Who cares what America thinks?
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
Rev_Blair @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:08 pm
Set me up all you want there, Little Nub. While you're doing that have a look at the PNAC website though, and check out their list of White House contacts.
Oh yeah, almost forgot... 
at Karra's post.
BigDubUSA @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:09 pm
karra karra:
mmm, the title of this thread is:
"Who cares what America thinks?"
Well I just wancha all to know - I DO!
So there!
If I have to go to the Peace Tower and wave my thong at the thronging crowds to declare that message - I will!
"Who cares what America thinks?"
Well I just wancha all to know - I DO!
So there!
If I have to go to the Peace Tower and wave my thong at the thronging crowds to declare that message - I will!
Wave it girl!
Rev_Blair @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:28 pm
Ralph @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:41 pm
I'am just hoping Karra is a girl 
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:44 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
They've got manpower. They also own enough of the American economy to shut it down for all intents and purposes. All they have to do is call in the debt and re-index to the Euro instead of the USD.
Would that have a ripple effect back in China? You bet, but they are still an insular society with a long tradition of looking inward. They could well decide to absord the ripples. It is also questionable, depending on the circumstances, if other countries would back the US through boycotts, loans etc.
There is much more to war than military might.
Would that have a ripple effect back in China? You bet, but they are still an insular society with a long tradition of looking inward. They could well decide to absord the ripples. It is also questionable, depending on the circumstances, if other countries would back the US through boycotts, loans etc.
There is much more to war than military might.
And do you think that Europe would support China in a war between china and the US? I think that if it ever got to that point, it would be China who started it(just like how they decided to enter the Korean war). Europe, even with all the ill feelings they hold for Americans, would still side with the US I think, and would not help out China. China tried to "look inward" like you were saying, but they have a population of 1 billion something and they had to start looking outward to be able to even feed their people. I agree there is much more to war than military might, but China has been fucked by other countries with a less population in the past just because those countries had military might. Sure, in like 20-30 years China might be a superpower if they don't overheat and if they actually open up their country more, but if a war was to happen today, I think it would either be a stalemate, or it would lean in the US's favor. The US has plenty of business also in China to greatly effect them, not to mention the US has the ability mobilize their military fast and has alot more hi-tech weapons. Drop a bunch of MOABs in Chinese cities and military areas and you will great hurt their country. Let's not forget that China exports a hell of alot more to the US than the US exports to them, also China almost imports as much stuff as the US imports to them, yet China exports more, meaning cut off relations with the US would hurt them pretty good. I mean, I can live without little toys and certain types of footwear, which they only reason they make so much is because the people in their country are paid less and work in sweatshops, which makes them a better place to get items.
If the war is a situation in which China is the one who is starting it, they could be isolated by the European Union, who I think has more ties to the US than China(even though they have riffs). China would be a hard foe, but I think the fact that at present the US is a superpower(economically and militarily)and China is a developing country buts the favor on the US's side. Now, I know at present the US economy is hurting, but they are still a strong enough country to take on a developing country, I mean let's be realistic here. The US has had years of military build up, has hitech weapons, and the economy to fund a modern day army. I am talking in present tense to, not about what will happen in 30-40yrs.
Of course, Rev_Blair probably thinks that any country could beat the US in a war, because he doesn't seem to think very highly of the US. Admit it, you know that you would think any country could beat the US in a war, I mean I have never seen to side with the US on anything.
Rev_Blair @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:28 pm
Actually I think that China is the only country on the planet that could even seriously challenge the US in straight-out warfare, Johnny.
If you read my posts you'll find I base what I say on the USA's weaknesses. Most of those weaknesses are economic, not military...although the American inablility to respond to guerilla warfare without bombing innocent civilians is troubling because it turns people against them instead of winning those all important hearts and minds.
Would the EU back the US in a war with China? The EU benefits greatly from the same cheap imports from China and other Asian countries that the US benefits from. The EU exports to the US, but don't really depend on the US to any great extent...the US is an importing nation, not an exporting one. What the US primarily offers the EU is access to military might. If that might is tied up in war with China, it is not available to benefit the EU.
