America --- Really The World\'s Police??

[fresco]

About the US interest in the Middle East, yes US has a long history of securing its interest in the Middle East, which makes it a strog nation. Likewise any nation would have done same. On the talk about Africa, US has intervened in Africa in the past history. During the Apartheid Regime in SA, the US did warn the nation about the treatment of blacks there. During this time was when Apartheid was strong and overted;every nation knew about it. Now Apartheid has decreased from the level it was before. SA has some resources that the US also need; it\'s not b/c SA has no resources that the US did not want to intervene to stop the Apartheid. Remember when it was Strong, the US did intervene.  On the Liberia, the US did speak about the situation there, although it didn\'t do enough to allay the situation. When talking of these situations, think of any country that was in US position that would have done more than the US did, of course no country would have done more.
 BAck to Iraq, where the suicide bombers have been claiming lives of the civilian. Right after the toppling of Saddam\'s regime, the US force were not so harsh at the civilian. Although the suicide bombers were claiming the lives of US forces, the US did not retaliate. It was when the US saw the # of troops killed that they decided to fight off those insurgents. It was through cross-fire that the children and innocent civilians were killed. It is not soley on the US fault but the insurgents are culpable. At the Abu Graib Prison, those participated in that atrocity have been brought to justice. Even at Gutanamo Bay prison in Cuba, any mistreatments of the terrorists are investigated and the perpetrators are brought to justice/tribunal.  About the oil and iraq, yes, is one of the US interests, not only in iraq, but in the Middle East. Like i said b4, US is protecting its interest while protecting people. It is not that w/o oil, the US will suffer more than any nation. There was a time in history, during the Jewish Yom Kippur War of 1973, which the US added its client, Israel, OPEC cut off oil supplies to the West. They thought it would punish US more but they were wrong. It was detrimental to the poor nation or rather other nations who need dollar more. Although the region (middle east) possess oil, it will not worth anything if thy don\'t sell it. Will they eat oil to survive, of course NOT. It will all come back to the US, which has the money. Eventually, OPEC resumed oil supplies to the West b/c it didn\'t make sense because the US was not losing; instead, it backfired them.
 About Switzerland, I believe it has their troops in Iraq as part of the coalition forces. Although it\'s one of the richest countries, but it is not the richest country. why did they depoly their troops in Iraq? b/c of the US.
 In the end, US is securing its interest in the Middle East while protecting and spreading freedom to other nations.

[Honeybunnie]

Kofi Annan is urging a reform and overhaul of the United Nations. I tell you, they (political hotshots) are coming to this site and stealing our thoughts and arguments.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/20/un.reform/index.html

[Prince]

I wouldn\'t put it past them, Hb.  Stranger things have happened, to borrow a chiche.

[fresco]

Wow ....lets wait and see what the outcome will be. BTWN there was something about Kofi Anna and his Son conspiring and stealing money from Iraq. the US delegate to UN wanted Kofi Anna to step down b/c of the embezzlement of the money but he refused claming it was his son and not him. What eventually happened? How did the case resolve?

[Honeybunnie]

I heard about that Fresco, I think it is still on the table (still being investigated et al), and I ain\'t surprised that something like that happened.  

North Korea claims that it has gone ahead and built more nuclear weapons to counter what they feel is an \"imminent invasion\" by the US. I wonder what the US intends to do with this new information.

Being the world police like it claims to be, I guess we should go ahead and invade NK to take their WMD. :roll:

N. Korea: We\'ve built more nukes

Monday, March 21, 2005 Posted: 11:15 PM EST (0415 GMT)
 
(CNN) -- North Korea is claiming to have boosted its nuclear weapons arsenal to counter what it says is the threat of imminent invasion by the United States and South Korea.
The secretive communist state\'s official Korean Central News Agency reports on its Web site that current U.S.-South Korea military exercises, which began Saturday, are escalating tensions on the peninsula and are ultimately aimed at launching a pre-emptive strike on the North.
\"The reality goes to prove that it is very just for the DPRK (North Korea) to have opted for bolstering its self-defensive nuclear arsenal in order to protect the peace of the country and the fate of the nation from the U.S. moves for aggression,\" the Web site says.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/03/21/northkorea.nukes/index.htm

They claim that the US troops based in Korea who are keeping the peace between N and S Korea have started military excercises, that they feel are preparations for some sort of attack.l

[Prince]

I don\'t know that the US will go that far, that quickly.  There\'s a difference between Iraq and NK.  NK\'s got the nuke, but they haven\'t threatened anybody yet.  But Iraq, under Sasam, went gong-ho the first time he touched a WMD.  

