22-12-2002 04:01									#31
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc What did the article say anyway? I haven't read it.

Lies, damn lies and leftist propaganda. Nothing to it at all.

	22-12-2002 06:01									#32
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Compare this to the British Empire, where everyone seemed to glory in Empire.

That's not entirely correct. In the 19th century the British Empire went through periods of popular resistance to expansion which were repeatedly quashed by one disaster or another. The East India Comapny managed to ward off pressure to officially incorporate India under the Queen's rule until the bloody aftermath of the Sepoy mutiny (the brutality of the military response) fed a ground swell to make India an empire within an empire. The British resisted official colonial involvement in Egypt and the Sudan. During the Mahdiist uprising Gordon went to Khartoum as a mercenary for the Egyptian government, not as a representative of Great Britain. His death triggered a popular reaction that forced the British to intervene in north Africa. Likewise the British initially had little enthusiasm for formal colonization of Africa until the mad rush for colonies in Africa by Belgium, France and Germany made the temptation too great.

	22-12-2002 06:12									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: ...just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now...

Sounds Klingon...

	22-12-2002 10:01									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick Lies, damn lies and leftist propaganda. Nothing to it at all.

Did Fez change his name again?

	22-12-2002 10:49									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi For all of the leftist conspiracy lets see what Bush has already done in terms of agressive actions: - Toppled the Taliban and replaced it with Karzai. We had a just causus belli in this case, the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden - Threatened Iraq. This however has only be done through getting international support and working through the United Nations. Wake me when we are actually spreading our flag around the world a la Britain.

That age is over. No nation, not even America, can plant their flag around the world and expect to get away with it.

America is the closest thing to the Roman Empire or Abbasid Caliphate that the modern, nuclear, globalized world can offer. With a network of allies around the world - it can pretty much do anything, through any means, short of visibly and utterly taking power.

As for whether that's a good thing or not, let's call it the Pax Americana.

	22-12-2002 11:02									#36
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Some people like to pretend we're better than all that. Empire, up until very recently, was a very dirty word here.

The US has been de facto the dominant power on earth since the end of WWII. It took until 2002 for someone to write an article about that?

And empire still is a dirty word - so much baggage and inefficiency. We just need a new word to package the concept, that's all.

	22-12-2002 22:55									#37
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat And empire still is a dirty word - so much baggage and inefficiency. We just need a new word to package the concept, that's all.

Hegemony.

Heck, we lefites have been writing articles like this for a long time. This is one of the first more "mainstream" magazines to broach the issue.

	22-12-2002 23:21									#38
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The Afghan campaign is a major failure Shi, I don't know why you think the Taliban is out of the picture (oh yeah, cuz the American media is telling you so ). Sure, Karzai is the current US-puppet leadership, but the Taliban is far from gone in Afghanistan.

This Iraq situation is going to turn out bad if there is war... Saddam will destroy the Iraqi oil fields and create an environmental disaster 10 times worse than the Kuwati oil fires. And if he's truly backed into a corner, Saddam will launch everything he has at anything that moves (including his own people). Personally, I don't think he's that important to risk the destruction of that oil or the lives of millions of Iraqi's. But you, like most other conservative Americans, wouldn't mind killing a million Iraqi's to save 10 cents on a gallon of gas .

	22-12-2002 23:29									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

"The Afghan campaign is a major failure Shi, I don't know why you think the Taliban is out of the picture (oh yeah, cuz the American media is telling you so ). Sure, Karzai is the current US-puppet leadership, but the Taliban is far from gone in Afghanistan."

Apparently according to Sava, a teenager throwing a grenade at a coalition vehicle equals Taliban control. I never said the Taliban was completely out of the picture, I said they are out of power- which they are. Their might still still be a few guerillas left somewhere, but they are out of power. Not to say Afghanistan doesn't still have some problems left with it, certainly influence of the warlords is a big problem. But at least the warlord are all anti Al-Qaeda, and we have got rid of the Al-Qaeda training camps. OBL used to be able to operate out in the open, now he is on the run. The military campaign agaisnt Afghanistan was a sucsess.

