You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
The world looks a darker and more dangerous place
2006-10-15
Well it's a hard world to get a break in,
All the good things have been taken...
*sniff*
Michael Portillo

Across the globe many of the WestÂ’s hopes for a better world lie in smouldering heaps. The optimism that we felt when freedom swept across eastern Europe is now a distant memory.

We heaved a sigh of relief when the American-Soviet nuclear weapons standoff, based on mutually assured destruction, was dismantled. Now North Korea, which may not be susceptible to any conventional theory of deterrence, has the bomb. IranÂ’s revolutionary ShiÂ’ite government plans to have one too.

AmericaÂ’s role since the Soviet collapse as the worldÂ’s single superpower has brought it unforeseen difficulties. Its supremacy has bred resentment and defiance among both its enemies and friends.

We should certainly not be nostalgic for the bygone era of the two superpowers. The alleged stability of that age was dearly bought. Around the world many proxy wars were bloodily fought between communism and capitalism, and numerous vile regimes were propped up by the global rivals. In 1962, during the Cuba missile crisis, we were brought to the edge of global nuclear war, a position that is inconceivable today.
Posted by:.com

#9  This entire article needs a severe fisking. If this is how the "intelligencia" in England think, the Brits are well and thoroughly screwed.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-10-15 20:33  

#8  Image your economy if the US Navy didn't provide secure sea lanes for the rest of the world's ocean going commerce. Now that is dark.

Hear! Hear!

Why we laugh at trade deficits, or I got 1 boat and 72 reasons the dollar will be Army strong.
Posted by: Shipman   2006-10-15 12:50  

#7  One reason we stopped then was that that was the point at which the large number of surrenders after horrendous casualty rates in the Iraqi army were identified and sent up the chain of command IIRC.

Had there been a clear mandate going into the fight to remove Saddam, they could have pressed on with fewer casualties for the other side. But without that mandate, Bush Sr. stopped the fight and many commanders such as Colin Powell were (rightly or wrongly in retrospect) glad he did.
Posted by: lotp   2006-10-15 11:17  

#6  When it expelled Saddam from Kuwait in 1991 it left him in power in Baghdad.

1. No one in the world thought that was the plan, at the time.

2. The UN mandate was to get Sammy out of the soverign nation of Kuwait, not to take down another soverign nation.

3. According to the Dueffler (?) report, Sammy HAD WMD's in 1991 and intended to use them if the coalition crossed the Iraqi border.

4. George H.W. Bush did it exactly right, including stopping abruptly after 100 hours when it was clear the Iraqi army was toast, but wankers can't accept that.
Posted by: Bobby   2006-10-15 11:13  

#5  But since the end of the cold war Washington has not matched its monopoly of power with either humility or wisdom. Its foreign policy failures have been humbling. Intending to show that it could project power anywhere in the world, it has instead demonstrated the severe limitations of its military and diplomatic reach

People who live on military/defense welfare shouldn't preach to others who are doing the work and heavy lifting how to do their jobs. The combined GDP and population of the EU exceeds that of the US. Put up or shut up. Image your economy if the US Navy didn't provide secure sea lanes for the rest of the world's ocean going commerce. Now that is dark.
Posted by: Procopius2K   2006-10-15 09:35  

#4  But since the end of the cold war Washington has not matched its monopoly of power with either humility or wisdom. Its foreign policy failures have been humbling. Intending to show that it could project power anywhere in the world, it has instead demonstrated the severe limitations of its military and diplomatic reach

we should be more like one of the snivelling Eurotrash countries? Foreign policy failures? Like letting the EU negotiate Iran straight to nuke weapons? Like letting China and Russia stop sanctions on Kim? Cowboy up U.S.! F*ck these hand-wringing pussies and drag them kicking and screaming into our reality
Posted by: Frank G   2006-10-15 08:27  

#3  Yeah, but this turnip twadler has 1 point...

The cold war is over but the doctrine of nuclear deterrence has now to be resurrected
Posted by: Shipman   2006-10-15 07:44  

#2  In truth, it has been difficult for the US to strike the right balance. It has oscillated between being too passive and too aggressive and both extremes have had dire consequences.

So, do if I understand this correctly, the US should be like most of Europe...."passive-aggressive?"
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-10-15 06:33  

#1  What an absolute fool. Yeah, ok. So we are still in the mood to be nice. It's our Christian nature. So for this moron, it means he need not respect the power that we represent should we ever really feel threatened or thoroughly pissed off.

This is the same type of sap who befriends Grizzly bears or tigers. "See... isn't he cute, he lets me put my head in his mouth." He's my pet.
Posted by: anon   2006-10-15 05:24  

00:00