 |
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I'll give you an example of why you're totally naive. Just because you don't target somebody one day, doesn't mean they're a friend, or neutral, or whatever. It means, they're simply a lower priority target for the time being, since nobody can take on everybody at once.
|
Yes, and Europe is a low-priority target of the United States. But nevertheless, you *are* already trying to hurt our economy.
Itīs not 'Islam against the World', dear. Itīs 'US against the World'.
I am a bit ahead of others to realize that, but be assured itīs only a question of time. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Part Two: Sure, Israel depends on the US. But this is not mutually exclusive with what Iīm saying. Think Symbiosis. Ruling castes are inter-dependent. I see the New World Order as a half-step back to Capitalism/Feudalism. |
My problem is that you are retreding a thin-worn neo-nazi lie when you say that the US is controlled by Israel or by Jews. Israel is part of US domination of the ME. Israel is a cog, not a lever.
Yes, there is a symbiotic relationship, but that doesn't mean Israel can control American policy. Israel is our muscle in the region, nor our brains. We use Israel to keep the ME in line. Israel doesn't use us, even if they benefit from this relationship.
Israel's ruling class isn't even in the same league as America's ruling class. Israel is a military outpost, not a member of the imperialist club. Maybe if the Rothschild's moved to Israel, but for now, they're still part of the French ruling class.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
My problem is that you are retreding a thin-worn neo-nazi lie when you say that the US is controlled by Israel or by Jews. Israel is part of US domination of the ME. Israel is a cog, not a lever.
Yes, there is a symbiotic relationship, but that doesn't mean Israel can control American policy. Israel is our muscle in the region, nor our brains. We use Israel to keep the ME in line. Israel doesn't use us, even if they benefit from this relationship.
Israel's ruling class isn't even in the same league as America's ruling class. Israel is a military outpost, not a member of the imperialist club. Maybe if the Rothschild's moved to Israel, but for now, they're still part of the French ruling class. |
I actually agree with most of this; Iīd still be happy if you word your part-disagreement with my posts in somewhat less loaded speech. 
About the post above: The part I disagree with is: You equate saying the US is controlled by 'the Jews' -this is what Neo-nazis said, last time I checked-, with saying that 'there is a strong Jewish Lobby with considerable influence on shaping foreign policy', which is what I say. See the difference?
That the way the Israel Lobby uses its influence may actually help Neo-nazis is just another bad effect of this influence; however it doesnīt make the fact that Aipac &c exist and do exert considerable influence a 'Neo-nazi lie'. Itīs still an unfortunate fact, double unfortunate, as it gives ammo to Neo-nazis, yes. But if the Left pretends not to be aware of that (pretty obvious) fact, this will help the Neo-nazis even more, at least in the long term.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Sikander: You call the European world-view unrealisitc, that for 50 years they have felt safe, so forth and so on: And for 50 years we haven't as well? Were the Europeans less afraid of nuclear war than us? and in the event of any actual war, weren't they the front line, as opposed to ebing an ocean away? And what about those Europeans older than 60? They certainly have seen a much crueler world than Americans: the last time any American saw his home burned to the ground by and invader was 1865. Wasn't the Europeans who had metal detectors first, cops and cameras everywhere first? weren't London, Paris, Berlin, and Madrid facing bombings regularly back when no American thought it was possible here? So were does this "realisitc" view of the world come from, when we have faced less difficulty, less suffering and less crisis than anyone and any other people in the world? Until 9/111, every single crisis the US saw was far abroad. |
Sure we all faced imminent destruction via massive nuclear war, if the Soviets launched an all out attack. It didn't matter whether you were in Germany or Colorado either, the threat of that was pervasive, if tiny. So I don't buy the front line argument. In addition to the European security situation, the U.S. faced considerable risk of involvement around the world, including two large wars in Asia, one of which is still smoldering today in Korea.
It is true that the U.S. didn't face much risk of its homeland being destroyed by its involvement in these far off wars, but it did suffer hundreds of thousands of casualties to its conscripted forces, which is not an inconsiderable direct risk if you were a young man at the time. Everyone knew someone who was involved in the fighting, and for many it was a father, brother, husband, or a son whose life was on the line. Europe never faced these sorts of challenges on the same scale, their contributions to the Korean War notwithstanding. There are millions of U.S. combat veterans living among us, and most from wars much more recent than WW2.