	22-12-2002 23:30									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I'm really surprised at the replies to this thread. If such a question had been posed three years ago not many people would have agreed that the US was fast on the way to becoming a global tyranny. I suppose it shows how poorly the Bush Administration has managed its PR.

Who would have thought that opinions similar to those of Noam Chomsky would find their way into the everyday media? -And I'm not just talking about the Pilger article - I'm talking about the mainstream press in almost every country but the United States.

I suppose you have to laugh when the Republican right ends up spreading the word better than the left ever did.

	22-12-2002 23:34									#41
	Increase the size of your Attachments

They're not in power, but by no means has Bush had any success. If anything, he simply scattered a collection of Al Qaida making them harder to find.

	22-12-2002 23:44									#42
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Sava They're not in power, but by no means has Bush had any success. If anything, he simply scattered a collection of Al Qaida making them harder to find.

At least we can go after them now. They may not have been in hiding before, but that's because they were being protected by Taliban forces. We have captured a good deal of Al Qaeda members since then with the help of our Pakistani friends, and we have made their job more difficult by making it harder for them to operate in the open.

We got the Taliban out of power, shut down the terrorist training camps, and got rid of the only country in the world that was openly harboring terrrorists. And we did it with a lot less bloodshed and struggle that some anticipated. That's a sucsess.

	22-12-2002 23:56									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I think you're both right, but you're only focusing on aspects. Al-Qaeda is as big a threat today as it was a year and a half ago. Their safe haven, however, is gone. Their allies have a much harder time aiding them.

On the other hand, we aren't as focused as we should be, as the Bushies are salivating over taking out Hussein. Our propaganda in the Moslem world is laughed at, our allies are uncomfortable with how things are going, and their people are downright hostile to us. According to some reports, al-Qaeda has reopened some of their Afgani camps, and this attack shows they and their ilk are growing bolder.

Bush may have played right into bin Laden's hands by using the attacks as an opportunity to solidify American hegemony, rather than keeping his eyes on the criminals who hit us. For now, only history will tell.

	23-12-2002 00:02									#44
	Tired of ads?

As I said before Che, preventing Saddam from having nuclear weapons is critical to the war on terrorism. In order to be able to fight the WOT in the years ahead, we need hegemony over the midddle east. We need to be able to react to any crisises that go on there decisively, and we need to be able to pressure the governments there to cooperate with us in the war on terrorism if that is nessecary. Were Saddam ot have nuclear weapons, it would severely dimish our power there and it would diminish our ability to influence Middle Eastern countries.

	23-12-2002 00:10									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

As the article suggests, this has nothing to do with why we're going after Iraq. They had planned to go after Iraq should the opportunity arise before 9/11. It's just an excuse.

In any event, Iraq is too weak now to project power beyond its borders (heck, even within its borders). They have no capacity to interfere with the US, and even if they had a bomb, they wouldn't be able to interfere with us.

	23-12-2002 00:16									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Having Nukes by their very nature increase your political power. The USSR wouldn't have had the same influence if it was without nukes. If Saddam has the ability to say "Don't do this or else I will give a nuke to Al Qaeda" or "Don't do this or I will destroy Israel" that is of course going to increase his power. A nuclearized Iraq could provide a counterbalance to US power in the region.

	23-12-2002 00:20									#47
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Not much of one. Plus the case still hasn't been made that Hussein is tupid enough and insane enough to hand over an a-bomb to those who would just as soon use it against him. That leaves the Israel threat, and frankly, that would be suicide. The bomb's only valid function is defensive, don't invade or I'll use my bomb. Well, we shouldn't be invading anyway.

	23-12-2002 00:20									#48
	Increase Your PM Length

And no one's proven they have the capacity to make a bomb. The Administration's just BAMing.

	23-12-2002 00:30									#49
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Not much of one. Plus the case still hasn't been made that Hussein is tupid enough and insane enough to hand over an a-bomb to those who would just as soon use it against him. That leaves the Israel threat, and frankly, that would be suicide. The bomb's only valid function is defensive, don't invade or I'll use my bomb. Well, we shouldn't be invading anyway.

