Marko,
Hello! Thank you for your interesting questions.
"Please can you tell me what do you think about US using weapons that are baned by geneve convention (cluster bombs)?"
I don't see why the geneva convention would ban the use of cluster bombs. They are effective weapons against enemy infantry in the open. There is a lot of protest about them because some of the small bombs fail to detonate and later detonate when a civilian tries to tamper with it or a soldier tries to ensure it is deactivated.
But cluster bombs are not the only explosives that fail to sometimes detonate. There have been 2,000 pound bombs that have failed to detonate or a shell fired from a tank. Unexploded ordanance is a problem with any "battlefield". Cluster bombs are not the only bombs that sometimes fail to detonate. There for, I see no reason compared to other weapons, under which they should be banned.
"Another thing - why did you decide to eliminate Sadam and 'free' Iraqi people right now? why didn't the world finish it 10 yrs ago when Iraqi people expected it, wanted it and than a lot of them died when you failed to fullfil your promises?"
It is easy to forget the context under which the first Gulf War happened. Many Americans in the US congress did not want to use military force to push Iraq out of Kuwait, let alone go into Iraq and take out Saddam. They wanted to use Sanctions to get Iraq out of Kuwait.
George Bush Sr. in 1990/1991 realized Sanctions would not work and that military force would be required to remove the Iraqi Military from Kuwait. George Bush Sr. was able to assemble a large coalition to do this. But it was difficult to get the world and US public opinion to support the war effort that was required to remove the Iraqi Military from Kuwait. In the end Bush succeeded in getting the approval he needed to do just that. But because it was so difficult to get the support to remove Iraq from Kuwait with force, it was essentially impossible to get the support needed for overthrowing Saddam and occupying Iraq until a stable democracy could be formed. George Bush Sr. did what was politically possible in 1991.
In addition, after the war, Saddam's defeat and the destruction to his military had been so large, many felt it Saddam would not last much longer. In addition, it was strongly believed that the UN inspector would be able to disarm Saddam peacefully. The Sanctions remained in place and it was thought this could indeed prevent foreign supply and aid to Saddam. It was believed that despite it not being politically possible at the time to overthrow Saddam, that a strategy of containment would keep Saddam in a box he could not get out of until he fell from within.
The reality is that Containment weakened over the years. Countries bordering Iraq made a fortune from blackmarket smuggling. UN weapons inspectors only found and disarmed WMD that Saddam allowed them to. Saddam had no intention of fully cooperating. Saddam was also starting to make money despite sanctions. It was also found that Saddams internal security force was way to powerful for their ever to be a successful coup without foreign troops helping.
Saddam soon got inspectors removed from the country. He still had WMD that had not been destroyed and was now free to produce more. This was in 1998. Because of the failure of Sanctions, Inspections, and other elements of the containment policy against Saddam since 1991, and in light of the ability of international terrorist to strike the USA mainland on 9/11, it was felt that the USA and world could no longer afford to have Saddam in power or at least armed with a growing number of WMDs and potentially soon, nuclear weapons.
Invasion of Iraq in 2003 was chosen because in light of past events, it was the only effective way to ensure that Saddam was disarmed of his WMD capability. The failure of the containment regime around Saddam for the past 12 years and the experience of 9/11 made it politically possible in the USA to finally do this.
"Deterance - who was the first on with A-bomb? We are talkin here about chicken and egg. If nobody made a-bomb than there would be no need for deternace... how do you know that it was you detering the soviets and not the another way around... What I'm saying is that if there was no big arms bildup there would be no need for deterance - which leeds to further arms bildup which leads........"
The USA! Why did the USA build the A-bomb? The USA started to develop the A-bomb in the 1930s because the Germans already had a program that was well under way. The USA succeeded in its development process and went way ahead of the Germans. Having a fully developed A-Bomb in 1945, it was used against Japan to force a quick surrender, there by saving millions of Japanese lives.
