 |
| |
|
|
problem_child
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Russia wants to survive and prosper? They'd better ally themselves with the EU and US. Then Mother Russia can regain a real sort of glory as a powerful, democratic nation. But, hey, if they wanna stick with KGB throwbacks, it's their business, so long as they keep their nukes under control.
Gatekeeper |
 ! Yeah right, after the Oligarchs raided Russia in the early 90s, turning a virgin into a penniless whore with the backing of the same EU and US you now expect it to somehow 'turn to' 
EU & US do not have the Russian Federations best interest at heart. Russia, China and India are alive today, they're here in the world and I don't doubt that the folk that call em home consider them to have a future. You delude yourself that life only exists on Americas side if you want. They'll continue to think and see how they can serve their own interests and carve out a future for themselves anyway.
But agreed, nukes under control, and prefferebly gone, (if only America was into nuclear dissarmement).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Economic and political power together can account for two-thirds of the pie. But without that crucial third — military power — do tell me how fancy suited bankers and ivory tower economists are going to dominate the world? At some point along the road, someone is going to start shooting, and you'd damn well better be able to shoot back and, using Colin Powell's strategy, go in with overwhelming force. That's human nature for ya.
Gatekeeper |
You think Economic and Political power is just a bunch of economists and political science proffesors eh. Economic power is turn-over, it's GDP, it's trade balance... tell you what, next time the Big Hypocrit wants to subsidize it's steel industry only to find itself in a major trade-war that down-the-line costs you and your buddies your jobs, and makes that big fancy military you guys are so proud of more of a seven-day-work-week-weight around your collective necks... then come back and make comments about 'ivory tower' this and 'fancy suited' that.
Hm, being jobless in a seven day work week society sounds cold card-board-boxy to me. Probably why the streets of San Francisco are so saturated with the homeless now. Americas kinda like a 3rd world Corporatist country and a major industrial power that's deeply in debt all at the same time, isnit.
As far as shoot-starting is concerned, I don't think any of the nations we're discussing are thinking to throw away their already formidable armies. But progress for most people isn't measured by how many over-powerd super-carriers you can spend 90% of your pocket-money on. The reason why Americas military is so bloated, (apart from that military spending represents corporate feeding frenzy of Big Dumb Customer Mr Federal Government) is because it needs imperial forces, you touched on that yourself, 'Occupation Forces' worldwide. Non-Empires only need enough fire-power to defend themselves with.
Last edited by problem_child on 13-11-2004 at 07:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lul Thyme
|
|
Quebec, Canada
Aug 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
No. |
More like half you are right.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
Any anti-US coalition you can think of is a joke, because quite simply, the USN would sink every ship in every navy of every anti-US coalition in about 5 seconds if it came to it.
Hell, the only warships worth a **** in India, China, Russia, and Brazil are a couple of Russian cruisers, and maybe a couple of Russians subs (assuming they are well-enough maintained to sortie).
If you think that those nations would build an anti-US economic alliance, you're quite mistaken - any nation or nations that decides to economically exclude the US is going to see their economy crash just as hard as America's would. China, for example, runs tens of billions of dollars per year in trade surpluses with the US, and they can't afford to lose that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Well, they bought a French carrier a while ago.
The Indians bought a Russian one recently. |
In other words, to answer whether or not either country has a significant military, the answer is "No".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
! Yeah right, after the Oligarchs raided Russia in the early 90s, turning a virgin into a penniless whore with the backing of the same EU and US you now expect it to somehow 'turn to' |
**shrug** Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all the financial intriciacies of Russia, but what I'm willing to bet the farm on is that those oligarchs had more than enough support among the *right* Russians — i.e., those in power, including a fair number of "reformed" Communists — to carry out their agenda. IOW, there's Russian blood on Russian hands as well. Opportunism. Yet another human pitfall.
quote:
EU & US do not have the Russian Federations best interest at heart. Russia, China and India are alive today, they're here in the world and I don't doubt that the folk that call em home consider them to have a future. You delude yourself that life only exists on Americas side if you want. They'll continue to think and see how they can serve their own interests and carve out a future for themselves anyway. |
Maybe they're hopeless in Russia, but I see no reason why folks in China or India should share the hopelessness. And just what the heck is "You delude yourself that life only exists on Americas side if you want," suppposed to mean? I'm a pretty "global" person, but statements like that simply make me world-weary.
