 |
| |
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
we could pound any single country (and probably more than that) into the medieval period. Do NOT underestimate the power of the US. |
Short of using nukes, how'd you take out China?
quote:
Do NOT underestimate the power of the US. |
America's power is hugely overestimated. If a bunch of thugs could blow up two huge skyscrapers, imagine what a stronger foe could accomplish. Also note that in some 60 odd years (since WW2), the USA has never taken on a power of respectable size. Only relatively weak and small nations. North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia. It's like saying that Germany has has a great soccer team after they beat Paraguay and the USA in the world cup. Let's face it, there's a simple reason why the US is now going after Iraq and Afghanistan, and not Pakistan and China. It's because the US is afraid to take those bigger nations on alone. If the US is really a "hyperpower", why hasn't it tried to take on China? It's a dictatorship, has a horrible human rights record, is a threath to the US and it's allies (Taiwan), has WoMDs, is openly hostile towards the US and it's allies, and is known to aid enemies of the USA (like North Korea). But no, they aren't in the axis of evil. Only pathetic small nations are.
America's power isn't as strong as they let everyone on. And the policymakers in DC know this too. Sadly, so does Bin Laden. He managed to knock down two huge skycrapers in downtown NY, damage the Pentagon in DC, and managed to escape American retaliation with the bulk of his forces (Al Qaida, not Taliban).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
Wow, I find myself agreeing with Saint Marcus  Stop that  
Krop -about saddam - Saddam is a threat not because he himself is an islamic terrorist, but because he tries to harness such powers in his favour.
Iraq and Iran and Syria are all very involved financially and miletarily in the Palestinian 'uprising' (read: war) against Israel.
China isn't a target now, because it hasn't actually used as brutal means.
If China was the one behind 9/11 then US would figure what to do about it, no matter how fearfull they are of 1/5th of humanity.
(saying it is so fun  )
The big problem is the difference of views.
Europe sees it's post-modern methods as the ones it should use, and doesn't want to act using violence.
America sees it's modern weapons as the methods to use.
Based on my understanding of history and of terror in general, I would say that currently, America is right.
While Europe would be right in most cases, the problem is that you need two to tango.
Europe is offering a branch of olive and hopes the enemy is serious enough to take it.
But the 'enemy' (radical fanatic terrorists) are not at all logical. They do not live in a post-modern world, but rather see Europe's politics as weakness that can be exploited.
I feel, that the same politics was seen as weakness by Hitler, and that is why WWII started. If harsh politics would have been used against him early on, WWII would have been much less likely to brake out, at least not the way we know it.
As for islam- I see it as a certain problem.
I see a certain pattern in Islam spreading around the world.
Muslims immigrate to other countries. Locals then slowly convert to Islam. And then when there is an Islamic majority, civil war breaks out, employing terrorism and all, until the country becomes an Islamic religious state.
This is what seems to me is hapenning in areas of africa and asia, and the balcans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:20
|
|
Wow, how hard and hardwired the notion of US power is.
Firts Che, no the Us can't bomb china into the stoneage. Hell, without bases in central asia or overflight rights over russia, we can't get to western China, and the Us doesn't have the power to get those bases or that right alone. In shor, yes, the US is powerful, but it can't act alone, it needs the help of others to do things in the world. How much more powerful is the US than Uzbekistan, and yet we have to go and cozy up to their local dictator because we need him. Could we, the 'hyperpower' US have taken those bases by force if we wanted, without getting the aid or support of any, repeat, any other state? the answer is NO. How hyper and unstopable can we be if we NEED the help of others?
And as for you Siro: first, your anti-Islamic rant is worthless. It is the relegion of 1/6th of humanity and it will keep spreading. Would Jewry even be alive today if itahd not been able to take refuge in islamic lands (ahem, the sephardim) during all those long bouts of christian anti-semitism? Would there have been any Jews in Jerusalem if the crusaders had kept them?
Islmaic fundamenalism is a modern political phenomenon bred by reperesive regimes and thier alies, the US, and heck, even Israel, though I am sure that israels lenient treatment of Hamas and before that the Islamists in the eighties and thei allowing them, by not cracking down on them as done against factions of the PLO, to grow to power was just a temporary mistake.
As for Sadam, I doubt he is trying to harness Islamic fundamentalism for his aims simply because it would sweep his secular butt out of power just as much as the Sauds, Assad or Mubarak. But perhaps I am wrong and he is just as smart as Reagan and Shamir. Still, he is a murderous man and while I will shed no teras when he dies, we certainly are going about it the wrong way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:20
|
|
Che:
Enough of the revolutionsry bullcrap. I more than know enought reasons to distrust the history of the US. and I probably grew up in a far more anti-US millieu than you, but lets get one thing straight. People act out of their own fears, people have free will and choice, and the US is not behind every plot.
Why did Saudi Arabia go along, becuase they fear us, because they think the US will invade or topple the Sauds if they don't do our unholy bidding? NO! Its bacause without our HELP they would not be able to keep their damn heads! they do not fear our actions against them, but our inaction for them. They back us for their own selish needs. If a time came when they did not need US hlp to sty alive they would and could cross us, just as Lybia, Syria, north korea, Iraq, and Cuba have done. Hell, we are only 90 miles away from Casro. If we are both so nefarious and so powerful, then why is Castro still in power when he is only 90 miles away? Either the US is not as neferious as you say, or as powerful as you say. I would osit that the US is neither as powerful or evil as you mke it out to be. Let me give you advice. If the revolution is ever to work, the revolutionaries need to know the strenghts, weaknesses, the real intentions and powers of the enemy. They way you are going, the revolution willl never succeed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Excellent article! It's nice to see someone give the US credit for all that it has done for Europe in the past 50 years. The author negelects to take into account that in the past "multilateralism" has often meant European leaders demanding the services of American soldiers, sailors and airmen, financed by American citizens, putting themselves in harm's way, in order to satisfy the new European view of a world of laws. They want a cop, they don't want a cop. No one could follow the capricious whims of such masters and retain their self respect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
morb
|
 |
San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA
Nov 2001
time: 21:20
|
|
I think this article clearly demonstrates why the US is a super power and the countries of western Europe, unified or otherwise, have been defanged (by self or others) and intend to remain that way.
You have to remember, German gov't has intentionally remained militarily weak and only after the terrible events of the '76(?) olympic games and the catastrophic failure of the german police to contain the situation have they created an elite military-like counterterrorism unit, the GSG-9. But even so, it answers to the federal police rather than the military. All this was done because they wanted to "show" the world that there would be no future threat from them and that nazism or destructive nationalism would not resurface in Germany. The rest of europe with the exception of the UK has been either in isolationist mode, like swizerland, or in "we'll take it up the butt from the biggest **** and like it" mode like France. It has been this way for more than a century now and has remained so throgh 2 world wars. At this point its in their culture. In fact this is exactly why the both world wars have existed in the first place. But especially had the rest of europe not made huge concessions to nazi germany in the 1930s, but instead intervened, there would likely be no second world war. The US is also partly to blaim here, because at the time it was playing its own version of this same standoff game and was lulled in its own isolation. But obviously the US did an about face and never looked back since December 7, 1941.
Last edited by morb on 23-06-2002 at 19:54
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-06-2002 03:30
|