NK is just bluffing.  Who are they gonna attack, SK, Japan, China, who?  They know that if they launch anything in the direction of the US, they are done, they are toast.  They don\'t have enough nukes to penetrate US air defences.

The US always knows of any kind of expolsion or disturbance anywhere on earth, be it nuclear expls\'n, conventional expls\'n, earthquake, forest fire, volcanic eruption, etc.  If NK launches just one or two, it will be detected and we\'ll have enough time to intersect and destroy them.  Warships, submarines, fighters, everything we\'ve got will go up to welcome them.  

Even unmanned crafts can be launced to sit in the path of the incoming nukes.  We have pilots all over the world who have courage enough to ram the things headon.  

Should they launch anything in excess of ten, whatever the interceptors miss will be taken care of by our patriot missiles and the SDI.  Even with first strike capability (that\'s the one chance they\'ll ever get), they can\'t get one in.

But there\'s a problem, though.  Any region where this thing is exploded is gonna get the brunt of it.  If we shoot down one or two nukes midway between NKand the US, the following areas will be seriously affected:  NK, SK, China, Japan, Vietnam, the Pacific ocean, even Russia, depending on how the wind blows.

Neanwhile, should we desire to retaliate, we would not need a nuke to bury NK.  Just 10 or 20 MOBs are probably enough to do the job.  As a matter of fact, we may not even waste that much money.  We have enough fire crackers in DC to sink NK.  They are all talk, they know it.

On the other hand, the US can make life very, very miserable for NK, they way they are headed.  You know if this were Russia, we would be digging NK out of Russia\'s cluches, by now.  They won\'t stand for this nonsensical cat and mouse game with NK.

[Honeybunnie]

Prince from the sound of it, I think they might be needing your help at the Pentagon.  :lol:  

But you see you raise an issue, if in the process of our shooting down the said WMD, and it seriously affects the countries that you listed, don\'t you think that the situation will degenerate a lot more into something Else.

By The Way, I have to say that was quite enjoyable to read.

[Prince]

Thanks, Hb.

You\'re right.  Stuff like that always leads to something else.  It\'s the uncertainty of the outcome that keeps everybody in check.  If something adverse affects Russia as a result of NK\'s recklessness, nobody knows who will be the target of their anger.  Certainly not the US because if Russia launches anything in the direction of the US, while we are fighting the incomings, we will, at the same time, let Russia have much more than they dished out.  Same goes for China or any other country.  You see, they are just playing chase with the rest of the world.

Besides, in an event of any nuclear misharp, we are much more capable of handling and or containing it than anyother nation.  This is dominoes nobody wants to tip.

As for the Pentagon job, no thanks.  I\'ve already gotten a job as the Personal Advisor to the President in Madam Pres Susia\'s administration.  The incentives here are much more attractive.  Here, I don\'t need a lot of Maalox.  Should the situation call for such, I\'m certain my boss will give me something more soothing than just a handshake and a pat on the back.  Besides, my boss is 10,0000 times better looking than Bush, and speaks English better, I might add.

[sly]

Hmn, prince I love ur courage. So why didnt the US intercept 9/11 hijackers since we are invincible. U need to wake up to reality. Why didn\'t the Us then attack N korea. our marines would have been roasted as well. U see, we can not fold our arms and keep our eyes shut to reality because the whole situation favors us. You have to accept that the US should peddle it slow on the she interfers in other peoples business. The us will not be thye world power for ever, their hegemony will come to an end some day like other previous world powers. U will agree with me that 20 yrs ago US could not do shit and other powers were running the world affairs. Where are those other powers now. I bet u never thought about that. History is always there for us to learn from but power as they say corrupts and absolute power they say corrupts abolutely. Let us help make the world a more peaceful place.

[Prince]

No, Sly, sarchasm will get you no where.  Dig?

But seriously, though, you said, \"U need to wake up to reality.\"  This is the kind of language that turns an otherwise civil and friendly debate into hostile, personal attacks.  This is a discussion or a debate.  If you have a point to make, just make it.  