quote:
But agreed, nukes under control, and prefferebly gone, (if only America was into nuclear dissarmement). |
Shouldn't it be "if only *everyone* was into nuclear disarmament?" And the last time I checked, both America and Russia have done quite a bit of reduce their nuke stockpile since the height of the Cold War. Still, I'd think 10,000 nukes apiece is more than enough to ensure the other's destruction if, God forbid, they'd ever be used en masse.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
You think Economic and Political power is just a bunch of economists and political science proffesors eh. |
Oh, for God's sake. The next time, just for you, I'll list every conceivable avatar of economic power before advancing any deeper into my argument. Yeah, right, and I got some beachfront property in Arizona to sell to you.
quote:
Economic power is turn-over, it's GDP, it's trade balance... tell you what, next time the Big Hypocrit wants to subsidize it's steel industry only to find itself in a major trade-war that down-the-line costs you and your buddies your jobs ... |
Stop right there, buddy. I, for one, didn't exactly support Bush's attempt to "protect" the U.S. steel industry. Frankly, I love seeing how so many threads nowadays turn to U.S. bashing. God, what I wouldn't give to see the supports other countries give to their industries, farmers and whatnot that aren't ever shown the day of light because said countries aren't superpowers.
quote:
... and makes that big fancy military you guys are so proud of more of a seven-day-work-week-weight around your collective necks... then come back and make comments about 'ivory tower' this and 'fancy suited' that. |
I'm sorely tempted to make some snarky, backstabbing kind of comment about the Brits here, but that'd be a no no because you're just one guy, and not the entire population.
Heh. Big, fancy military? Hell, I'll have to keep that one in mind when the next round of base closings happens. And when the GOP accuses the Dems of gutting the military and intelligence in the 1990s. It'll be good for a laugh or two, I imagine.
quote:
Hm, being jobless in a seven day work week society sounds cold card-board-boxy to me. Probably why the streets of San Francisco are so saturated with the homeless now. Americas kinda like a 3rd world Corporatist country and a major industrial power that's deeply in debt all at the same time, isnit. |
I balance my checkbook and my political and social conscious is clear.
quote:
As far as shoot-starting is concerned, I don't think any of the nations we're discussing are thinking to throw away their already formidable armies. But progress for most people isn't measured by how many over-powerd super-carriers you can spend 90% of your pocket-money on. The reason why Americas military is so bloated, (apart from that military spending represents corporate feeding frenzy of Big Dumb Customer Mr Federal Government) is because it needs imperial forces, you touched on that yourself, 'Occupation Forces' worldwide. Non-Empires only need enough fire-power to defend themselves with. |
Bloated military? Spending 90 percent of our "pocket-money" on super-carriers? Whatever. They're closing bases, and have been on-and-off for a decade now. Some are saying we don't have enough boots in the military to satisfactorily occupy and administer Iraq/Afghanistan in order to hand them off to legit governments, let alone have enough of those said boots to react to another world crisis, when (not if) one erupts. If that's a bloated military to you, then all I can do is shake my head.
About the only area we agree on is WRT corporate interests getting too much influence on the military. My worst fear is it won't be long before we see corporate mercenaries fighting on the ground in Iraq, instead of good old American troops. Yeah! Raise the flag for ... Halliburton?!
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
This alliance could work, but probably only as long as the U.S. and EU didn't deal with the countries fairly and/or remained main players in global trade and politics.
The military issue really doesn't matter. For those that think it does, take a cue from WWI and Germany's navy philosophy. They didn't need enough ships to beat the British Fleet, they just needed enough ships to be able to sink enough of the British Fleet to basically cripple it. Britian then wouldn't want to fight because they'd want to maintain their Naval Superiority in the world.
Now, apply this to the current situation, but consider the economics. If the US and EU went to war with Russia, China, India, and Brazil, then both sides would enter into massive depressions. They are all too economically intertwined, hence they would only go to war as an absolute *last* resort if survival was on the line. Survival won't be on the line though, so there won't be a war. As the market becomes more globalized and interconnected, this sort of things will continue to be the main reason countries don't go to war; the scope of this effect will naturally continue to grow too.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alex
|
 |
Brasil
Mar 1999
time: 02:19
|
|
Brazil wants to enforce its ties with other countries in order to balance the huge influence the US has in our economy. This is pretty much a necessity, given the fact that the US is putting some pressure on Brazil to accept and adhere to a new economic block, the ALCA (or FTAA, Free Trade Area of the Americas).