On the other hand there would be some serious benefits to the EU if China were to tie their currency and/or exports to the Euro instead of the US dollar. It would push the value of the Euro higher and the price of goods based on the US dollar, primarly oil, lower.
It would also upset the balance of things...something that traditionally leads to profits for purposely disinterested third parties.
The USA's assumption of automatic backing by the EU is misguided. It depends on perceived loyalties that, given the USA's recent treatment of their allies, are kind of questionable.
karra @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:16 pm
$1:
If you read my posts you'll find I base what I say on the USA's weaknesses. Most of those weaknesses are economic, not military..
Methinks you'll find that China has just as many buckaroos invested in the good ol' US of A as the good ol' US of A has there. So instead of claiming this to be the proof of the puddin' so to speak why don't you provide exactly that, if you can. Proof of inequity of investment(s).$1:
although the American inablility to respond to guerilla warfare without bombing innocent civilians is troubling because it turns people against them instead of winning those all important hearts and minds.
There isn't a military power on the face of this globe that can do what you suggest, yet your inabiliity to differentiate speaks volumes to your knowledge and 'hate'.$1:
The EU benefits greatly from the same cheap imports from China and other Asian countries that the US benefits from. The EU exports to the US, but don't really depend on the US to any great extent...the US is an importing nation, not an exporting one. What the US primarily offers the EU is access to military might. If that might is tied up in war with China, it is not available to benefit the EU.
Do you really believe that or can you support it with facts? Should China decide to discontinue exporting what do you think will happen? That's rhetorical so no knead for you to answer - China would find itself isolated and they can't function as such. Really quite plain and simple economics to those that don't 'hate' America.$1:
On the other hand there would be some serious benefits to the EU if China were to tie their currency and/or exports to the Euro instead of the US dollar. It would push the value of the Euro higher and the price of goods based on the US dollar, primarly oil, lower.
Strictly wishful thinking - the power, the technology and the money (which you appear to despise) is in the west - if you think anyone in the western hemisphere is prepared to give up their creature comforts to tie their DOLLAR to the RMB - you, as usual, are sadly mistaken.$1:
It would also upset the balance of things...something that traditionally leads to profits for purposely disinterested third parties.
Wtf is that supposed to mean?$1:
The USA's assumption of automatic backing by the EU is misguided. It depends on perceived loyalties that, given the USA's recent treatment of their allies, are kind of questionable.
You're an even bigger fool than I gave you credit for - you might try waking up from whatever self-induced haze you wander dangerously about the streets of Winnipeg in - there is no question as to loyalties and treatment - when push comes to shove (and hopefully it won't) the loyalties lay with you and yours and your standard of living and basically whether you would rather live in a cave or remain in whatever hovel you momentarily happen to occupy.
Get real - Get a life.
Rev_Blair @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:42 pm
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 7:50 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
Actually I think that China is the only country on the planet that could even seriously challenge the US in straight-out warfare, Johnny.
If you read my posts you'll find I base what I say on the USA's weaknesses. Most of those weaknesses are economic, not military...although the American inablility to respond to guerilla warfare without bombing innocent civilians is troubling because it turns people against them instead of winning those all important hearts and minds.
Would the EU back the US in a war with China? The EU benefits greatly from the same cheap imports from China and other Asian countries that the US benefits from. The EU exports to the US, but don't really depend on the US to any great extent...the US is an importing nation, not an exporting one. What the US primarily offers the EU is access to military might. If that might is tied up in war with China, it is not available to benefit the EU.
On the other hand there would be some serious benefits to the EU if China were to tie their currency and/or exports to the Euro instead of the US dollar. It would push the value of the Euro higher and the price of goods based on the US dollar, primarly oil, lower.
It would also upset the balance of things...something that traditionally leads to profits for purposely disinterested third parties.
The USA's assumption of automatic backing by the EU is misguided. It depends on perceived loyalties that, given the USA's recent treatment of their allies, are kind of questionable.
If you read my posts you'll find I base what I say on the USA's weaknesses. Most of those weaknesses are economic, not military...although the American inablility to respond to guerilla warfare without bombing innocent civilians is troubling because it turns people against them instead of winning those all important hearts and minds.