I think you step beyond boundaries when you begin to characterise my state of mind.  If anything I said is not accurate, point it out and debunk it.

I said that any explosion anywhere can be detected by the US as soon as it happens.  Is it true or false?  I said that our military can intercept one or two incoming nukes.  If you think I\'m fibbing, bring it up so we can harsh it out.  

I also said we have defences such as the Patriot system and the SDI (Strategic Defence Initiative), started by Pres Reagan, continued by Pres Bush I, and not scrapped by Pres Clinton.  It\'s being going through series of tests for years now, some successful. Others not so successful.  If you think the SDI doesn\'t exist, say it.  You are not in any position to refute anything I presented.  So, on what grounds do you say that I\'m fantasizing?  Igbo na-atu ilulu si, \"ekele fere nku-aka, a ghoola agu.\"

It is apparent you did not read or understand my earlier posting.  9/11 happened because people took advantage of out hospitality and did us harm.  Has it happened again?  No. You don\'t see that, do you?  Why do you think they have not been successful since 9/11?  That we didn\'t prevent 9/11 does not mean we couldn\'t or can\'t prevent it.

Secondly, I was addressing the ability of NK to strike the US, by nuke.  In case you need to be reminded, 9/11 is not a nuke launch.  There\'s nothing more irrelevant to the NK question, raised by Hb, than your 9/11 example.

Thirdly, I went to lengths to explain why the US wouldn\'t attack NK, yet.  Besides that NK has not attacked anyone, the ramifications are humongous.  For the same reason, NK will not attack the US.

I said, also, that the UA has ways of dealing with NK, including making their life miderable.  If you doubt me, ask Cuba, Lybia, and Iraq before the war.  Till date, Russia still gets aid from the US.

You are beckoning on history to bear you out.  You wrote, \" U will agree with me that 20 yrs ago US could not do shit and other powers were running the world affairs.\"  I\'m sorry, I won\'t agree with you.  Twenty years ago would be 1985, wouldn\'t it?  I\'m not gonna detail US\'s international activities, rather, I\'ll give you an opportunity to rephrase your assertion.  

Obviously, your notion, not knowledge, of US history spans 2 and a half centuries.  Contrarily, I can give you the US history begining from Abraham to the present.

You are unable to use one statistic, one fact, one anything, to support your stand.  Yet, you think that I, who haven\'t presented any fact you are able to refute, am in a slumber.  Go figure.

[fresco]

About the interception of 9/11, which does not concern nuclear weapons, the group culpable for this situation is the CIA, which was not able or even on the alert that such thing could happen. You know the status quo was better prior to 9/11. It is only after 9/11 that the US became MORE prepared in every angle. Not interms of nuclear weapons or military but interms of intelligence agency.
 On the talk of attacking NK, like we earlier discussed, the US tend to warn the nation b4 taking action. It has begun to warn the nation, and it has recieved support from other nations, who knows what\'s gonna happen next. As for US being the world power for ever, well it depends on whether something extreme happen to the US. You know inorder for a nation to intercept the supremacy of the US, it has to beat the US Military and economically, and you know it won\'t be an easy job. It is true that nation like the USSR\'s, which was trying to establish hegemony in the world through Communism, the US, defeated them. President Harry Truman, instituted the \"IRON CURTAIN\" in Eastern Europe(in 1940\'s) which allowed the USSR not to go beyond the influenced regions/countries, that sort of cut off USSR hegemony in EE. But everything winds up  to the US, which made that happen.
  Abt 20yrs ago whether the US was a World power, like Prince pointed out, it would be 1985, when the Cold War was still on. The US was the World power at that time. I believe it was Reagan\'s administration at that time. Like Prince already mentioned, Reagan built the SDI. the purpose was to defeat the USSR militarily cuz it had acquirede weapons that the US had. In 1945, the US built their own A-Bomb (Atomic Bomb), and USSR following the US behind, built their\'s in 1949. this thread continued as the US acquired more and more weapons until Reagan, seeing the nuclear gap would be closed, decided to start the SDI. This project was very cool and IT WAS ONLY THE US THAT HAD THE RESOURCES TO BUILD IT.
  The Soviet Union\'s (USSR) premier, thinking that it will do same thing, went BANKRUPT. Now it is Only the US that has the SDI, no other country has that. This invincible cuz it is built in the sky, where it monitors and deter incoming missiles. I guess, it has been suspended now cuz it requires lot of money and resources to maintain. But if the need be, i believe the US will continue to maintain it.
Sly our last sentence is interesting, i will like to add that the World will be  a peaceful place without Nuclear weapons........ we don\'t want another Hiroshima and Nagasaki b/c NK is really provoking the US.