Since our economy is not strong enough (I'm talking about manufactoring goods) to survive to such an economic agreement, we have to look for another trade partners, and who would be better than China and India, countries hugely populated - and which have, therefore, a big consumer base?
Don't forget that Brazil has enormous quantities of natural resources, many of them not explorated yet and many of them inside and under the Amazon Forest. United States is (and has always been) interested in such resources. We have to get some international support so we can keep Amazonia to us. Otherwise, US will simply occupy it.
(Note: I think that US will end up doing it no matter what kind of international support Brazil may get).
quote:
Nothing like choosing Brazil to make connections with Latin America. Why choose the one LA nation that speaks Portuguese? I'd try for Argentina. They'd fit in just as well in that bizzaro coalition as Brazil would, and that would give the coalition street cred in Spanish LA. |
Argentina is smaller than Brazil, does not have as many natural resources as we do and has a much smaller consumer market (36 million people vs. 168 million in Brazil).
The "military alliance" thing, though, is rubbish. Our armed forces are pathetic.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
UR, while your "emoticon" is unviewable (at least by me) I can only assume you are ridiculing my statement that the USN exponentially dominates any other navy or combination of navies in the world.
I personally think the USN could take on, and win against, every other navy in the world, combined, there is at least an argument to be made there. However, saying that the US could dominate the combined navies of India, China, Russia, and Brazil is so obvious one would think that it's beyond question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Now, apply this to the current situation, but consider the economics. If the US and EU went to war with Russia, China, India, and Brazil, then both sides would enter into massive depressions. |
Well, certainly Russia, China, India, and Brazil would enter into massive depressions, but I'm not sure that a combined EU-US bloc, with access to the rest of the world (Middle East, Japan, etc.) would. Plenty of cheap **** is still made by Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea, etc., and to be quite honest, developing nations could just build more sweatshops to meet the vastly increased Western demand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alva
quote:
The coalition consists of India, China, Russia and Brazil |
A match made in heaven, If they can agree on one thing, beers are on me. |
Absolutely, alva.
Yes, I'm sure when China stops encouraging Maoist rebels in Nepal, when India and China finally resolve their differences (left over from the still unresolved last India-China War, and China's many collaborations with Pakistan) when Russia and China patch things up properly (after that falling out in the Soviet era, and the armed clashes in Mongolia), and when Brazil can actually get around to paying all its public servants all the time and deal with a monumental H.I.V./A.I.D.S. problem, and a poverty/population time bomb, then the E.U. will start filling its collective pants big time.
Until then let's party like its 2099 in our safe European Homes....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, certainly Russia, China, India, and Brazil would enter into massive depressions, but I'm not sure that a combined EU-US bloc, with access to the rest of the world (Middle East, Japan, etc.) would. Plenty of cheap **** is still made by Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea, etc., and to be quite honest, developing nations could just build more sweatshops to meet the vastly increased Western demand. |
I think you are missing the point of those nations getting together as the article proposed. They'd get together to combat Americanism, and if America went to war with them for that then that wouldn't particular endear US-EU with the rest of the world. A lot of the places would side with the Asia-Brazil block, though not all. Afterall, Asia-Brazil would be working to get people to side with them too.
Then even if they didn't, there is still the fact that India and China do make up a very significant portion of both the U.S. economy and the world's. Cutting them off would have no "easy fix" as you proposed. Factories would have to be made, people trained, etc. Beyond that China and India are world consumers as well, and also have highly trained workers (such as computer programmers) and both of those would be nigh impossible to replace in the short term. The lack of China and India consuming and producing would result in a lot of smaller countries that stayed with the U.S. having worsened conditions, etc.
Certainly this would only be heighted in time as the economies in each country grew and all the ecomies become more intertwined. War will eventually be not worth it, given the economic problems one would suffer (wether you were a single country waging war or half the globe against the other half).
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-11-2004 07:40
|