RE.Lee wrote:Poland does have a decent army I guess - the special operation units (GROM) particularly notable, but its still nothing compared to the Russians. We need allies in case of an escalation of conflict and the US have so far been pretty reliable. Keeping a contingent on Polish soil would be the best possible deterrent against Putin, IMO.
Well, of course Russia has bigger army, but it cannot commit it all against Poland. The preparations would be visible in advance, not mentioning that they would have to get through other countries first (which is an argument for cultivating neutrality of Ukraine and Byelorussia).
BTW, I have read, that according to old Soviet archives made public, one of reasons for Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty and division of Poland was, that USSR was afraid of possibility of Poland allying with Germany against USSR. So don't underestimate Polish military potential
rdghuizing wrote:
You do have to see the situation in the light of the moment though. From US perspective they had just been under attack on US soil by a foreign entity (something that hadn't happened since their independence I think). They couldn't accept this or let it go unpunished.
I know they were shocked, but compare it to Palestinians, who get bombed quite regularly, and still try to seek diplomatic solution.
rdghuizing wrote:
As for a trial by an independent islamic nation, I wouldn't put my faith in that either if I was the US. To much chance of it going wrong so to speak, and the chain of evidence is pretty hard (especially without compromising whatever intelligence agents they had). At least to directly pin it on Osama instead of just the organization.
Yes, the case was weak. And insistence to carry it "so it could not go wrong" proves that USA was not after justice, but blood.
Shannar, Sealord wrote:
Add to this a couple other factors. What jurisdiction would said nation actually have? And secondly, who would take him? Who is going to define "independent"? Should he have been tried in Iran? Iraq? Syria?
Iraq? Why not? At the time Saddam was not friend of USA and he was no friend of religious fanatics either. Iran? Similar. IIRC Syria at the time was secular and religiously tolerant regime. Jurisdiction would be created by mutual agreement of involved governments.
rdghuizing wrote:
As for the UN, per article 51 of the UN charter (which was mentioned before in the NATO treaty), attacks on a sovereign nation are a national affair. There wasn't any need to involve them from a legal point of view. The US had the right to defend themselves.
We are probably using different definitions of "war". When talking about war, I imagine uniformed soldiers following orders ultimately coming from their government.
rdghuizing wrote:
Also, at least the US army has been tested in the past 60 or so years. Several wars and large scale skirmishes. Compare that to the russian army, which has mainly relied on bullying its smaller neighbors without doing any actual fighting. Very little on the scale of Afganistan or even Kosovo.
The reason I was criticizing US army was not to argue, that Russians are better, but to say that over the years it has evolved into effective raiding force, which is different kind of involvement then defense of territory against another strong army. About a year ago, I have read an article comparing current US army to army of British empire in the end of 19th century, which was also powerful and highly mobile strike force, spending most of the time by suppressing "insurgencies" in British colonies. Then, in WWI, with French help, they were not able to defeat Germans.
rdghuizing wrote:
The NATO is actually increasing its military presence in eastern europe and even Ukraine is going to house American soldiers.
If USA sends 10000 soldiers, as Poland(?) asked, it is a deterrent. If it sends 500 soldiers, it is a provocation. If it promises to send 10000 soldiers and takes time to do it, Russia might decide to take initiative. After all, if USA can make preemptive attacks, why not Russia, right?
Shannar, Sealord wrote:
They were "lies" that the entire world believed to be true. It's just some believed action was required to do something about it, and others didn't. Even the Iraqi army was surprised when they never used chemical weapons to slow the attack.
Not exactly entire world. But mainstream was happily parroting them, while people, who questioned them, were labeled "conspiracy theorists" (sometimes also antiamerican). There were cases of journalists losing jobs because of publishing dissenting articles. But yes, I was also surprised when no chemical weapons were found, because it was widely known, that Iraq got them from USA in 80's for war with Iran. So they probably managed to use them all.
Shannar, Sealord wrote:
What the American Numbskulls did at Abu Grab was unforgivable, but I can tell you that most Iraqis did not understand the fuss. Because compared to what Sadams people had done there it was positively humane.
Just to be sure that I understand. You are saying, that according to Iraqis, US army brought positive change because it does not torture as many people as Saddam did?
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/lw6ecde.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/bg9ismp.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/p4ipaw.gif[/img]
Gaurbund Angecthelion, retired Quartermaster of Corsairs of Obsidian Citadel