 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by elijah
Good TV |
But ratings are down everywhere, even in the midst of a new season.
We gotta start another war. Let's go back to Vietnam and surprise the phuq outta those people.
"You make a movie?"
"Not this time, pal."
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:31
|
|
Drake:
Since the end of WW2, you were the absolute boss of the West, but you had very little influence on countries of the East bloc. The collapse of the USSR made yourself the hyperpower watching the whole world, and you determined the rules of the New World Order (the countries that don't follow the rules are tagged 'Rogue Nations')
Your status as a undisputed hyperpower is fading away. For the first time since the fall of the Societ Bloc, you must negociate as an equal with a partner -the EU- albeit it is in the restricted area that is trade. Your previous wars needed some sort of local support, as showed by Kosovo and Bosnia, whose success needed the massive participation of the Euros in the peacekeeping forces. You couldn't act alone as the big guy anymore, but you were rather the "Sheriff of the posse".
Unfortunately, after the initial hype following Sept. 9, the Posse was less and less willing to be under your command. France has always been a pain in the ass, but the behaviour of Germany and Russia is new. China hides not its hostility to your policies, even though it can't afford to act on them for now. The massive worldwide wave of opposition to your international policies (this has never been seen to such extent) may lead more and more countries astray to what you decide.
The whole UN farce, and the pathetically small "coalition of the willing" showed that your wishes aren't always followed anymore. And this is new. So far, the opposition to the US is unorganized, and plagued by the delusions of grandeur of Chirac and the Chinese, but it may structurate into a cohesive understanding.
And that's why the US needs to show who's the boss. Because it's not as obvious today as 10 years ago.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tripledoc
|
|
BTW. The Russians are currently thinking very hard about converting their oil revenues into Euros.
I do think that our dear euro-bureaucrats are pushing the envelope. I mean what if some psycho pervert is going to be president of the US, what will they do then?
And all it is going to do is that now it will be the rich in Europe sitting on their asses doing nothing, while the American workers will have to slave away even more. Christ all mighty.
The whole solution must be that the US simply jump bail and join the Euro. We salute you.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001 time: 14:31
|
|
quote: For the first time since the fall of the Societ Bloc, you must negociate as an equal with a partner -the EU- albeit it is in the restricted area that is trade. |
What are you talking about? I hate to burst your arrogant EU bubble, but the Japanese were a bigger and better economic threat to the US long before the Euro was even conceived. You guys aren't special in any way.
quote: Your previous wars needed some sort of local support, as showed by Kosovo and Bosnia, whose success needed the massive participation of the Euros in the peacekeeping forces. |
Wars fought on the behalf of European countries incapable of solving the problems themselves. What did we get out of it? Not gratitude, at the very least.
quote: Unfortunately, after the initial hype following Sept. 9, the Posse was less and less willing to be under your command. |
Hence the "prodigal son" comment. It seems that Old Europe is so desperate to escape the shadow of the American hyperpower that they are willing to ally with thuggish countries like Russia and China. I say go right ahead, but I can't help but think you're going to look back on this period of your history with shame. You should be used to that by now, though.
quote: The whole UN farce, and the pathetically small "coalition of the willing" showed that your wishes aren't always followed anymore. And this is new. |
It's not new and anyone who thinks so is deluding themselves. I can think of countless examples of America's wishes not being followed long before the present day.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc
I mean what if some psycho pervert is going to be president of the US, what will they do then?
|
I don't think Larry Flynt has a chinaman's chance at public office.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tripledoc
|
|
We in Europe are incredibly weak. The whole western hemisphere is weak in fact. The international investors are getting, how you say, scroungy. They don't see any rent coming out of their investments. There is one thing, however, which will let us all out of this incredible mess. Now the Us economy is simply running at full speed, the wheels are falling of, they can't inflate the currency supply one bit more. However the Euro is 'strong' as they say, meaning there is still room for a much greater money supply. So the plan is: America goes bust -Argentina style- then the Euro moves in. Everybody wants a piece of the action - they need that Euro. The European central bank turns the money supply to full steam. Now everybody will need more and more money to make ends meet and work harder and harder. The great supplies of dollars in the European central banks will be worth just about zero, so the Europeans will have to sweat too.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jaguar
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000 time: 00:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Spiffor
There were many motivations to go to Iraq. None would have been enough to go to war by itself, but the combination of them were a good incentive:
- Oil. More precisely: the ability to get a strong oil producer (a "swing producer" who can supply oil when demand rises drastically) that is not Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have funded terrorism bigtime and will continue to do so until they sufeer from a significant pressure from washington. However, until GulfWar2, the US were tied because they needed Saudi oil; and Saddam would have probably been a very insensitive supplier.