In the years between 1945 and the first Berlin Crises(I think 1948) the USA only had two nuclear weapons. During that first Berlin Crises though, the USA flew hundreds of the type of Bombers that had dropped the A-Bomb on Japan to Germany. This convinced the Soviets that the USA had hundreds of nuclear weapons. The Soviets backed down and did not invade Western Europe. A perfect example of deterence preventing Soviet Aggression.
Deterence involves preventing another person from taking a certain course of action. Deterence did not just involve detering a Soviet nuclear attack on the USA. It was actually more appropriate to the term in regards to preventing a Soviet Conventional invasion of Western Europe.
We know it was the USA detering the Soviets and not the other way around, because of the unbelievable large military force that the Soviets maintained in Eastern Europe. These forces were very "Tank Heavy" and had lots of logistical supplies and support necessary for a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Tank or Armored divisions in the numbers the Soviets had them, were far more than what was required to defend against any NATO attack on western Europe. In fact, in the early years, the mis-match between NATO conventional forces and Warsaw Pact conventional forces was so extreme, that only NATO's use of nuclear weapons would stop a Soviet led, Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. The Soviets also had lots of bridging equipment that would be useless for defending Eastern Europe. The only reason to have such large amounts of this equipment would be for offensive operations into Western Europe in which bridging Equipment would be needed to get across rivers where NATO had destroyed all the bridges across in an attempt to stop or slow the Soviet advance. The Soviets unlike most countries never really disarmed from World War II. The Soviet Union maintained the worlds largest military force from 1945 to 1991.
During the early years of the Cold War, US nuclear Weapons were a deterent to a Soviet Conventional attack on Europe. In the later years of the Cold War when the Soviet Union had the ability to target the US mainland with Nuclear Weapons, US Nuclear Weapons became only a deterent against Soviet Unions use of such weapons. Using Nuclear weapons in response to a Soviet Conventional attack on Western Europe was no longer a possible deterent given a potential nuclear response to the USA mainland. The USA and NATO had to strenthen their conventional defenses of Western Europe in order to deter a Soviet Attack. US Nuclear Weapons now were only a deterent to Soviet Nuclear Weapons since the Soviets had achieved Nuclear Parity with the USA. Strangely, the Soviets achievement of Nuclear Parity with the USA, actually made a conventional war in Europe much more likely than before.
The ultimate answer to your question is that it is true that there would be no big arms build up if no one starting arming themselves to such a degree as to be a threat to someone else. It was Hitler that started the A-Bomb development in addition to building up his military and launching World War II. The USA in the 1930s had a tiny military. The Soviets were already developing a large military for Stalins aggresive plans. The Soviets maintained the large military they had built during World War II whent he war was over. They did not disarm and in fact continued to develop and field a huge inventory of conventional weapons and later nuclear weapons. It is the Germans and soon after the Soviets arms build ups and potential threat to global security that forced the USA to build up its military to prevent the attack that would of happened without such a build up.
"PLEASE tell me do you realy think that US government has honest and rightfull intentions? I would realy like to know. And if you do, tell me why is there no action against some countries in South America, Africa, China, S. Korea, AND ESPECIALY Israel! How do you explain your close connection with country which invented the term 'terorist' by practising it (sp? sory), and where the civil freedoms (especilay if you are a muslim) are totaly neglected... "
The US government has very honest legitamite intentions. It is the goal of the US government to provide security around the world to prevent any major disruption of the global economy. It is also the goal of the US government to increase free trade, economic development, and democracy through out the world, because a more democratic, less impoverished world, is a world that is safer to live in and less likely to experience war.
But the USA does not have infinite resources and cannot engage and solve every civil war or overthrow every single dicator on the planet. The USA reserves its resources for those dictators and wars that threaten US national and global security. After that there may be resources left over to help out in area's who's problems do not necessarily threaten US or global security, but not all of them.
