Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why did your country choose to be weak?

Why did your country choose to be weak?
Thread Tools
kindbud
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spliffdaddy's Farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 12:50 PM
 
people make choices about things that are important to them.

Those choices reflect their feelings and beliefs.

Why do the citizens of the USA always decide to support a strong military?

Why do most other countries choose not to?

When you bitch and moan about the USA's power while you do nothing to strengthen your own country's power - nobody takes you seriously.

If you don't like the USA being a superpower, then do something about it. We've only existed for 200 years - yet we kick everyones ass.. What the hell have you folks been doing for the last 200 years?

If keeping the USA in check is so damned important to the world, why hasn't 'the world' made any progress towards that goal?

Blame the USA all you want. I'll just sit here knowing you really don't care enough about it to take action.

Either the USA really is superior - or you other folks haven't made an effort.

Pick one.
the hillbilly threat is real, y'all.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 12:55 PM
 
FWIW, I really don't think the US allows other countries to develop an arsenal large enough to "kick our ass". That has to do more with the machiavellian concept of those who already wield power will not accede that power unles directly forced to do so by a stronger power.

If you're the biggest bully on the block, it seems odd to blame the other kids for not knocking you off...because you're the biggest bully on the block, you're going to preemptively beat up anyone else who might potentially be a threat to "keep them in line"...right? Isn't that the present US foreign policy?
     
Developer
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 12:57 PM
 
Is this even desirable that we beat up each other?
Nasrudin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side: "Hey! how do I get across?" "You are across!" Nasrudin shouted back.
     
kindbud  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spliffdaddy's Farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 12:57 PM
 
So you're saying that the other countries waited too long and now it's too late?


Didn't they see this coming? It didn't happen overnight.

Why should we take advice from countries that made bad decisions about their own defense?

It's easy to say "we can't do that". It's way more difficult to say "we choose not to do that."
the hillbilly threat is real, y'all.
     
kindbud  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spliffdaddy's Farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 12:58 PM
 
Originally posted by Developer:
Is this even desirable that we beat up each other?

Only if you win.

If you come unprepared, you might lose.
the hillbilly threat is real, y'all.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 12:59 PM
 
Originally posted by kindbud:
So you're saying that the other countries waited too long and now it's too late?


Didn't they see this coming? It didn't happen overnight.
do the names Hiroshima and Nagasaki mean anything to you?
     
kindbud  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spliffdaddy's Farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 01:03 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
do the names Hiroshima and Nagasaki mean anything to you?
We spent money and made an effort. Hence, we had a better defense.

You illustrate my point perfectly.

Any country could have produced an atomic bomb if they really wanted to. The USA decided it was worth the effort. Other countries decided it wasn't.

Now here we are today.
the hillbilly threat is real, y'all.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 01:10 PM
 
Originally posted by kindbud:
Any country could have produced an atomic bomb if they really wanted to. The USA decided it was worth the effort. Other countries decided it wasn't.
Lots of countries have thought it was worth the effort. Notably the Nazis whose technology the US used to produce their bombs.

Many countries have the technology to produce nukes, many have done it before, many still have them.
     
Developer
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 01:10 PM
 
Wow, you are a real idiot.
Nasrudin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side: "Hey! how do I get across?" "You are across!" Nasrudin shouted back.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 01:23 PM
 
Originally posted by kindbud:
We spent money and made an effort. Hence, we had a better defense.

You illustrate my point perfectly.

Any country could have produced an atomic bomb if they really wanted to. The USA decided it was worth the effort. Other countries decided it wasn't.

Now here we are today.
Well, there WAS the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I know, I know, the US regards international treaties as spitball munition, but oddly, *other* countries tend(ed) to adhere to them.

Today, of course, the "Yield or we'll bomb ya" attitude is tremendously motivating, though only to terrorists, not so much to nations.

-s*
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 01:34 PM
 
Originally posted by kindbud:
Any country could have produced an atomic bomb if they really wanted to. The USA decided it was worth the effort. Other countries decided it wasn't.
Actually, many countries were trying to develop the atomic bomb, on all sides of World War II. The US just happened to be the first to get one actually working.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
xv_ronin_vx
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Around
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 02:20 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
do the names Hiroshima and Nagasaki mean anything to you?
Ever hear of Pearl Harbor?
Nazi death camps?

A sudden end to the war in the Pacific?
We helped them rebuild?

Who offered to help rebuild the two towers in NY that fell in 9/11?
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 02:23 PM
 
Originally posted by xv_ronin_vx:
Ever hear of Pearl Harbor?
Nazi death camps?

A sudden end to the war in the Pacific?
We helped them rebuild?

Who offered to help rebuild the two towers in NY that fell in 9/11?
try reading the context of my post, and what it was replying to.
     
kindbud  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spliffdaddy's Farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 02:29 PM
 
I just don't see the point in developing a country that depends on others for its defense.