To establish a puppet regime in Iraq allowed not to be dependent on the Saudis anymore, and to actually take real steps in the war on terrorism by acting against the House of Saud.
- With several 'rogue countries' (read: countries that do not follow the rules of the New World Order as they have been defined by the US and their friends) beginning to near completion of their WMD programmes, the US had to show its muscle. Since North Korea is already too dangerous to attack, Saddam was the target of choice.
He was the easiest to attack: his army was weakened by the previous war and 12 years of embargo; his population would love to see him gone; his WMD program was stalled for long; and he was already pictured as the big villain in the American public opinion; his country is mostly desert, and it is much easier to do an airborne assault on such terrain than on Iranian mountains. I don't know if the top US officials at the time knew how much the military leaders would suck, but that may enter the equation too.
- All the ruckus about Iraq begun shortly before midterm elections, at a time when Americans wondered why Bin Laden hadn't been founded yet. For a long time, the threat to Iraq (and then the actual war) was a Wag the Dog operation. I personally expect them to "discover" damning evidence of Saddam's HorribleHorribleOMGOMG WMD during the campaign.
- I think the Neoconservative belief of changing the Middle East so that it becomes democratic had something to do with it too. Iraq was weak, and its atrocious regime wouldn't be missed. Besides, Iraq has the potential of being rich, with its sea of oil and with a possibly strong agriculture. Iraq may have been dreamt as the playground of the neoconservative democracy.
- It also was a power play. The New World Order is being discussed more and more, the USA are losing of their relative strength to emerging powers like the EU or China. Doing this war helped showing who's the boss. It went unexpectedly badly on the diplomatic side, when France, Germany, Russia and China kept being opposed. These countries were expected to follow Washington's lead in the end (such expectations were held for every country on Earth). The mere 40ish membership of the "coalition of the willing" shows that DJ Bush Jr. can't have everybody dance on his music anymore. Such diplomatic failure was unexpected.
- Saddam's WMD may possibly have been part of the reasons. US intelligence in Iraq seems to have sucked very much, and we should not rule out the possibility that the White House actually believed Saddam was developing WMDs seriously, and had to be taken out before being too dangerous to topple. |
I quote Spiffor since I agree with every one of his points. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote: I don't think Larry Flynt has a chinaman's chance at public office. |
I'm so jealous that you're allowed to use that phrase. |
Yeah, well, can't use the n word, and 'cracker' is about as daring as saying 'drat'. I live on the edge. No, wait, I am the edge. No wait, dammit I lost my train of thought.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:31
|
|
Aren't you Japanese?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:31
|
|
I don't know who that is. Is he whiter than Ted Kennedy?
Don't despair - I think you can say whitey too. And you can actually BE 'the Man.'
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:31
|
|
As I said, I don't hold the role of the EU as a threat, but as a competitor. And the EU's influence on worldwide trade is now similar to America's save for the currency issue. This is why I was talking about multulateral negociations, and that's why you were answering with bilateral negociations 
quote: We're doing it in Asia, as the North Korean negotiations show. |
Yes, and that's new. A few years / decades ago, you'd just have entered the place all guns blazing, and you'd have requested an agreement from your allies on the fly. Same in Europe.
quote: Why the artificial time frame? |
Because the US is the worldwide hyperpower only since the end of the Soviet bloc. Before the collapse, half of the world escaped the US grasp, whereas only the rogue states did escape it thereafter. As you said it, we are returning to a pre-1991 system, where the US will be one of the major actors under several major actors, rather than THE only voice worth listening like it is now. And this is exactly what I call a fading power.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002 time: 05:31
|
|
Yep, as does whitey to us yellow men.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dry
|
 |
Brussels
Sep 2000 time: 06:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Jack_www
ANd 390 dead for a conflict is very, very low. Just compare this figure with the thousands to millions that dies in past wars the US has fought. |
Some stats (I have lost the link, sorry):
Revolutionary War 4,435 (55/month)
War of 1812 2,260 (75/month)
Mexican War 13,283 (87/month)
Civil War: Union 359,528 (2293/month)
Civil War: Confederate 198,524 (1553/month)
Civil War: Combined 558,052 (3846/month)
Spanish-American War 2,446 (96/month)
World War I 116,708 (2816/month)
World War II 407,316 (6639/month)
Korean War 33,651 (909/month)
Vietnam War 58,168 (526/month)
Gulf War 293 (148/month)
Total 1,196,612
EDIT: the first number is the KIA+others deads, the number in paranthesis is only KIA/month.
Last edited by Dry on 22-10-2003 at 18:07
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|