Sukotto said:
That will never happen. The US economy may implode, but it is very highly unlikely that the US could ever be defeated militarily, many people agree.
Those people are wrong. At the rate China is catching up, we'd be able to defeat them in either a limited war, or, in full-scale war, through use of nuclear weapons. And I don't think we have the stomach ever to use them again (thank God), so that rules out that possibility.
Economically, if we begin to collapse (and that is a possibility, since our entire economy hinges on gas), you must admit that China will be one of the sharks looking to bite a piece of meat off of our dying carcass. A small squabble over the PacRim with our economy in the gutter would secure China's future as a military power in that sphere, as well as severely damage American business interests there.
Honestly, the days of the American hegemony are numbered. Now, I know plenty of people worldwide would rejoice to hear that, but I have to ask, who is willing to fill our shoes as global policeman? Someone has got to step up to the task. And so far, in my opinion, we haven't abused that position half as much as we could have. Or half as much as China or any other country would.
Elizabeth van Kampen said:
But why on earth has the USA treated Japan so completely different from Germany at the end of WWII?
Excellent points!
However...
Was the USA so scared for China, for Russia in those days? Amazing.
You don't remember the rapid-fire succession of countries Stalin's tanks rolled into during the late 1940s or 1950s? You don't remember the Berlin Blockade? And you don't remember when Khruschev stuck missiles in Cuba? It's not amazing that we were scared. It's frickin' obvious we were, and we had every reason to be.
Han-chan said:
The mentality of the US is like if Japan was still occupied. This is one of the main reasons for why many japanese would like to see the US forces go - no matter that the country is not able to defend itself right now.
It can't. Their very constitution forbids an army larger than the Self-Defense Force.
The historic and political differences were many, but one thing makes me wonder: Why does no one seem to have any hang-ups regarding the Italians?
I had a great-uncle who remembers the Italians lynching Mussoulini and dragging him through the streets. While he did make the trains run on time, not too many Italians really wanted to get bogged down in Ethiopia, nor did they like the idea of having German "allies" occupy their country in order to "help" fight off the Americans and British.
Crazy Russian said:
They seem to me to still have the Cold War mentality.
WHAT? What Americans are
you talking to? Half the Americans under the age of 25 think the Cold War was just a story made up by the Republicans. When I think of
Soviets I think of the Cold War. When I think of
Russians I think of hot women, cold weather, Stolichnaya vodka, and organized crime.
Don't let your president rape your mind, please. And believe me that the Chinese, the Iraqi, the North Koreans, etc., are not your enemies.
1) Our president is not raping our mind. We are quite divided on politics right now. It is almost as bad as our political divisions on the eve of our Civil War in 1861.
2) The Chinese are pissed off at the West for 200 or 300 years of abuse, political leveraging, manipulation, hegemony, you name it. Queen Victoria of England was the biggest drugdealer in human history, and she pushed her goods on China. We have a reason to be a little fearful of them. Especially since I remember watching Tienammen Square as a young boy on TV.
3) Most of us don't think the Iraqis are our enemy. Some of us think Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are our enemies. There is a difference. I've spoken to plenty of U.S. servicemen who have been in and out of Iraq, and almost unanimously they say that we are doing the right thing. (Note: there are some dissenting soldiers, but I have yet to meet any of them).
4) As for North Korean, Kim Jong Il is building bombs that can reach California. Why? For protection? From whom? South Korea? Why does he need a bomb that can hit San Francisco if he needs to hit Seoul? The guy is a modern-day Viking, making us pay his
Danegeld. There's an old English saying, "If you pay the
Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane." They would know.
Those who unleash wars are our common enemies.
Consequently:
George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert are our common enemies.
Well done! No sophistry. Just simple (and irrefutable) logic, isn't it?
Who unleashed a war in Chechniya? Why didn't you just let them go? Under that "irrefutable logic", Boris Yeltsin is your enemy, too.
You say this, and then you laud Napoleon later?
No, this logic is far from irrefutable. Besides, if England had "unleashed a war" against Hitler in 1938, it would have avoided a lot of trouble. But it didn't, because it strove for a temporary peace.
Well, there's an old Roman saying, "A bad peace is even worse than war." And a Greek philosopher once said, "If you are too eager to preserve peace, you may find yourself with a master."
The wars you country has waged are stupid and nonsensical. They have been waged for the sole purpose of destabilising the world.
So Stalin was championing stability when he invaded Eastern European countries?