Having a great infrastructure, good education, and all the wonderful stuff everybody strives for - isn't worth nuthin if you can't defend it and guarantee its continued existence. A strong military is like an insurance policy for your country's investment.

Americans have worked hard and sacrificed in order to insure their investment. And after paying those premiums for 200 years the world is aghast, up-in-arms, and upset when we file an occasional claim. Good grief. "The world" could be likened to the dreaded "uninsured motorist". Not responsible enough to insure their vehicle - they, instead, rely on the victim to fix his own car.

No, I'll never be convinced that your way of doing thigs is better than ours. Not as long as you aren't willing to make some sacrifices on its behalf. Either you believe in it or you don't.

You want to get the USA's respect?

Get off your ass and do something. Pay your own insurance premiums. Handle Iraq the way YOU see fit. I hear a lot of whining, but i don't see anybody willing to DO aything about it.

Come on, France. Fire a few rounds over the bow of our battleship. Mass some troops at the Turkish border and ready those Mirage jets. Knock out our air defenses and bomb a major US city.

Give your beliefs and your words some merit.

Otherwise your moving lips look a lot like the other moving lips.
the hillbilly threat is real, y'all.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 02:32 PM
 
kindbud: just where is this coming from exactly, anyways? Did something happen recently in the news that I missed?
     
kindbud  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spliffdaddy's Farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 02:35 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
kindbud: just where is this coming from exactly, anyways? Did something happen recently in the news that I missed?

It's in response to decades of global whining over US policy.

Either the USA is simply superior to all other nations

OR

Other nations have not made an effort.


I'm giving the world the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that they haven't made an effort.
the hillbilly threat is real, y'all.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 02:39 PM
 
Originally posted by kindbud:
It's in response to decades of global whining over US policy.

Either the USA is simply superior to all other nations

OR

Other nations have not made an effort.


I'm giving the world the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that they haven't made an effort.
or the third possiblity is that there is validity to the criticism of US policy.
     
kindbud  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spliffdaddy's Farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 02:41 PM
 
How would we know?

Who's criticism has merit?

Who speaks from experience?

Who's willing to DO it right?


Honestly, Lerk, if other countries are so sure they're right - why don't they show us how to do it?

We're willing to let Iceland handle the problem first.
the hillbilly threat is real, y'all.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 02:41 PM
 
Here's a scenario. Throughout history many countries have had their day. You wouldn't know it today but middle easterners used to be on top of the world. When people in the US think of superior technology they think of the US. A great technological advancement that is still used today are guns, which were invented by the middle easterners, (right?).

Then Europe evolved into the leading countries of the world. The UK was a super power for a much logner time than the US has been so far. You see these countries have been established for such a long time (2000 years or more), that they have used up all of their resourses.

200 years ago they managed to find a way to replenish their resources, that is they found America. I all really comes down to money when your talking about the US's superior technology. And money represents resources. There is nothing superior about the ways of the people of the united states. If you recall the US was settled manly by people who couldn't make it in other countires…aka losers…failers….these immigrants came to the us for a new start. The countries that found the US lost power over it and hence lost money for the future.

Now the US 200 years ago is formed with a fresh start of resources but they arnt forced to evolve over a period of time like the countries of Europe to reach the same status as Europe. The settlers didn't have to waste time and resources inventing guns and weapons, technology because they came to America with the technology in hand. This gave the us a head start were they could use all of their resources developing new technology of all sorts.

This is not a matter of other countries making poor decisions. They would like to be able to do what the us does too but they don’t have the money (resource). As they prospered at the time in history before they used up all their resources…..the US will follow….and its time will probably be shorter than most other superpowers since Americans are the most wasteful people in the world.

The US is simply riding on a tidle wave of money from the past and its losing momentum.
You arent special. You dont have value just because you were born. You are a net drain on the planet. Respect must be earned & your value must be proven. Endangered species are special, & their survival should take priority over your comfort.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 02:45 PM
 
Originally posted by kindbud:
I just don't see the point in developing a country that depends on others for its defense.






You want to get the USA's respect?

Get off your ass and do something. Pay your own insurance premiums. Handle Iraq the way YOU see fit. I hear a lot of whining, but i don't see anybody willing to DO aything about it.

Come on, France. Fire a few rounds over the bow of our battleship. Mass some troops at the Turkish border and ready those Mirage jets. Knock out our air defenses and bomb a major US city.

Give your beliefs and your words some merit.

Otherwise your moving lips look a lot like the other moving lips.

France helped the US out a lot after the 9/11 attack with the aid of medical attention and their troops.
You arent special. You dont have value just because you were born. You are a net drain on the planet. Respect must be earned & your value must be proven. Endangered species are special, & their survival should take priority over your comfort.
     
kindbud  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spliffdaddy's Farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 02:47 PM
 
ah, young grasshopper.

Money isn't derived from 'things'.

Money is derived from labor (physical effort and/or time).

"Resources" encompass both labor and 'things'.