In regards to US action against certain regions or countries. In South America, there is no serious US military action because the region is relatively stable compared to many other parts of the world. There is poverty and the drug trade, but the answer to many of these problems is a non-military one. There is no large military threat like, Iraq in South America. The military's of most South American countries are comparitively small to those in Asia, Europe and. Major war between countries in South America is rare to non-existent.
In Africa, there are many problems do to widespread poverty. Like South America though, most countries in Africa do not have well armed military's like those in Europe and Asia. The ability of any one country to occupy and annex another is rather limited. In addition, most of Africa is isolated from the world economy because of the lack of a developed market. There for, the civil wars and politically instability there normaly do not upset the global economy. This is why intervention in Africa is rather limited.
China although a potential threat to most of Asia has essentially been detered from taking major military action for nearly 50 years(with the 1979 invasion of Vietnam being the exception). China is not a democracy and there are human rights abuses in China. China has not engaged in actions like Iraq has that would require its regime to be changed from an international security and law perspective. While bringing democracy to China would be a great thing, it would require a military invasion that would be so costly and would outweigh the potential benefit. Consider also that China continues to develop a capitalist economy. There is less and less State intervention in the economy. There are also more political freedoms in China than say 20 or 30 years ago. I'd say by 2030 there will be democracy in China. There is currently no need to engage china from a military perspective, because China is not doing anything that would warrent such a response. Democracy and human rights will gradually come to china over the next few decades as China becomes more intertwined with the global economy and the governments power decreases relative to business and individual economic power.
S. Korea?!?! I think you mean North Korea. In the case of North Korea, the USA has not acted there because North Korea is not in violation of any resolutions passed under chapter VII rules, has not invaded any countries in over 50 years. Its large military, especially large inventory of 11,000 artillery pieces is a huge concern. Seoul, the capital of the South, is within 30 miles of the border with the North and in range of much of this artillery. Any US military operation to overthrow or disarm North Korea would do so in the context of hundreds of thousands of shells landing on Seoul. While the US military could eventially destroy most of this artillery, they could not do so before hundreds of Thousands of people in Seoul had been killed. This unique situation, where such a large city is in range of so much artillery, is not seen anywhere else in the world.
Now North Korea has nuclear weapons which makes any military operation against the North Korea even less likely now. North Korea could kill millions of South Korean and Japanese citizens in response to a US invasion to disarm the country and overthrow the government. The USA does not act with the military because the cost of doing so is currently much greater than the costs of containment.
But one should remember that North Korea's behavior is less threatening than most other countries do to the fact that the country has only invaded one country in its history and that was over 50 years ago. North Korea has successfully detered the possibility of US military action for decades. Now with Nuclear Weapons, this deterent capability has only increased. But there is essentially no reason for a US military attack on North Korea because the North's behavior in regards to international relations has not been very threatening for the past 50 years. This plus, North Korea's huge military and nuclear capability are the obvious reasons why the USA will seek to solve its problems diplomaticly through regional discussions with the North Korea and countries in the region.
Israel is a country that has been a victim of Arab aggression for over 55 years now. The USA would not act against Israel, one of the few countries in the world where Arabs are allowed to vote.(I don't mean Arabs in the occupied territories, but in Israel itself)
The USA helps Israel defend itself from the Arab countries that have refused to recognize Israel's right to exist and have invaded the country in multiple wars.
It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would consider overthrowing one of the few democracies in the Middle East. Israel has a very complicated task in defending itself and its population. Israel is not in violation of any UN resolution passed under Chapter VII rules. Iraq was in violation of 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. Only resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules, are member states allowed to use military force to bring about their compliance. Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules are the most serious which is why they allow for the use of military force.
The Israely/Palestinian problem will only be solved when Palestinians develop a policy of non-violent action and recognize Israels right ot exist. There also must be a regional negotiation and recognition by all Arab governments in the region of Israel's right to exist. These things are necessary for there to be peace.
