Vietnam's Big Move

[sam i am]

See attached :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060106/wl_afp/vietnamun


My favorite line in there : " 'Nobody really imagines them doing the real fighting thing,' the diplomat said."

It SEEMS that every other country in the world always wants to do the specialized work, but when it comes to the actual fighting and dying, everyone wants the US to step up and take the initiative....

How convenient for the UN and every other nation that the US is around to do their dirty work AND take all the blame afterwards.

[Schmeltz]

It SEEMS that every other country in the world always wants to do the specialized work, but when it comes to the actual fighting and dying, everyone wants the US to step up and take the initiative


I'm sure it SEEMS that way to a chest-thumping jingoist like yourself, but how you managed to extract that sentiment from this article is quite thankfully beyond me.

[fucktopgirl]

How convenient for the UN and every other nation that the US is around to do their dirty work AND take all the blame afterwards.


first,Us dont give a shit about UN!UN bring a lot of reconcialition issue through history for different conflicts and it was always(almost) veto by the US.
So US go to war on their own accords and for their own interest!
Us is doing their own litle dirty work!

[sam i am]

I'm sure it SEEMS that way to a chest-thumping jingoist like yourself, but how you managed to extract that sentiment from this article is quite thankfully beyond me.

Yes, but Schmeltz....as we've agreed previously....you and I liove on entirely different planets when it comes to how we view the world around us.

I wonder if the sky is green in your part of the Earth like it is in mine ;) :p

[Schmeltz]

So on your planet the fact that Vietnam's initial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions will consist largely of minefield clearance is actually an indication of how hard done by your country is on the global stage?

And everyone knows the sky is red.

[laserx54]

See attached :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060106/wl_afp/vietnamun


My favorite line in there : " 'Nobody really imagines them doing the real fighting thing,' the diplomat said."

It SEEMS that every other country in the world always wants to do the specialized work, but when it comes to the actual fighting and dying, everyone wants the US to step up and take the initiative....

How convenient for the UN and every other nation that the US is around to do their dirty work AND take all the blame afterwards.


Stop crying.

Man, you whine like a little bitch

[sam i am]

So on your planet the fact that Vietnam's initial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions will consist largely of minefield clearance is actually an indication of how hard done by your country is on the global stage?

And everyone knows the sky is red.

It's green I tells ya!


As for Vietnam's "contributions," I'm grateful that they're trying to be a part of the world community in some way, but my query goes to who else's armed forces are capable of actual combat when necessary on the world stage?

[sam i am]

Stop crying.

Man, you whine like a little bitch

You'd know if I were crying....you'd see a bunch of "wah's!" instead of urbane, mannered dialogue.

As for whining....well I guess you got me there. I'll cease and desist henceforward thanks to your reasoned, elaborate evisceration of my actual point of conversation.......thank you SO much for your contribution.....many others, I'm sure, are grateful for your starightforward, honest, capable assessment of the ongoing debates here on these message boards :rolleyes:

[Schmeltz]

who else's armed forces are capable of actual combat when necessary on the world stage?


Is this a serious question or are you just being silly?

[sam i am]

Is this a serious question or are you just being silly?

No. I'm serious. Who else has the power to project when the UN has "hot spots" in far flung corners of the globe? Can Europe still muster any kind of true international force capable of sustained offensive projection of power? Especially against a determined enemy (say Iran?)?

Who else would the UN endorse to send troops out to take care of true problem spots? Israel (haha)? Brazil (maybe in South America to take out Chavez :p )? India or China (with what naval forces?)?

See the problem?

[Schmeltz]

No. Plenty of countries have the ability to mount sustained offensive operations in any hot spot that requires them. Most of the larger NATO members certainly could. Remember how France intervened in the Ivory Coast a little while back? Even Canada has a contingent in Afghanistan, and we're not exactly known for the quantity of our armed forces.

You talk as though the West has allowed its armies to dwindle to nothing, with the sole exception of America. That's inane.

[Ali]

Can Europe still muster any kind of true international force capable of sustained offensive projection of power? Especially against a determined enemy (say Iran?)Yes. Can you?

[sam i am]

Yes. Can you?

Yes.

Precision guided missiles, at a minimum, can setback the timeframe for completion of reactors, etc.

What does Europe have that can acheive this, besides platitudinous prattling?

[sam i am]

No. Plenty of countries have the ability to mount sustained offensive operations in any hot spot that requires them. Most of the larger NATO members certainly could. Remember how France intervened in the Ivory Coast a little while back? Even Canada has a contingent in Afghanistan, and we're not exactly known for the quantity of our armed forces.

You talk as though the West has allowed its armies to dwindle to nothing, with the sole exception of America. That's inane.

I didn't say that Europe or NATO can't intervene in small hot spots (i.e., Africa) or in their own back yard (i.e., the former Yugoslavia)....I was more saying that Europe or NATO or even Russia is incapable when in comes to sustained offensive capabliites against a determined foe (i.e., Iraq 1991, Iran 2006).

Do you disagree that if it came down to the actual need for military intervention that any nation other than the US could take the lead and accomplish the goal?

[Schmeltz]

I didn't say that Europe or NATO can't intervene in small hot spots


Oh, you said they might not be able to beat up on dysfunctional post-colonial Third World countries. Sorry, my bad.

But in any case, yes I do disagree that nobody but the United States is capable of mounting sustained offensive operations against a determined opponent. There's a reason these countries still conduct war games and maintain armies. Don't the Brits have a sizeable contingent in Iraq? Didn't Spain and Poland have forces there for some time as well? Hasn't Russia been fighting a vicious war in Chechnya for the better part of a decade? Didn't the Netherlands send fighter planes all the way to the Caribbean just to help look for Natalee Holloway? Your skewed vision of Europe as a depopulated socialist wasteland has obviously affected your ability to think about these things.

[sam i am]

Oh, you said they might not be able to beat up on dysfunctional post-colonial Third World countries. Sorry, my bad.

But in any case, yes I do disagree that nobody but the United States is capable of mounting sustained offensive operations against a determined opponent. There's a reason these countries still conduct war games and maintain armies. Don't the Brits have a sizeable contingent in Iraq? Didn't Spain and Poland have forces there for some time as well? Hasn't Russia been fighting a vicious war in Chechnya for the better part of a decade? Didn't the Netherlands send fighter planes all the way to the Caribbean just to help look for Natalee Holloway? Your skewed vision of Europe as a depopulated socialist wasteland has obviously affected your ability to think about these things.

OK...I get the picture.

Maybe the issue is more with the national will to actually accomplish those objectives that are deemed most necessary. For instance, public opinion polls have consistenly been against any kind of military interventions despite the obvious need in places like Rwanda, Bosnia (until the US took the lead), etc., et al.

I guess it's another paradigm divergence between the US national will and the European nations' national wills.