Exchanging labor had the net result of the US coming out on top of other nations.

Today, we remain the most productive nation per capita - on the planet.
( Last edited by kindbud; Jan 15, 2004 at 02:54 PM. )
the hillbilly threat is real, y'all.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 03:03 PM
 
Originally posted by kindbud:
ah, young grasshopper.

Money isn't derived from 'things'.

Money is derived from labor (physical effort and/or time).

"Resources" encompass both labor and 'things'.

Exchanging labor had the net result of the US coming out on top of other nations.
So when you go out and buy a dime-sack, you're not spending money on the weed itself, you're spending it on the labor it took to get that week to you? Technically yes, but that labor exists only because the weed exists. If it were not for the "things" there would be no reason for the labor and thus no money. So money does come from "things".

And looking at the example of Japan. Japan did not choose to be weak. In fact, they choose to be strong. They tried to take over all of Asia, a pretty damned ambitious goal that required a lot of strength. They were probably strong enough to do it too, except that as a small island nation most of their resources come from imports. Oil, in particular, was an import. The US (and various other countries) decided to blockade Japan's oil supply to prevent them from acheiveing their goal of taking over all of Asia. Some people (namely the Germans) were able to get past the blockade and still deliver oil, but Japan's reserves were still running out quickly. The attack on Pearl Harbor was intended to break the resolve of America. It was timed to coincide with the decrease in alertness following holiday celebrations at Pearl, and aimed at decimating the US's pacific fleet which would have destroyed the blockade allowing more oil into Japan for as long as it took for America to bring ships across from the Atlantic. Despite the fact that it failed, that the Japanese were able to pull off such an attack shows both tremendous resolve and tremendous strength. That the A-bomb was ready was unknown, and that anyone would unleash that kind of destructive power on a civilian population was unthinkable. It was only through America's unpredictable barbarism that the Japanese were so utterly defeated.

The downfall of the Japanese empire was exactly the same kind of arrogance and overconfidence that America now displays. And the weaker nations now are complaining about it just as they (including the US) did when Japan was the mighty empire doing as it pleased.

All powers are destined to fail, it's just a matter of time. The question is, why will the US choose to be weak?
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 03:22 PM
 
A lot of cheap, hard labor is hired out of the US to other countries. However the US counts that as capital generated by the US since its done by US companies.

This is done while fat americans sit around in executive offices getting fatter, while complaining about having to do too much work for too little money.

Do you ever hear an american say I want to be a T shirt maker when I grow up....

no thats why they go to school, to get an elite possition not called "executive" by the americans themselves but non-the less a job of doing the least work and the most sitting and eating.

Thats what I'm going to school for... so I can sit around at work doing this
     
kindbud  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spliffdaddy's Farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 03:27 PM
 
Are Americans real good at planning - or are they real paranoid?

It seems to me that the USA didn't accidentally become a 'superpower'. It would almost have to have been a long-term goal. You don't accidentally dominate the competition for decades on end. Unless you're the Dallas Cowboys.

In all seriousness, the foundation for the difference between Americans and non-Americans seems to be something as simple as perspective. Americans see themselves as Americans - while non-Americans see themselves as citizens of the planet.

While we look to ourselves first and foremost for the solution to ANY problem - other countries rely on the collective knowledge of the world at large. We have a term for that behaviour in the US - that reliance on one-another. It's a glorious thing we call "community spirit"...though it suddenly becomes a hideous monster that cannot be trusted when it leaves the geographic boundaries of the US.

Is reliance on other people a bad thing? Hell no, everyone has to do it. Especially the US. I'm of the opinion that people are inherently good. I've argued that many times. I see no difference between people of any nation in that respect. You can trust an Iraqi citizen just as much as an American citizen - on average. Now, don't get me wrong... the Icelanders are an exception. Those guys cannot be trusted. They're so quiet you just know they're up to something.

So we have 2 ways of doing things. We have the 'American way' and the 'non-American way'. Both rely on people to do the right thing, therefore neither way can really be superior to the other.

What drives the difference in mindset between Americans and non-Americans?

Hell, you don't have to look any further than our blind patriotism to know we feel differently than 'foreigners' do about their country. We love our country before we love the planet. This is a viewpoint not often shared by foreigners. What drives their mindset?

So you see, Spliffdaddy indeed has thought about this stuff before he posted. I'm way ahead of most folks in this forum. and I'm stoned like pretty much 24/7.
the hillbilly threat is real, y'all.
     
kindbud  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spliffdaddy's Farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 03:37 PM
 
Originally posted by el chupacabra:
Here's a scenario. Throughout history many countries have had their day. You wouldn't know it today but middle easterners used to be on top of the world. When people in the US think of superior technology they think of the US. A great technological advancement that is still used today are guns, which were invented by the middle easterners, (right?).

Then Europe evolved into the leading countries of the world. The UK was a super power for a much logner time than the US has been so far. You see these countries have been established for such a long time (2000 years or more), that they have used up all of their resourses.

