US Nuclear Guarantees to Allies

[Aurielius]

 

Well, you see that is the problem, I am opposed to the entire way foreign policy has been handled for a very long time. <snip> America's foreign policy is Imperialism.

The actual problem is that only in America do we teach the concept that Foreign Policy and morality should be linked, Europeans have got over that conundrum centuries ago. We have this false iconic image of us being the guys in 'white' hats, a concept that most Imperial powers only paid lip service but not practical fealty. That we are an 'Imperial' power and conduct ourselves accordingly is 'de facto'. You may choose between being dictated to or dictating to but there is little middle ground for the foreseeable future. As a pragmatist I prefer the latter to the former. If you take the 'moral' course such as the Embargo of 1807 which was morally righteous but economic suicide, it is easy to see why that was singular and rarely repeated. Morality and foreign policy have very little in common in the real world, this isn't the movies. The Belgians took a moral stance on their defense obligations in the inter war years between WW1 and WW2 and they paid the price in full in the summer of 40.

The good guys do lose on occasion by taking the high moral ground, the Carthaginians took a moral stance on the causes of the first Punic War and paid the full price with their opponents the early Roman Republic to such an extant that we have no surviving voices telling their side, only the voices of the victors. You have to survive and prevail for your point of view to reach the point of posterity.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Aurielius

[HeyYou]

Well, you see that is the problem, I am opposed to the entire way foreign policy has been handled for a very long time. <snip> America's foreign policy is Imperialism.

The actual problem is that only in America do we teach the concept that Foreign Policy and morality should be linked, Europeans have got over that conundrum centuries ago. We have this false iconic image of us being the guys in 'white' hats, a concept that most Imperial powers only paid lip service but not practical fealty. That we are an 'Imperial' power and conduct ourselves accordingly is 'de facto'. You may choose between being dictated to or dictating to but there is little middle ground for the foreseeable future. As a pragmatist I prefer the latter to the former. If you take the 'moral' course such as the Embargo of 1807 which was morally righteous but economic suicide, it is easy to see why that was singular and rarely repeated. Morality and foreign policy have very little in common in the real world, this isn't the movies. The Belgians took a moral stance on their defense obligations in the inter war years between WW1 and WW2 and paid they price in full in the summer of 40.

The good guys do lose on occasion by taking the high moral ground, the Carthaginians took a moral stance on the causes of the first Punic War and paid the full price with their opponents the early Roman Republic to such an extant that we have no surviving voices telling their side, only the voices of the victors. You have to survive and prevail for your point of view to reach the point of posterity.

 

What? Our foreign policy has anything at all to do with moral values?

[raatorotta]

What? Our foreign policy has anything at all to do with moral values?

 

Moral values of US troops:

 

http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/topic/477041-senseless-animal-abuse-by-us-troops/

 

add: Bin Laden fought against Soviet union and was supported by USA. Saddam fought against Iran and it's leader Khomeini and was supported by USA. They both were USA allies in some point. Both got executed by USA. And why Saddam would have had chemical weapons is only because USA gave them to him against Khomeini, but there was none, as Saddam got rid of them long before USA started blame him of having those things.

Edited November 28, 2011 by raatorotta

[Aurielius]

What? Our foreign policy has anything at all to do with moral values?

 

Moral values of US troops:

 

http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/topic/477041-senseless-animal-abuse-by-us-troops/

 

add: Bin Laden fought against Soviet union and was supported by USA. Saddam fought against Iran and it's leader Khomeini and was supported by USA. They both were USA allies in some point. Both got executed by USA. And why Saddam would have had chemical weapons is only because USA gave them to him against Khomeini, but there was none, as Saddam got rid of them long before USA started blame him of having those things.

Hmm at least we didn't have camps like Kangasjarvi and Koveri , might want to rethink your sense of moral superiority. We may have interned the Nisei but they were all alive when the war ended. Point being is that no nation has totally clean hands in war, it goes with the territory.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Aurielius

[raatorotta]

Hmm at least we didn't have camps like Kangasjarvi and Koveri , might want to rethink your sense of moral superiority. We may have interned the Nisei but they were all alive when the war ended.

 

What moral superiority? I am human being just like you and don't have any superioritys, whatever you mean by that. I just simply write what i know.

I don't know exactly what has happened at Kangasjärvi or Koveri (do you mean killing of soviets or german, both were invanders), but those are part of Finland as they have finnish names. So you judge us about killing invanders during world war 2 at our own soil? Bit different than having ally overseas and backstab them on their own country.

But yes, Finland have a lot of nationalists as we are small country next to Russia, we took a side with Nazi Germany during world war 2 simply because threat of Soviet union. Anyway, it seems taking a side at any large war is always a lose, however you look it. War is always a lose whatever side you are on.

[Beriallord]

 

Well, you see that is the problem, I am opposed to the entire way foreign policy has been handled for a very long time. <snip> America's foreign policy is Imperialism.

The actual problem is that only in America do we teach the concept that Foreign Policy and morality should be linked

 

I'm gonna snip it right there. And I LOL'd. In what way does American foreign policy have any morals behind it? We supported Saddam when it was convenient for us, and we also supported Bin Laden and his Mujahideen when it was convenient for us. America's foreign policy is about power and control. And in many situations they are situations we shouldn't even be involved in because it has absolutely nothing to do with serving the peoples interests.

 

The same WMDs we gave to Saddam to use on the Iranians, he turned around and used on his own people. So it may have well have been the US that gassed the Kurds.

 

Also, Aurielius, what do you think about this?