Would the EU back the US in a war with China? The EU benefits greatly from the same cheap imports from China and other Asian countries that the US benefits from. The EU exports to the US, but don't really depend on the US to any great extent...the US is an importing nation, not an exporting one. What the US primarily offers the EU is access to military might. If that might is tied up in war with China, it is not available to benefit the EU.
On the other hand there would be some serious benefits to the EU if China were to tie their currency and/or exports to the Euro instead of the US dollar. It would push the value of the Euro higher and the price of goods based on the US dollar, primarly oil, lower.
It would also upset the balance of things...something that traditionally leads to profits for purposely disinterested third parties.
The USA's assumption of automatic backing by the EU is misguided. It depends on perceived loyalties that, given the USA's recent treatment of their allies, are kind of questionable.
Who said that a war with China would be the same as Iraq? My assumptions were based on if China attacks the US, and as we all know, the US has no problem with winning the hearts and minds of a country that actually attacks them, if you take a look at 2 Japanese cities and numerous German cities in which the US bombed to shit.
Also, the USA assumes that the EU would back them because we back them in 2 wars, or at least countries like France and Britain, and we helped Germany rebuild itself to be what it is today, so if they would not help, then that is seriously fucked up and really doesn't say much about them. If you look throughout history, the US has always had riffs with European countries, but we remain linked by common ancestory of the anglosaxon race. Even though those countries don't agree with the US, they would never turn on us, as shown by the World War 2 memorial in which two leaders who basically seem to hate each other were able to come together to remember the dead(french and american president).
Let's see, you cut down the US for just looking out for their own interest, yet you say that Europe would basically sell out the US for a Euro in China. It's like Canada being attacked by China and the US looking for ways to help China. How would you feel about that?
I think what your problem is that you have politics mixed up with loyalties. I mean according to your way of looking at the world, if China attacked Canada, the EU would be trying to get China to take up the Euro and trying to make a buck off it, because if China attacked Canada it would have bad effects on the US. Oh wait, they wouldn't do that to Canada, because it's Canada, and everyone loves Canadians.
I would also like to know how China would even be a valuable market considering they would be under attack? How many countries are valuable markets when they are constantly being bombed and when there's no safety. Not many people were able to trade with Iraq when they were being attacked.
Rev_Blair @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:00 pm
Do you mean Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Johnny? I don't know what was on your media, but ours showed civic leaders being highly critical of recent US actions. Those who supported the US were booed.
I never mentioned Iraq, either. Your country's attempts to oppose guerilla warfare without grossly violating human rights and threatening the well-being of civilian populations has been apparent since at least Vietnam. You can look at countries from Cambodia to Chile to el Salvador, or you can look at Iraq. It really doesn't matter where you look, the facts show an ugly truth.
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:11 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
Do you mean Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Johnny? I don't know what was on your media, but ours showed civic leaders being highly critical of recent US actions. Those who supported the US were booed.
I never mentioned Iraq, either. Your country's attempts to oppose guerilla warfare without grossly violating human rights and threatening the well-being of civilian populations has been apparent since at least Vietnam. You can look at countries from Cambodia to Chile to el Salvador, or you can look at Iraq. It really doesn't matter where you look, the facts show an ugly truth.
I never mentioned Iraq, either. Your country's attempts to oppose guerilla warfare without grossly violating human rights and threatening the well-being of civilian populations has been apparent since at least Vietnam. You can look at countries from Cambodia to Chile to el Salvador, or you can look at Iraq. It really doesn't matter where you look, the facts show an ugly truth.
Exactly my point. If China attacked the US, the US would not be worried about human rights violations or bombing civilian areas, they would kill whoever, because a war with China would not be a small thing. The US has been booed and has had policies that are hated for years, yet Europe still goes with the US, even Britian went with the US into Iraq. Do you think Britian would ever go with China into Iraq? Do you think Britian would ever go with China into Taiwan, if that war was to happen? I don't understand your idea of war. War is failure, yet you scream that civilians should not be killed in a war, but everyone is a target in a war, especially when it comes to stopping your enemy's economic strength. Right now China doesn't have the strength to wage a war on the US homeland, but the US has the strength, if the draft was instituted, to wage one on their homeland.