[Prince]

Yes, fresco, tell his like it is.  Maybe he\'ll get it from your mouth.  Sly seems to think that we don\'t know the reality.  For his benefit I have included below just one aspect of the Defence Initiative.  This is TMD, as part of NMD (national Missile Defence), which itself a scaled down version, yet component, of the more robust space based SDI that is still in the works:

D. THEATRE MISSILE DEFENCE (TMD)

1. Background
During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the use of short-range ballistic missiles by Saddam Hussein against Israel and Saudi Arabia saw the concept of TMD emerge as a major issue to be tackled by the United States and its allies. TMD is a system designed to intercept ballistic missiles having a range of 80 to 3,000 km. Among NATO allies, the United States has been at the forefront in TMD efforts, which are an essential part of US defence plans. The interest of the US in TMD has grown, as shown by the fact that the $5.1 billion allotted for missile defence in 2001 will be divided equally between TMD and NMD.

Currently, the United States is working on over half a dozen TMD programmes:

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) is based on the early Patriot system (PAC-2) that was used against Iraqi Scuds. Apart from its psychological value, Patriot\'s success during the Gulf War is still a matter of debate, but it remains the only operational TMD system the United States has. The new version is likely to be deployed by 2001.

Navy Area Defence (formerly Navy Lower Tier) is another lower-atmosphere system like PAC-3 and will be integrated into Aegis cruisers and destroyers that are already in service. Its primary objective will be to protect specific assets. Initial deployment is planned for 2003.

Medium Extended Altitude Defence System (MEADS, formerly known as Corps SAM) is a mobile system designed to provide 360-degree coverage defending an area with a 8-10 km radius. The initial deployment date is still not clear. If the project is successfully completed, it will first replace the outdated Hawk and ultimately the Patriot systems.

Navy Theatre Wide (NTW) is a sea-based system designed to use a modified Aegis radar on US Navy cruisers plus the new version of the Standard anti-air missile in order to destroy enemy missiles. This system is the upper-tier version of the Navy TMD projects, which means that it is designed to shoot down medium to long-range missiles both inside and outside the atmosphere. Because it is based on ships, NTW will provide ballistic missile defence to troops deployed abroad, as well as the territories of US allies in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The Aegis defence system has been in existence for over 20 years, and is currently used to protect the US fleet from aircraft and cruise missiles. Proponents believe that this technology can be successfully expanded on to build TMD systems. The Navy has set a 2005 deadline for an interim version, and 2007 for full operability.

Theatre High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) is a land-based, transportable, anti-air missile system designed to act inside and outside the atmosphere. It is intended to operate in conjunction with PAC-3, or Navy Area Defence. THAAD\'s objective is to defend large areas by intercepting ballistic missiles at a mid-point in their course. The two latest tests were successful, and the programme has progressed to the development phase. It is expected to be deployed by 2007, and has been considered by some to be further along than NTW. It is the general consensus that, despite THAAD\'s efficiency, it would demonstrate better results when used along with a sea-based system.

The Airborne Laser (ABL) system is designed to hit the target missile in its boost phase (unlike the others). This objective is technically even more challenging. The Pentagon plans to equip seven Boeing 747 aircraft equipped with ABL by 2006. Apart from ABL, two more laser systems are under consideration, the Tactical High Energy Laser System (THEL) and the Space-Based Laser.

2. TMD technology as an NMD system
The technology being developed for TMD also holds promise for providing some capability for NMD. Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush, while not advocating a specific NMD system, is expected to endorse using TMD technology to the extent possible to protect all of the United States. On the Democratic side, the former Defense Secretary, Harold Brown, and two former deputies, John Deutch and John P. White, wrote in the journal Foreign Policy, \"A national missile defense capability that evolves from TMD will probably be cheaper, better contribute to defence against both long and intermediate range missiles, and allow for more effective growth in capability as the threat increases\".