 

http://www.usslibertyveterans.org/

 

So much for our Israeli allies, if they would attack one of our own ships. This isn't some conspiracy nut site either. Of course, you won't hear about this on Fox News.

 

The only motive I might see Israel having for doing such a thing, considering the time frame was to try and make it look like Egypt attacked us, so we would then get involved in their conflict.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Beriallord

[Aurielius]

 

Well, you see that is the problem, I am opposed to the entire way foreign policy has been handled for a very long time. <snip> America's foreign policy is Imperialism.

The actual problem is that only in America do we teach the concept that Foreign Policy and morality should be linked

 

I'm gonna snip it right there. And I LOL'd. In what way does American foreign policy have any morals behind it? We supported Saddam when it was convenient for us, and we also supported Bin Laden and his Mujahideen when it was convenient for us. America's foreign policy is about power and control. And in many situations they are situations we shouldn't even be involved in because it has absolutely nothing to do with serving the peoples interests.

 

The same WMDs we gave to Saddam to use on the Iranians, he turned around and used on his own people. So it may have well have been the US that gassed the Kurds.

 

Also, Aurielius, what do you think about this?

 

http://www.usslibertyveterans.org/

 

So much for our Israeli allies, if they would attack one of our own ships. This isn't some conspiracy nut site either.

I was already quite aware of the USS Liberty incident, call it the fog of war, friendly fire, collateral damage..no matter... the 34 naval enlisted men and officers are just as dead. Did it make me angry at the time? Yes. Warring nations do make egregious mistakes but grand strategy cannot focus the individual incident but rather make the larger judgment call . Warfare and it's global requirements is an extremely complex undertaking with many less than desirable trade offs that are made in order to achieve an overall objective. War Zones are extremely dangerous places to be, they always have been. The Navy is not the Peace Corps we know that we are going in harm's way.

[Beriallord]

 

Well, you see that is the problem, I am opposed to the entire way foreign policy has been handled for a very long time. <snip> America's foreign policy is Imperialism.

The actual problem is that only in America do we teach the concept that Foreign Policy and morality should be linked

 

I'm gonna snip it right there. And I LOL'd. In what way does American foreign policy have any morals behind it? We supported Saddam when it was convenient for us, and we also supported Bin Laden and his Mujahideen when it was convenient for us. America's foreign policy is about power and control. And in many situations they are situations we shouldn't even be involved in because it has absolutely nothing to do with serving the peoples interests.

 

The same WMDs we gave to Saddam to use on the Iranians, he turned around and used on his own people. So it may have well have been the US that gassed the Kurds.

 

Also, Aurielius, what do you think about this?

 

http://www.usslibertyveterans.org/

 

So much for our Israeli allies, if they would attack one of our own ships. This isn't some conspiracy nut site either.

I was already quite aware of the USS Liberty incident, call it the fog of war, friendly fire, collateral damage..no matter... the 34 naval enlisted men and officers are just as dead. Did it make me angry at the time? Yes. Warring nations do make egregious mistakes but grand strategy cannot focus the individual incident but rather make the larger judgment call . Warfare and it's global requirements is an extremely complex undertaking with many less than desirable trade offs that are made in order to achieve an overall objective. War Zones are extremely dangerous places to be, they always have been. The Navy is not the Peace Corps we know that we are going in harm's way.

 

The veterans on board that ship would argue that it was no mistake, and was 100% intentional. Does it matter? Yeah, because an ally that is supposed to be an ally certainly wouldn't intentionally attack another ally.

[Jopo1980]

I don´t know anything about any concentration camps at Kangasjärvi or Koveri. Perhaps there were some there during the Civil war of 1918 or maybe there was a POW camp there during WW-2, but the white terror of 1918 notwithstanding, there should not have been any atrocities committed. Even during WW-2 we were a democratic nation, the extreme right wing parties never gained major political influence, nor did the communists before or after WW-2, even though the communists were supported by Moscow.

 

As for the nuclear guarantees, Finland is already edging closer to NATO. Our defense forces have been purchasing only western equipment recently, so there is an effort to make our forces compatible with NATO military structures. I believe Finland NEEDS to join some cooperative defense organization, whether it be NATO or some common European defense organization and it seems that the common European defense is going to be organized within NATO framework, although I believe that NATO should develop more into a European defense organization, instead of pursuing US interests across the globe. The interests of the US and Europe may not always be the same as in the 2003 Iraq invasion, so NATO should not be so US dominated. Let us remember that NATO did not participate in the 2003 Iraq war, except for Britain and some other smaller countries (the coalition of the willing). I don´t think that joining NATO would change Finnish defense policy that much. We would still retain our valued conscription based armed forces, which enjoy strong popular support and Finnish legislation makes it impossible to send conscripts to foreign war zones without a declaration of war and a general mobilization, so our commitments to NATO operations abroad would remain relatively small and based on volunteers. Also I think NATO countries have the option of staying out of operations which are not supported by the UN, only in the case of the invocation of the mutual defense clauses of the NATO treaty, would we be compelled to act in concert with the alliance.

Currently Finland is a member of the NATO´s Partnership for Peace program and as a member of the EU, there is some hope of external assistance in the case of a war as the EU would find it hard to abandon a member country to its own fate.

 

My point is that we cannot allow the situation to be the same as in WInter War, where we gained lots of sympathy from the outside but little to no concrete help and consequently lost the war. (some will claim that we won a defensive victory by retaining our independence, but with a heavy price of territorial losses) Finland cannot stand alone against Russia, we have seen that in the past, so we must ally ourselves with the rest of Europe.