As for the terrorist threat to Europe, while the U.S. never faced such a thing to the degree that Europe has until recently, the actual scale of these attacks was tiny. Our own domestic murder rate in one year blows these numbers for the whole period since the end of the Second World War out of the water. So I stand by my argument, that a violent world is much more realistic to an American than a European, just as a violent world is much more realistic to almost anyone around the world than a European.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Maybe you knew someone directly involved, but the last time involvement was widespread was Vietnam.
The European view of the world is not unrealistic, or certainly no more unrealistic than ours. If "suffereing" and living in insecurity is the measure of being able to "see the real world", then by god, lets ask someone from the Congo to tell us what the world is like, cause they sure as hell have seen more than anyone here, or the US, or Europe. |
I've known people directly involved in almost every action the U.S. has been involved in from WW2 until the present. Of course I am certainly more connected to these events than most Americans are, being older, having served in the military, coming from a military family, and having spent 6 years of my childhood on Okinawa where the Vietnam war wasn't something that you only saw on the news, but felt everyday. Two of my friends lost their fathers in the same week there, I saw the 3rd Marine Division saddle up and deploy right by my house on their way to the DMZ, combat air patrols messed up out TV reception at 10 minute intervals, and I was awoken by the sound of a B-52 crippled over Vietnam being turned into a mountain of scrap aluminum as it crashed attempting to land at Kadena, and all of its bombs went off.
So I'm not exactly a typical American, and I'm getting less so every day. That said, I do think that the ROTW and the U.S. understand each other better than the U.S. and many Western Europeans do when it comes to these issues. Our viewpoint is more logical to India and Pakistan than Germany's viewpoint, because as different as our experiences are in every other way, we both understand what it's like to be at war more or less constantly. In many instances we agree with the values that Europe can afford to live out to a greater extent than we do, but we also see much more readily how these values will not protect you from the vast majority of the world's population that do not share them. This head in the clouds thinking (fairly absent here on this wargame site in comparison to its popularity in the general population) that gives birth to such phrases as "War must always be the last option." (apparently somewhere after surrender) is what I object to, as it lessens the feasability of even my own intermediate viewpoint on the usefullness of power, and dooms those who claim to have the moral high ground with what is essentially a pacifist policy. Pacifism only works if everyone else is a pacifist, or you allow someone else to protect you, which essentially means that pacifism cannot work in today's world, and probably won't ever work completely. That said, I do think that the world can back away from the level of violence and industrial scale destruction that it has experienced since WW1. I just don't think we are going to get there solely by singing Kumbaya and blithely assuming that everything will be just fine if we follow the golden rule.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Sikander:
"who often have similar goals in the world, and are capable of carrying their portion of the load, including and especially the ability to act militarily in their own interest independentlywhen necessary."
That is a possible outcome of America's relative decline and the need to cut back on its strategic commitments. The other scenario is that the current alienation turns into a strategic rivalry. Unless you (american citizens) retake control of your political system, I think the second scenario is more likely. |
Perhaps so, were I President I would always have the worst case in mind as I worked for the best case. In the past I would have assumed that the geopolitical geometry would make strategic rivalry practically unavoidable, but these days I can't see how this would work exactly. The costs for merely putting ourselves in this position are extremely high. Were such a rivalry to develop, I would simply give ground until Europe was up to its a$$ in the swamp of Africa, the Middle East and Western Asia. Welcome to our world.
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"We see much of Europe as having spent decades under our protection and having developed an unrealistic view of the world, as if any other portion of the globe has the sort of security provided by the Atlantic alliance"
You have to admit that those who frame US "security" policy live in a fantasy world. As for security, EU-Europe is currently for the first time in its history in a situation where it is practically safe from internal war and invasion. A situation enjoyed by the US from 1800 on, which was the hightime of the classic liberal view on international relations, now replaced with this pseudorealist brain****ing. |
Interesting point, though I have a couple of quibbles regarding the 19th century. Firstly, we had foreign troops on our soil as late as 1814. Until 1848 we had a very large Mexico on our southern border, and it was the conventional wisdom amongst European observers that the U.S. would have its a$$ handed to it in the Mexican war. Then the civil war (and France's intervention in Mexico while we were busy, and finally a long border with the world's preminent power Great Britain. The war with Spain was not too tough, so we'll ignore it. It all adds up to a less than rosy security picture, but I agree better than being a small state in central Europe or the Balkans.