I don't think Saddam would just secretly hand over the bomb to Al-Qaeda, but he could threaten the US "Don't do this or I will give the bomb to Al-Qaeda who will destroy you". And I think it's alot more likely OBL would nuke a western country then Iraq.

Right now we have the ability to prevent Saddam from doing stuff we don't want him to do by threatening to take military action. If Saddam gets the bomb, we lose that threat and Saddam can run free. Other countries in the region will also then have ability to ally with Saddam and then be free from US influence similarly.

If the USSR didn't have the bomb, do you think it would have been able to project the power it did? Don't you think NATO could have been alot more agressive and threatening if the communists didn't have the ability to nuke us? Having Nukes makes it easier for you to project power, not just be free from invasion.

	23-12-2002 00:32									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara And no one's proven they have the capacity to make a bomb. The Administration's just BAMing.

We know they definitely have been trying to acquire one, and they haven't been cooperating with UN inspectors. And many intelligence experts would disgaree with you, it's not as hard to get the bomb anymore- even Iran is working on it. There was a thread a while back on Poly that had an article detailing Saddam's efforts to get the bomb...

	23-12-2002 01:22									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

In response to the thread title:

Waddaya mean, 'bid'?

	23-12-2002 02:43									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

A Saddam with nukes is not a threat to the US, or US interest in the Gulf. Period. The theory of deterence worked just fine with the USSR, it works just fine over Taiwan, and it would work just as well with Saddam. Until someone proides a game theory arguement, backed with evidence, that Saddam with nukes could not be dettered, I will continue to think that the WMD arguments is crap, utter and useless crap.

The 'war on terror' is a horribily incorrect name: it is a war with Al Qaeda, nothing more, nothing less; and since the admin has failed to show worthwhile evidence of Saddams connections to Al qaeda, a war with iraq has nothing to do with our war with Al qaeda.

North Korea is the great show of the problems with the Perle argument. Men such as him overestimate the US's direct power. The weakness of our direct power is exemplified by the slow, deliberate pace of the anti-Iraq campaign, in which the US has had to use its soft power to try to cajole individuals into joining us. And DPRK (a far greater nuclear threat, with more advcanced nuclear and ballistic programs than Saddam could hope for) is simply an even greater proof. The US can't force Japan, china, Russia, or even S. Korea into a more aggressive stance (in fact, what was done sort of boomeranged in Korea in this last election) so we are left with an drifting response, while unable to step back since the top dog mentality at the Pentagon makes such a stepping back, and negotiating politically damaging.

	23-12-2002 03:23									#53
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap Men such as him overestimate the US's direct power.

I agree with most of your statement, except for this sentence.

First of all, US raw power IS vast, no doubt about that. Second, this wouldn´t be much of a problem unless coupled with political analphabetism of most Americans.

This may sound harsh, but it is proven by the fact that they let agents of a foreign power (Israel), such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Fleischer etc run the show.

	23-12-2002 03:32									#54
	Increase Your PM Length

oh, look who the cat dragged in.

	23-12-2002 03:35									#55
	Tired of ads?

What is the practical evidence of this great power? By this I mean not a simple regurgitation of equipment lists or force structure, but the ability of the US to create favorable political outcomes with its direct (military, and direct economic) power.

There are many limits to US power. One huge one is internal politics. The american people, as a whole are reluctant to use large scale miloitary forces without some given provocation. Now, an admin. way strech the meaning of a provocation as they have done with 9/11, but an act is still crucial to get the american people to support large scale action. If the admin decided tommorrow to invaed Venezuela, would it find any political support at home? Hardly.

When thinking about US power, most people ignore nukes as a pratical thing: why? Not becaue anyone doubts the ability of the US to devastate vast regions of the world, but because this power would bring with it no political gains. Russia shares this ability to devastate the world, but its real political power has declined greatly since that ability means nothing in the realm of politics.