TMD and NMD are two separate but complementary issues. While TMD aims to cope with the problem of shorter range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, NMD is more oriented towards dealing with the strategic threat to US territory emanating from long-range missiles launched by \"states of concern\". For the European allies, TMD would provide national defence because their territories are smaller, and several potential missile threats lie less than 3,500 km away.

According to an unratified 1997 protocol to the ABM Treaty, TMD does not violate the ABM Treaty as long as its interceptors are not tested at a velocity that exceeds 3 km per second, or against target missiles whose velocity exceeds 5 km per second and have a range of less than 3,500 km. The issue of TMD limitation and demarcation is the source of an ongoing debate. On the one hand, Congressional opponents of the ABM Treaty argue that it is senseless for the United States to agree to limit the effectiveness of its anti-missile technology. On the other hand, treaty proponents argue that it is necessary to define what constitutes a prohibited system in order to preserve the treaty, which they believe is the cornerstone of strategic arms reductions.

Some experts argue that TMD is the best immediate hope for missile defence because it is flexible and mobile, two characteristics extremely important when troops are likely to be deployed to distant theatres. It would also address Russian concerns, in that it would put a lid over states of concern rather then a shield over the US that could also stop Russian missiles. And furthermore, they say, it could eventually be upgraded into the shield that the Clinton administration has proposed, or the more \"robust\" system that the Bush campaign has been advocating.

Boost-phase technology, in particular, has generated increasing interest as a system that could work better than the NMD proposed by President Clinton. This technology attempts to intercept ballistic missiles in their \'boost-phase,\' the first five minutes after deployment. Analysts feel that this is positive because in this time frame attacking missiles would not have reached full velocity or had time to disperse their warheads, decoys and submunitions. Missiles in boost-phase will be easier to detect because interceptors will look for the hot plume from the booster rather then the cooler warheads. This is important as much criticism of the technological feasibility of NMD hinges on its vulnerability to decoys and the difficulty in hitting a fast-moving missile in space.
3. Allied TMD Projects

European nations have understood the importance of TMD capabilities and have began to invest in this technology. Their troops, like those of the United States, will have to be deployed overseas where they will be under imminent threat of attack from ballistic and cruise missiles holding conventional, nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads.

Germany, Italy and the United States are working on the MEADS system, a project aimed at building a ground-based, upper-tier TMD. The future of this project depends on the financial commitments by the respective parties, as well as whether US export regulations will permit the necessary transfer of technology. The MEADS programme is focusing on upper-tier because European nations like Germany and the Netherlands have already decided to buy PAC-3 systems.

During a Sub-Committee visit to London in April, British officials said their missile defence policy is in the midst of a three-year review of the potential missile threat and possible defensive responses to it. While the United Kingdom believes at the moment that acquisition of a missile defence system would be premature, officials recognise that the risk to other NATO allies and British forces deployed abroad is \"less distant\". Recognising this, the United Kingdom is actively cooperating in NATO missile defence programmes. This will lead to NATO feasibility studies over the next two years, with a decision on the NATO missile defence requirement expected in 2004. British officials say that their national programme and cooperation with NATO would allow them to move quickly if they determine that the United Kingdom needs a missile defence system.

European allies are also acquiring naval missile defences. Britain, France and Italy are developing the Principal Anti-Air Missile Defence, which includes the French Aster missile and new radars. Italy\'s new ships may possess a missile defence role, and two older ones are being modified for the Standard missile. Germany and the Netherlands are also collaborating on a project that will incorporate Standard missiles. The Dutch navy is considering giving four ships missile defence capabilities, and Spain is building four Aegis ships with the option of a missile defence capability.

[Honeybunnie]

Hey Fresco, I know you were wondering about the Kofi Annan and son scandal, It\'s definitely still an issue. The son is suspected of receiving $300,000 in a kickback from a contract the United Nations had awarded..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7270957/

[Prince]

And as you know, Kofi denies any knowledge of his sons activities.  Well, he may not have been there, holding hid son\'s hands, but can anybody tell me how far the fruit can fall from the tree?  Like father, like son.

Isn\'t that the UN everybody is boo-hooing about?  Kposhi-kposhi.

[Honeybunnie]

I hear you Prince, Africans are soaked in nepotism, I\'m sure if they do a thorough investigation, tey will fid Kofi\'s involvement somehow. Then again, the people doing the investigating are all members of the ruling council, and I am very sure that some of them are corrupt themselves.