What you are implying is that European nations have no morals once so ever, and would go to China's side, even if they attacked the US, and break all loyalties and history with the US. There's alot of people that bitch about American policies, but this isn't a matter of bad American policy, this is a matter of China attacking the US, disrupting the world, and killing people, and the US defending themselves. The US has not attacked China before, but China has attacked them in the Korean war, which is why I figured they would be the people attacking again.
I feel sorry for you if you believe everything that is on the media, especially from what you told me, it sounds like that is a pretty serious bias. People booeing and being extremely critical of another side is not fair and balanced, but extremely biased and almost brainwashing. If that is the only point of view you get, I really feel sorry for you.
Too bad Bush fucked things up though in Iraq, I'm voting Kerry. If there was no Iraq I would be about 100% sure that the US could take on China.
Rev_Blair @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:54 pm
China has shown no intention of militarily attacking the US, Johnny. They have shown no intention of military action outside of Asia. Don't expect them to roll over and play dead though. Most certainly don't think they will not or cannot act out against the US. The US has shown a very real tendency towards expansionism.
Will the EU back the US in such a case? Why, if it wasn't in their interests, would they? That makes the question whether it would be in their interests or not. The Bush administration has been working overtime to ensure that the US is working for nobody's interests but its own.
This is where diplomacy not of the gunboat variety would normally come into play. The Bush administration has given no indication of understanding anything beyond their ability to threaten though.
polemarch1 @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:59 pm
A war between China and the US could easily lead to a much larger war. If the war appears to be a long one or one in which Chinese forces become heavily commited near Taiwan, India may decide to try to take territory in Kashmir controlled by China. This could bring Pakistan into the conflict on China's side. At the same time if the US is forced to pull troops from Korea the North may make another try at the South. So much military action nearby would almost certainly cause Japan to pump more money into her military. American Special Forces and CIA would probably try to start an uprising in Tibet. Point is things would get real messy real fast and a nuclear exchange is a possablity.
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:56 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
China has shown no intention of militarily attacking the US, Johnny. They have shown no intention of military action outside of Asia. Don't expect them to roll over and play dead though. Most certainly don't think they will not or cannot act out against the US. The US has shown a very real tendency towards expansionism.
Will the EU back the US in such a case? Why, if it wasn't in their interests, would they? That makes the question whether it would be in their interests or not. The Bush administration has been working overtime to ensure that the US is working for nobody's interests but its own.
This is where diplomacy not of the gunboat variety would normally come into play. The Bush administration has given no indication of understanding anything beyond their ability to threaten though.
Will the EU back the US in such a case? Why, if it wasn't in their interests, would they? That makes the question whether it would be in their interests or not. The Bush administration has been working overtime to ensure that the US is working for nobody's interests but its own.
This is where diplomacy not of the gunboat variety would normally come into play. The Bush administration has given no indication of understanding anything beyond their ability to threaten though.
It would be in everyones interests if there was a war between china and the US. If China started the war, it would be an attack on a major western power. Even if you don't believe it, alot of other countries are tied into the US's economy, including Canada, and other nations trade with them and so on. If China attacked the US, I think the world community would be on the US's side, if the US attacked China it would probably be the other way around. As anti-american as the world is, they are still more anti-war, and China attacking the US would deal a major blow to China's image and would push them more onto the US's side. A war between the US and China would be a completely different war than the Iraq war, and it would greatly effect many people. Since you are clueless to even this point, and think that the EU would stay as a third party and not get involved, I think this hypothetical arguement is over. The European world war wasn't the US's problem, but we still helped out certain countries. To say that they would not help the US really shows how flaky and weak they are. I know that if Canada was attacked by China I would help, or if they attacked Britian, Germany, Poland, and so on. Unlike you I actually have a sense of helping people out who have helped me, and try to think beyond dollar bills. Lets just hope someone like you doesn't run the world. Just because France doesn't agree with the Iraq war, doesn't mean that we have never helped them out and that they wouldn't help us out in a time of need. I don't remember Chinese troops storming the normandy beaches to free France.
Zenfisher @ Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:43 pm
If this scenario ever played out ( I tend to agree with Johnny...war is failure)Europe would be obligated to side with the US because of the commitments to Nato. Its only other option would be to remain neutral.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next