200 years ago they managed to find a way to replenish their resources, that is they found America. I all really comes down to money when your talking about the US's superior technology. And money represents resources. There is nothing superior about the ways of the people of the united states. If you recall the US was settled manly by people who couldn't make it in other countires…aka losers…failers….these immigrants came to the us for a new start. The countries that found the US lost power over it and hence lost money for the future.

Now the US 200 years ago is formed with a fresh start of resources but they arnt forced to evolve over a period of time like the countries of Europe to reach the same status as Europe. The settlers didn't have to waste time and resources inventing guns and weapons, technology because they came to America with the technology in hand. This gave the us a head start were they could use all of their resources developing new technology of all sorts.

This is not a matter of other countries making poor decisions. They would like to be able to do what the us does too but they don’t have the money (resource). As they prospered at the time in history before they used up all their resources…..the US will follow….and its time will probably be shorter than most other superpowers since Americans are the most wasteful people in the world.

The US is simply riding on a tidle wave of money from the past and its losing momentum.
Guess everyone will just have to wait it out, then. yep, sooner or later the US will slip from the top spot. Just a matter of time.

Brilliant.

And look. That reasoning even applies to life, things, and the Ying Yang Twins Saltshaker song.


get comfortable.

we've only been a superpower for 50 years.
the hillbilly threat is real, y'all.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 03:43 PM
 
Man have you got this all mixed up.

Are you actually suggesting that Europse can't defend itself? The only force in the world that threatends the combined Defenses of Europe is the US which is its closest ally.

Collective defense is the new strategy for 2 obvious reasons:

1) Europe hasn't been invaded from without since the Ottomans
2) All of Europe's wars in the last 200 years have been internal conflicts. That problem was solved by cooperation and common interest.

And all your blathering about the US's committment to national defense seems to have forgotten that our military has become almost exclusively an offensive weapon since the end of the Cold War.

That trend is actually accelarating under the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption and "benevolent global hegemon".
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
kindbud  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spliffdaddy's Farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 03:54 PM
 
Europe is a country?

no. wait. it's a group of nations that happen to rely on each other for defense.

whoa.

when I'm right, I'm damn well right.

Why doesn't 'Europe' ever file a claim on their insurance?
the hillbilly threat is real, y'all.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 04:07 PM
 
Are Americans real good at planning - or are they real paranoid?
They'er really paranoid

It seems to me that the USA didn't accidentally become a 'superpower'. It would almost have to have been a long-term goal. You don't accidentally dominate the competition for decades on end. Unless you're the Dallas Cowboys.
The laws of economics and politics has little to do with goals. The founding fathers may have had a goal, but goals like that are never carried out for long. The corruption was already very visible shortly after. It is in everyone's nature to gain knowledge of which the sole purpose is to ultimately help them gain leverage over other people. This is what drives the economy (if its not plainly obvious). It may have started out as individuals competing with each other to gain power over the rest of the average. Then people saw it was more efficient to form groups (corporations) to get the most product with the least labor. This results in corporations competing with each other to see who can out do the other. Each person is hoping his product will be something that so many people are so dependent on that he can acquire more leverage in the form of social credit/money. That is all there is too it, the corporation nor the individual cares about a goal to become a super power or anything less. The meaning is as deep as a puddle. Getting this leverage results in great technological advances. You see technological advances aren’t the goal, they are the result of the goal, which is to acquire social credit. The advances are then used for further leverage on other counties. Think about it if it were all about goals don't you think our elected officials wouldn't be the riches most easily to bribe Americans but the smartest and most moral? Don't you think macs would be the dominant platform not windows? Don't you think firewire would be 'the' port to have not USB 2 (which really sucks)? Its all about social credit.
In all seriousness, the foundation for the difference between Americans and non-Americans seems to be something as simple as perspective. Americans see themselves as Americans - while non-Americans see themselves as citizens of the planet.
Speak for yourself. I for one don't see myself as a cheerleader/sorority-girl-playing-house/member-of-a-superior-club that I owe allegiance and hard labor (to carry out a goal) to just because I was born here. A lot of Americans do I suppose but not a significant proportion. Its better to think of yourself as a citizen of the planet.
While we look to ourselves first and foremost for the solution to ANY problem - other countries rely on the collective knowledge of the world at large. We have a term for that behaviour in the US - that reliance on one-another. It's a glorious thing we call "community spirit"...though it suddenly becomes a hideous monster that cannot be trusted when it leaves the geographic boundaries of the US.
We look to our federal government. Why don't we look to our state and nothing higher? That was the was it was meant to be. The US because federalized because some states on their own are almost helpless, and dependent on other states. If its not about resources they why did the civil war happen? If the south had succeeded the US would not be a super power today because no matter the hard effort put in, the resources would have been too greatly divided. When you look at other nations dependence on other realize their size is about that of one of the states.