As for this administration's foreign policy, it seems to have been hijacked from a secure and phased withdrawl policy as outlined during the campaign (written by Condi Rice) into a policy that I cannot for the life of me parse. Some of the original policy is still visible (Regime change in Iraq for instance, and even some of the Axis of Evil stuff), but the rhetoric is outlandish to say the least. In any event it is enormously ambitious whatever one thinks of it, which isn't a good sign.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Were such a rivalry to develop, I would simply give ground until Europe was up to its a$$ in the swamp of Africa, the Middle East and Western Asia. Welcome to our world....
Interesting point, though I have a couple of quibbles regarding the 19th century.... |
Ad 1: France is targetted by the GIA for supporting the algerian regime, the PLO was connected with groups like the RAF, France and Belgium got muddled up in african conflicts.... really, nothing new. I just doubt there is much impetus for europe to inherit your problems (unlike the US did from europe after 1945). Rivalry can take many forms, and the chequebook is as powerful a weapon as the sword.
Ad 2: It was clear after 1783 that no power could control the US landmass against its population. The brits could not do it in 1812/14, and the Mexicans of course could not do it in 1846, and the French even less after 1865. And the war with Spain? Spain was not really positioned to invade the US, or? That the US got into conflicts through its early expansionism does not change my point - I did not claim a perfect record.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Ad 1: France is targetted by the GIA for supporting the algerian regime, the PLO was connected with groups like the RAF, France and Belgium got muddled up in african conflicts.... really, nothing new. I just doubt there is much impetus for europe to inherit your problems (unlike the US did from europe after 1945). Rivalry can take many forms, and the chequebook is as powerful a weapon as the sword. |
Tell that to a man with a sword! Seriously, if the U.S. could force you to build up your military (through the potential threat rather than direct action) you may find yourselves sucked into more conflicts than seems likely at this time. Already we see Europeans intervening in their old colonies in Africa, could a large and mobile EU army resist the political pressure to stay out of Congo, Zimbabwe, Rwanda etc? I'm not sure it could.
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Ad 2: It was clear after 1783 that no power could control the US landmass against its population. The brits could not do it in 1812/14, and the Mexicans of course could not do it in 1846, and the French even less after 1865. And the war with Spain? Spain was not really positioned to invade the US, or? That the US got into conflicts through its early expansionism does not change my point - I did not claim a perfect record. |
OK, but when put this way there are a large number of European countries that would also fit this description. Certainly Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway etc. would all have been unconquerable if their populations were stirred to action. But in general, I agree, the U.S. had fewer defense concerns than Europe did, and generally a much less refined sense of the pressures that more war torn countries faced, or in many ways the reverse of the current situation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Tell that to a man with a sword!"
We're talking proxy conflicts here. Just help your proxy buy a sword....
"I'm not sure it could."
A common EU force would require a political mandate for action, which can realistically only come from the European Council (in combination with the European Parliament). This creates a gridlock that would make it diffcult for one country to get its agenda served. Which also makes it difficult to get to such a common force, of course...
"Certainly Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway etc. would all have been unconquerable if their populations were stirred to action."
Germany vs France in 1871 proves the opposite. Others weren't tested, but only the British Mainland was secure in that way - and there its empire was under several threats.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Certainly Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway etc. would all have been unconquerable if their populations were stirred to action."
Germany vs France in 1871 proves the opposite. Others weren't tested, but only the British Mainland was secure in that way - and there its empire was under several threats. |
No it doesn't prove the opposite, as we are comparing apples and oranges here. Britain had a much larger political goal vs the U.S. (complete conquest and surrender of sovereignty) than Germany did against France in 1871. Many states were capable of standing up to a similar British assault on their sovereignty at the time, which tends to bring about a maximum effort to resist on the part of the population. Compare the relative weakness of the U.S. against Britain in 1812-1814, where the British were fighting Napolean at the same time, yet still managed to fight the Americans to a standstill because they had much more modest political goals in this conflict.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
France might have bee ndifficult to hold on to, but it definately was not unconquerable in 1871.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-02-2003 00:05
counterweight to the US Empire.
|