Let's run down the gamut of American wars.
War for Independence (1775-1783): Goal was independence from England.
Barbary Pirates' War: Thomas Jefferson's war against the Barbary States of North Africa, who were famous for raiding the coasts of both Europe and America and capturing Christian slaves. After this war, the slave-raiding and extortion stopped forever.
War of 1812 (1812-1815): U.S. fought England over their raiding of American merchant ships and impressment of American sailors into the British navy.
Mexican War: A border-dispute over the Texas border with Mexico, as well as over Santa Anna reneging on his deal to let us buy the rest of the continent. Even though we won, we still paid the Mexican government for the land we conquered, and we paid them the previously agreed-upon amount. Then we bought the "Gatsden Purchase", a small sliver of land, from Mexico for 8 times the amount that we paid for the rest of the territory we got.
U.S. Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression (1861-1865): This war was probably the most noble and honorable war fought in human history, because it was fought for ideals. The North fought to preserve the Union and thereby the Constitution, and to end slavery; the Confederacy fought for the right of individual states to have more power over their destinies. No religion. No money. No greed. No kings telling them to. The war was fought purely for idealism.
Spanish-American War: We were sick of the Spanish interfering in the Americas, and the Carribbeans wanted independence, which we gave most of them. Besides, we thought they blew up one of our ships (it turns out that it was a boiler explosion, not a torpedo, but we didn't find that out until recently).
American-Filippino War: A war fought to maintain our hold on the Philippines as a colony. Although we defeated the rebels, we agreed to give the Philippines limited autonomy with the promise of eventual sovereignty/independence, a promise we made good on in 1946.
Indian Wars: Wars fought against Native American tribes fighting against the United States government. Many times the Native Americans were justified in their fights against the U.S., yes.
World War I (1917-1918): We fought in the last year of a war that was already tearing Europe to shreds.
World War II (1941-1945): We fought this war because the Japanese and Germans declared war on us. By the way, this, again, was already tearing up Europe. And we were isolationist before and didn't want to get involved.
Korean War: We were part of a United Nations army preserving the sovereignty of South Korea.
Vietnam War (1965-1972): We were fighting alongside the South Vietnamese army to keep South Vietnam from becoming Communist, just like in Korea. Unlike Korea, we were largely unsupported in this fight. We were fighting because we were afraid of the Domino Theory, which, ironically, turned out to be true. Khmer Rouge ring a bell?
The Persian Gulf War (1991): We fought a war, alongside the United Nations, to liberate Kuwait from Iraq. We should have removed Hussein then, but namby-pambies didn't want to finish the job.
Afghanistan: The Taliban was an open and proud supporter of Al Qaeda, who had
just flown planes into the World Trade Center.
Iraq: Rumors of NBCs (which, it was recently reported, turned out to be
true) as well as rumors of Al Qaeda links (which have yet to be proven), as well as the fact that we should have knocked Hussein out back in 1991.
Well, the only wars to foster instability could be the Spanish-American War as well as the current Iraqi war. So, no, not every war has been a war to foster instability.
You are so biased against the United States it is amazing. No wonder you think the Cold War is still on. You seem incapable of anything but insulting Americans and their history. I'd be surprised if there were any Americans who
didn't give you a cold reception because of your attitude.
Russia saved the world from Napoleon and Hitler.
Umm, no. Wellington saved the world from Napolean. And if it wasn't for the war on the Western front dividing the Nazi army, you'd be speaking German right now.
On the one hand, I am delighted with Napoleon. He was genius and one of the greatest human beings ever. He braved the world.
On the other hand, I am delighted with the Russian soldiers who beat the Napoleon's Army (perhaps, the Greatest Army ever) when it invaded the Russian Empire.
I'd rather die at Gettysburg, 1963, fighting to set men free.
Your hero-worship of Napoleon is hypocritical. The man was a tyrant who manipulated a frightened France that had undergone a decade of chaos during the Reign of Terror. He modeled his ascension to the throne after Augustus, and called himself
l'empereur. His greed and ambition knew no boundaries. However, given how much the Russians are Francophiles, I'm not surprised you'd stylize him as a great man while lumping all Americans together as a ragtag bunch of bullies and assholes.
Sukotto said:
Mahatam Ghandi & the Indian people defeated (the British) empire without war/violence
Because the British Empire was so war-weary by that point. The British of the 1880s would have massacred him and his followers.