So we have 2 ways of doing things. We have the 'American way' and the 'non-American way'. Both rely on people to do the right thing, therefore neither way can really be superior to the other.
There is only one way of doing things, the way that achieves the most power.

What drives the difference in mindset between Americans and non-Americans?

We love our country before we love the planet. This is a viewpoint not often shared by foreigners. What drives their mindset?
Are you sure all Americans think this?
You arent special. You dont have value just because you were born. You are a net drain on the planet. Respect must be earned & your value must be proven. Endangered species are special, & their survival should take priority over your comfort.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 04:13 PM
 
Originally posted by kindbud:
Europe is a country?

no. wait. it's a group of nations that happen to rely on each other for defense.

whoa.

when I'm right, I'm damn well right.

Why doesn't 'Europe' ever file a claim on their insurance?
And what if europe joined together as one country and called themselves states? would it be fine to rely on itself then?

By the way other countries don't complain about the US inless it imposes on them. Iraq was in debt to france to of course france is mad about it when they see their personal interest threatened.
You arent special. You dont have value just because you were born. You are a net drain on the planet. Respect must be earned & your value must be proven. Endangered species are special, & their survival should take priority over your comfort.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 04:51 PM
 
I think if the Europeans got together they'd kick your American ass! Heck they'd probably take you with 9 hands tied behind their backs. The UK, France and Germany together could whip you boys. They have a far better track record. I mean, your Army hasn't exactly been great in battle when it hasn't had help from outside. Vietnam, Korea, Somalia. The US Army is not exactly the very model of a modern major army!

(note this post meant in the same spirit of seriousness as the original post).
     
perryp
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 04:58 PM
 
Mr Kindbud, let's get a few things right about 'Superpower' America.

The last war that America won on its own was the the US-Mexican War (1846-1848). For that I congratulate you. Well done. The last time America tried to fight a war largely on it's own it lost against a poorly equipped third world country (Vietnam). The US has a very poor history of military successes.
     
effgee
Caffeinated Theme Master
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: hell (says dakar)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 05:46 PM
 
Originally posted by kindbud:
*irrelevant content snipped*
Either the USA really is superior - or you other folks haven't made an effort.
Here's a tip for you - sit down for a minute and think about where (the overwhelming majority) of the following comes from:
  1. The capital that let's your government buy these weapons (Hint #1: I'm referring the origin of the capital, not "taxes". If you can't find the answer, ask yourself why more and more companies in your country have weird names like Daimler-Chrysler.)
  2. The fossil fuels these weapons need in order to be produced, stored, moved, fired etc.
Now that you're already sitting down, ponder this:

What would happen if either one of these things (or even both) were suddenly withdrawn from the US?

(Hint #2: "We'd bomb 'em" is not a realistic answer, "occupation" not an option because you can neither pay for it, nor do you have a military force that would be large enough to occupy more than two, three countries at a time)

Light bulb going off yet? No - I didn't think so. But here's two more to marvel over:
  1. Even if it meant turmoil and chaos for a few years - in the end, the rest of the world could exist very well without the US, the US however can not exist without the rest of the world.
  2. Nuts to bolts, military power is irrelevant - it's capital that counts, nothing else - and right now, your country is so broke, it's bleeding from nearly every proverbial bodily orifice - especially the one not often reached by sunlight. The number "500,000,000,000" in combination with the term "deficit" too abstract for you?
Disillusioned? I know you're not - was more of a rhetorical question - but you really, really should be.
     
planetpetey
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: london, berlin , perth
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 05:53 PM
 
Originally posted by kindbud:
people make choices about things that are important to them.

Those choices reflect their feelings and beliefs.

Why do the citizens of the USA always decide to support a strong military?

Why do most other countries choose not to?

When you bitch and moan about the USA's power while you do nothing to strengthen your own country's power - nobody takes you seriously.

If you don't like the USA being a superpower, then do something about it. We've only existed for 200 years - yet we kick everyones ass.. What the hell have you folks been doing for the last 200 years?

If keeping the USA in check is so damned important to the world, why hasn't 'the world' made any progress towards that goal?

Blame the USA all you want. I'll just sit here knowing you really don't care enough about it to take action.

Either the USA really is superior - or you other folks haven't made an effort.

Pick one.
Other countries choose not be involved in an arms race because they have a more peaceful, or less confrontational hope to their future. Neither do they wish to impose their will apon the world, or involve themselves in the inner workings of other sovereign nations like the USA does. In effect, they live by the tenets of democracy and co-existence, whereas the US government just shouts about those ideals but does not live by them.

Particularly in Europe and east-Asia, where the painful lessons of warfare, arms-racing and interfering in other nations affairs has left a legacy of menace, the utter ridiculousness of trying to be THE super-power is a road now known to be folly.

Like you said, the USA is only 200 years old, and is still yet a long long long way from having the maturity and wisdom to use its youthful power wisely.