Take DPRK: no doubt the US could beat the DPRK in any war, but only if it has access to Korean bases and japanese bases. Now, can the US, with it great power, be able to force any Japanese of S. korean regime into allowing the US to use its bases, for lest say, a pre-empive war against N.Korea? NO. The US couldn't sail a couple of carrier groups up to Japan's coast and say: we demand you allow the use of your bases so that we can invade N.Korea. Back in the 19th century imperial [powers could do so, but the realities of nationalism makes the political effects of direct threats much lower than before. Which means that event he global 'hegemon' is contrained by political considerations that would have been meaningless just 100 years ago.

	23-12-2002 03:57									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Yes, world opinion matters, in the sense that the US cannot simply invade anybody without any preparation. But they can still use money and subversion to undermine states like Venezuela, and if they really want to go to war, they will create an incident. If resistance to war is truely a problem, an 'incident' is going to happen, and the White House will say that Iraq did it, without any proof, as usual. And the war will start. It´s as simple as that. It worked for Hitler, why shouldn´t it work for Bush?

	23-12-2002 03:59									#57
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

On the other hand, what exactly do you think is happening in Iraq, in Afghanistan? Why do you think Saudi Arabia is trying as hard as possible to get cozy with the West? What is it that kept China away from Taiwan for over 50 years?

Each hegemon (and I use this word without quotes) has had its problems. No hegemon can do whatever it feels. But on the other hand, no other superpower has ever been able to turn every single culture of the world into working for itself. But America has. How many Middle Eastern regimes support America in the face of massive populous disapproval? How many East Asian nations depend on America for investments? How many European country(s) still fight among themselves along ideological lines? This is the definition of hegemony - not worldwide Empire, but worldwide, irresistible influence and dominance.

The age of global wars is over. America can no longer embark on massive wars of conquest that Alexander and Caesar managed to do, because America has found tools that are far safer and more lucrative in our day and age. With commodities and markets, nukes and diplomacy, America dominates.

	24-12-2002 02:27									#58
	Tired of ads?

quote: A Saddam with nukes is not a threat to the US, or US interest in the Gulf. Period. The theory of deterence worked just fine with the USSR, it works just fine over Taiwan, and it would work just as well with Saddam. Until someone proides a game theory arguement, backed with evidence, that Saddam with nukes could not be dettered, I will continue to think that the WMD arguments is crap, utter and useless crap.

See, that is the point. The last thing we want is Saddam to have a deterence. See, the deterence thing works both ways. With Nukes covering him, he would have much more freedom to do what he wishes. Perhaps invade Kuwait again.

And for earlier posts, who said that by giving an a-bomb to terrorists, he would be giving one to OBL or Al Quieda. He could give an a-bomb to a massive list of American enemies and terrorist groups to where there would be no threat of a backlash to Saddam. He could also give an a-bomb to a long, long list of those who would wish to use it against Israel. If done secretly, never would enough proof be found to link the bomb with Iraq in order to invade with the world's consent. As, the evidence in hand presently that he in fact has a nuclear program is still seen as insufficient by many to even just merely send in inspectors...

Also, one of OBL big things against America is how we have troops, or "infidels" stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, tainting the holy land. He uses this fact to rile up much hatred and antipathy against the US and other western nations among the Muslim populace. Why are these troops there? they are there to protect Saudi Arabia and kuwait from another Iraqi invasion. With saddam gone, and a more friendly Iraqi government in place, these troops could be removed, appeasing much of the hatred in that region.

kman

	24-12-2002 02:39									#59
	Remove this text

In all seriousnous of a question, what is so "Bad" about an American Hagemony? I thought America's job was to look out for one thing; Number 1. (# 1 being America).

Getting rid of an asshat like Saddam Hussein (and, I might add, ridding us of Saudi oil Relience and setting the stage for putting the screws on them) is simply a nice sideeffect.

	24-12-2002 02:44									#60
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kramerman Perhaps invade Kuwait again.

Perhaps with nukes Saddam becomes more of a player in the eventual Saudi Succession Sweepstakes.