in the welfare state. But when it comes to the national-security state, they're strangely muted. The influential conservative blog The Volokh Conspiracy confined itself to critiquing the series' graphics. ("More like eye candy than useful tools.") The Weekly Standard protested weakly that "redundancies are not necessarily a bad thing." Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? The rest is silence.

ABOUT THE WRITER
Glenn Garvin is the Miami Herald's TV critic. He covered Latin America for 19 years -- the last five of them as The Herald's bureau chief in Managua. He can be reached by e-mail at [e-mail].

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/29/v-print/98192/commentary-why-arent-conservatives.html

[Posteritatis]

8. Complete and utter non-story

The major powers are always planning for any combination of wars amongst each other. This does not mean that they expect, or even want, to implement any of these plans. It's a combination of makework for the brass and making sure that they've got a plan for even the unexpected contingencies. It's the primary purpose of most countries' general-staff equivalents.

Same sort of thinking that had Canada planning invasion of the US until rather more recently than anyone would expect.

[defendandprotect]

10. Anyone remember the videos where Colin Powell and Condi Rice can't find any enemies . . .?

Suggesting that America would have to "invent" some enemies things were so peaceful

in the world!!

Well, obviously Bush invented many of them -- long live the MIC!!

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Excuse me, Georgia started that war.

What the fuck is wrong with us. We should be purusing peaceful COOPERATION with the Russian people. Quit provoking them, that's all this is, a provocation. If you HAVE to have Contingency Plans, we, and the Russian people above all, should NEVER hear about them. It's an open insult.

The cold war is over folks. OVER.

[Raggz]

13. The Cold War is over - and it MAY remain so

We could have the Cold War back very quickly. This article explains why. European history explains even more.

[Diclotican]

15. AtheistCrusader

AtheistCrusader

And thank for that, that the cold war is OVER... What a waste of time, ressourses and money it was...

Diclotican