Why do its citizens want a strong military u ask? I dont think they really do...the only way you can address that question is by looking at American voting. It's the people who decide what the government will be...and as the USA has one of the lowest democratic involvment ratio's in the free world, it's the enormous MINORITY of Americans who vote that have ensured that successive governments' invest in a strong military, yes..but also an aggressive private sector using both arms industry and military might to increase its market share of global economics.

American bravery, democratic ideals and love of freedom were REAL up to about 40 years ago. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone outside the USA on this small blue planet that believes those ideals exist as motivation to American military might any longer.

NB: I havent said any of the above to be anti-American. The USA is absolutely amazing. However, I have just said what I feel is a sad truth about a once admired and envied nation.
sometimes the machine that goes "ping"
can go "boing" instead
     
Nonsuch
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 05:58 PM
 
/involuntarily recoils in fear from effgee
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.

-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 05:59 PM
 
Originally posted by planetpetey:
Other countries choose not be involved in an arms race because they have a more peaceful, or less confrontational hope to their future. Neither do they wish to impose their will apon the world, or involve themselves in the inner workings of other sovereign nations like the USA does. In effect, they live by the tenets of democracy and co-existence, whereas the US government just shouts about those ideals but does not live by them.

Particularly in Europe and east-Asia, where the painful lessons of warfare, arms-racing and interfering in other nations affairs has left a legacy of menace, the utter ridiculousness of trying to be THE super-power is a road now known to be folly.

Like you said, the USA is only 200 years old, and is still yet a long long long way from having the maturity and wisdom to use its youthful power wisely.

Why do its citizens want a strong military u ask? I dont think they really do...the only way you can address that question is by looking at American voting. It's the people who decide what the government will be...and as the USA has one of the lowest democratic involvment ratio's in the free world, it's the enormous MINORITY of Americans who vote that have ensured that successive governments' invest in a strong military, yes..but also an aggressive private sector using both arms industry and military might to increase its market share of global economics.

American bravery, democratic ideals and love of freedom were REAL up to about 40 years ago. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone outside the USA on this small blue planet that believes those ideals exist as motivation to American military might any longer.

NB: I havent said any of the above to be anti-American. The USA is absolutely amazing. However, I have just said what I feel is a sad truth about a once admired and envied nation.
I think I love you.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
swrate
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 06:10 PM
 
Loved going through this thread, wow

The title, Why did your country choose to be weak?
What do you mean "weak"?
WEAK? :o
(as if using weapons was the only way of being "strong"-----when usually weapons are forbidden)
"My country is stronger then yours"
"No mine is stronger: "he" works in the Police"
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 06:10 PM
 
Originally posted by kindbud:
people make choices about things that are important to them.

Those choices reflect their feelings and beliefs.

Why do the citizens of the USA always decide to support a strong military?

Why do most other countries choose not to?

When you bitch and moan about the USA's power while you do nothing to strengthen your own country's power - nobody takes you seriously.

If you don't like the USA being a superpower, then do something about it. We've only existed for 200 years - yet we kick everyones ass.. What the hell have you folks been doing for the last 200 years?

If keeping the USA in check is so damned important to the world, why hasn't 'the world' made any progress towards that goal?

Blame the USA all you want. I'll just sit here knowing you really don't care enough about it to take action.

Either the USA really is superior - or you other folks haven't made an effort.

Pick one.
I know your post was made to bait the people who complain about Bush's government and/or the US' foreign policy and actions, but it's a little bit simplistic none the less, I think.

I'll an example. South Africa, where I come from, under the white supremist Apartheid government, was by far the strongest and most capable military power on the African continent. They fought something like 45 000 Cuban soldiers plus the same amount of Angolan regulars, equiped with the latest weapons the Soviets could give them, to a standstill in Angola, and they did it with, in the largest battle ever in Angola, around 4000 troops.

South Africa lost around 1700 soldiers in the war in Namibia and Angola from 1965, when the insurrection started in Namibia, to 1989, when Namibia gained independence from South Africa. The opposing sides, comprising the insurrectionist SWAPO guerillas, FAPLA Angolan army regulars, ANC guerillas who had training camps in Angola, the Cuban expeditionary force and Soviet and East German advisors lost around 18000 soldiers in the same period.

South Africa had nuclear weapons and ballistic missile systems to launch them.

They lost in the end anyway, not militarily, but because they had no support from the majority of the people of South Africa, who along with international economic sanctions brought South Africa to its knees financially.

I'll give you yet another example. You talk as if the USA has been the world's only superpower for last 200 years, even though this is far from the truth. From before the 19th century and until the end of World War 2, Europe was at least as militarised as the USA. In the 19th century, Britain was the world's dominant military power, and the war of 1812, when Britain had captured and sacked Washington DC with minimal effort and only ended hostilities because there was never any real reason for that war in the first place apart from, in a striking similarity to the Iraq conflict, that Hawks in the government wanted one to gain territory from Canada.

And yet another one. The USSR in the 70s and 80s had the world's most powerful military. The SS-18 Satan MIRV'ed ICBMs that the USSR had so frightened Reagan that he fought specifically for them to be reduced in the Reykjavik arms reduction talks. If it had ever come to a nuclear war in the 70s or 80s, much of the world would have been destroyed. The USSR lost the cold war, however, but it lost it financially and politically, not militarily.

I can't speak for most European nations, but from what I can gather, most of them simply can not afford to overspend on their militaries the way the USA does. It would break their economies and would almost certainly lead to their governments being voted out in the next elections. Whether this is right or wrong I don't know. It's the way things are right now.

If you want an example of a nation that today is emerging as a real competitor to the USA, then it is the Chinese. China has been very wise in recent years in that they have avoided any messy foreign military ventures and have instead concentrated on improving and updating their military and on making gains in technology such as their manned space launch last year. In fact Bush's dubious proposal to place a man on the moon in 10 years is partly a direct response to that.

And China is growing. Who knows where the USA and China will be in 20 or 30 years time? Perhaps by then China will have made its manned moon mission and will be the world's dominant military power. Who knows?

And what about India? India is growing in strength from year to year as well, with, also like China, a strong growing economy, a large and nuclear equiped military and the staed goal of launching men into space.

Spliff, shouting one's mouth off about one's country's strength is always a temporary thing. Perhaps you know of a world power or empire that has maintained its strength over the centuries and millenia, because I certainly don't.
weird wabbit
     
effgee
Caffeinated Theme Master
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: hell (says dakar)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 06:20 PM
 
Originally posted by Theolein:
is emerging as a real competitor to the USA, then it is the Chinese
And Theolein hits the nail right on the head - yessir!!
Originally posted by nonsuch:
/involuntarily recoils in fear from effgee
ROFL - nice one!
     
swrate
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 06:25 PM
 
If no one had weapons, what would the planet look like, nation borders? Agressivity, ideas to kill each other, we are barbarians.

armies of men marching,
toy tanks hawks
what for?
couldnt money be better spent?

yes, I am a dreamer.
     
Ayelbourne
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scandinavia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2004, 06:35 PM
 
Originally posted by swrate:
yes, I am a dreamer.
- but you're not the only one!




Kindbud, try to make that bag last a while! Don't power through it all at once...

     
Myriad
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2004, 12:07 AM
 
Why would European countries need to increase their defense spending when they have no need for increased defense? For any large scale war, the global nuclear umbrella that is possessed by the United States still must be taken into account. Dueling nuclear arsenals at a standstill kept western Europe out of danger during the cold war, and it remains that way today. Not to mention the fact that the armed forces in most western European countries are still far more advanced than what most of the world is capable of.

Originally posted by kindbud:
Why do most other countries choose not to?
I wasn't aware that most countries in the world chose to have weak militaries. Europeans may, but they can get away with it. Most middle eastern states are rather fond of strong militaries. African countries definitely know the value of keeping guns readily available. How about Asia, specifically North Korea. Militarization has done wonders for the people there.

Originally posted by theolein:
If you want an example of a nation that today is emerging as a real competitor to the USA, then it is the Chinese.
I'm sorry, but that's laughable. The PLA is antiquated, and most of their recent modernization efforts have merely made them slightly less antiquated. They lack the economic strength necessary to begin real build-up of what would be considered a viable, modern fighting force. Japan, a country that is pacifist by design, could wipe the floor with anything China could hit them with. Like Western Europe, they have very modern and very deadly weapons.

And finally, I never understood why people would take the strength of their country's military so personally. This country has the most powerful military in the world, but there's no tank in my driveway and they won't even issue me a damned assault rifle if I join the army. Anyway, I would hesitate before I start chest-thumping about the military. We have the largest, most sophisticated, most influential armed forces in the history of mankind, and we still don't feel safe. It's become a necessary tool for preserving U.S. interests, and the western world reaps a lot of the benefits. Canada, Japan, Western Europe, they're all fat and happy (relatively speaking), and they don't have to put forth two dimes to defend themselves. And we'll be forced to keep spending more. Yippee.
Have you seen me?
     
quandarry
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: between a rock and a hard place.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2004, 04:03 AM
 
let's see now...

the US got wupped real good in the revolutionary war. if not for the french navy you'd be singing god save the queen.

got wupped real good in the war of 1812. some big house got burnt...had to paint it white to hide the scorching.

wupped yourself in the war between the states.

took you and world to wup germany.

took you and the world to wup germany again.

pearl harbor...

korea was a stalemate...no peace treaty was ever signed only an armistice.

vietnam fired there guns and the yankees went a runnin'
they ran so fast the cong couldn't catch 'em
down the mekong delta to the pacific ocean.

beirut...what was up with that and somalia and on and on...

the US has a history of
     
kindbud  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spliffdaddy's Farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2004, 06:06 AM
 
so the French haven't been on the winning side since the Revolutionary War?

yikes.
the hillbilly threat is real, y'all.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2004, 06:15 AM
 
Originally posted by kindbud:
so the French haven't been on the winning side since the Revolutionary War?

yikes.
Uh, are you forgetting Gulf War I?
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2004, 07:58 AM
 
Christ, what a boring thread. Kindwad a.k.a Spliff starts a troll topic in order to humiliate the foreigners here. How original.

Funny though that one needs to be proud of a national military to get self worth because one doesn't even have enough money to buy a P4, which is why one bought a Celeron, isn't it Spliff?

OK, let's save ourselves the trouble of wasting more time with this: You're right Spliff. The rest of the world is a bunch of chicken hearted fu©kers compared to the mighty boys of the US of A. The good ole boys have the biggest, bestest, strongest and most expensive military by far. The mighty yankees can kick the sh1t out of any nation on earth, especially the western euros, because the euros are a bunch of fu©king ungrateful chicken sh1t fu©kers anyway, unless that nation is some impoverished Arab nation with nothing to lose, or some war torn south east asian nation with nothing to lose. But that was just bad luck and the eurotrash only mention that because they are too scared to fight. The stars and the w^hstripes would have won if it hadn't been for the comnmies and the leftist pinko traitors at home who betryed us then and are betrying us now. Fu©k it, let's just nuke those euro****ers and the chinese while we're at it and then the world belongs to us, well the non radioactive part anyway. BUt you foreign pussies couldn't fight a war if your lives depended on it, which is why you always depend on us and should be grateful that you fu©ker can even speak your disgusting nigger^h^h^h^h^h^hsh1t languages. And we're the richest too, even if we can't afford to pay for health insurance. But fu©k you euro pussies anyway. You got no guts or guns.

OK, now its all been said. End of thread.

Except, of course for the Hillbilly threat is boring part.
weird wabbit
     
perryp
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2004, 08:02 AM
 
Mr Kindbud, Vietnam, a third world country, WON. Mr kindbud, the US hasn't won a war on it's own since it beat Mexico in 1848. Mr Kindbud, you're a fraud. You need to go on the Witless Protection Program to save you from your own stupidity.
     
perryp
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2004, 08:05 AM
 
I find it disturbing that I'm on the same side as Mr Kak Kak Theolein
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2004, 11:16 AM
 
EVERY empire falls.

The larger they are, the harder they fall.

That's what scares most people about 9/11. Unless history is completely fictional... we could make a safe assumption that the fall of the US empire will be something.

It always happens. No empire falls softly.

In the end, it's always easier (and more fun ) to watch one fall, than to make it fall.

Then the position is up for grabs.

Empires always commit suicide.

The rest of the world has experienced this. They know all they have to do is sit back and wait.
     
effgee
Caffeinated Theme Master
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: hell (says dakar)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2004, 03:48 PM
 
A little gem I fell across today that reminded me of kindbud's "delusions of grandeur" (Original article here) ...

"With the current-account deficit running at an annual rate of some $550 billion or thereabouts, America now needs to borrow more than $1.5 billion a day from foreigners to finance its spending habits and keep the dollar at its present level." ... "Together with Japan’s central bank, the People’s Bank of China financed half of America’s current-account deficit last year."

Just make sure you don't tick off no Asian people anytime soon - your government might just run out of money to buy gas (diesel, respectively) for them "Watch-Out-Towelheads-We-Are-The-Superpower"-tanks.

As so many things in the US ... your (perceived) superpower-status is an illusion paid for by others who - one nice day - will begin collecting their outstanding debts. Watch out for the repo-man.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2004, 04:03 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
OK, let's save ourselves the trouble of wasting more time with this: You're right Spliff. The rest of the world is a bunch of chicken hearted fu�kers compared to the mighty boys of the US of A. The good ole boys have the biggest, bestest, strongest and most expensive military by far. The mighty yankees can kick the sh1t out of any nation on earth, especially the western euros, because the euros are a bunch of fu�king ungrateful chicken sh1t fu�kers anyway, unless that nation is some impoverished Arab nation with nothing to lose, or some war torn south east asian nation with nothing to lose. But that was just bad luck and the eurotrash only mention that because they are too scared to fight. The stars and the w^hstripes would have won if it hadn't been for the comnmies and the leftist pinko traitors at home who betryed us then and are betrying us now. Fu�k it, let's just nuke those euro****ers and the chinese while we're at it and then the world belongs to us, well the non radioactive part anyway. BUt you foreign pussies couldn't fight a war if your lives depended on it, which is why you always depend on us and should be grateful that you fu�ker can even speak your disgusting nigger^h^h^h^h^h^hsh1t languages. And we're the richest too, even if we can't afford to pay for health insurance. But fu�k you euro pussies anyway. You got no guts or guns.

OK, now its all been said. End of thread.
Well that was downright American of you, theo!

The disturbing thing is that it actually did sound very American...
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,