North Korea or Iran?

[Dman]

North Korea or Iran?

Who’s next. What can the US or the world do to prevent these guys from being the next Iraq, and rather turn them into the next China?

Some in the US believe that we should end sanctions against NK, and instead actually provide economic incentives to them. The thinking is that, like China, it will open their borders to information (i.e. internet, cell phones, etc.) which will open the people’s eyes to the true state of their country. Furthermore, it will allow the introduction of capitalism to find it’s way and hopefully improve the quality of life for the people.

Conversely, if the US does this, there will be an outcry that the US “turns a blind eye” to the human rights violations there, and is helping the evil regime. It’s a double-edged sword. Continue sanctions, the US is hurting the people of NK. End sanctions, the US is hurting the people of NK by allowing the regime to continue. So what’s the right thing to do?

Then there’s Iran. For some reason I have the feeling that the US is providing the necessary weapons capability to Israel, so that they can do the dirty work here. Bad idea. But like NK, what are the realistic alternatives? Are there any? Or is “W” gonna start WWIII?

[garak]

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

You see the news out of NK today?

link (http://news.google.com/?hl=en&ncl=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-021005norkor_lat,0,5736480.story%3Fcoll%3Dla-home-headlines)

[mgb]

Actually, the North Koreans timed this pretty well.

Rice basically said full out that they weren't going to invade Iran. I think she said it because at some point they must have realized that they just don't have the capacity to. North Korea just jumped all over it. If the US can't or won't invade Iraq's neighbor, it would be an even taller order to go after N. Korea.

Should be interesting to watch. I don't think North Korea is as rogue as they make them selves out to be. They are known for grand standing.

[SensEye]

If you want to turn them into the next China, try following the same course you followed with China. i.e. Stay out of their business until they get their shit together on their own.

[garak]

Turn into China in what way? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? :P

[booyalab]

both...simultaneously, in bed.

[HeyBooU]

I don't see either happening anytime soon. Bush knew what he was doing when he chose Iraq. Iraq did not have a military worth talking about. Iran and North Korea are a different story.

[garak]

I don't see either happening anytime soon. Bush knew what he was doing when he chose Iraq. Iraq did not have a military worth talking about. Iran and North Korea are a different story.
Minus these nukes (which we thought Saddam might have had as well, IIRC), what kind of threat would NK's military be to us? Aren't they stuck in a bit of a timewarp? (and broke as hell)

[Miss Anthropic]

What's in it for us? We never get into a war unless it is beneficial to us in some way. Would it be about the nuclear weapons? Seems pretty stupid to invade North Korea because they have nuclear weapons to protect themselves against us and while we would be trying to destroy the weapons , they'd be using them on us! Yeah, well, that kind of sounds like something GB would do. Its a damned civil war there, hash it out amongst :rant: themselves

[mgb]

Minus these nukes (which we thought Saddam might have had as well, IIRC), what kind of threat would NK's military be to us? Aren't they stuck in a bit of a timewarp? (and broke as hell)

Just like Iraq wasn't a threat to the US even if it had nukes, North Korea on it's own isn't either.

North Korea would attack South Korea or most likely Japan. Then the US has to get involved. The country itself might not have a lot of money, but what it does have it spends on the military.

[Claverhouse]

Minus these nukes (which we thought Saddam might have had as well, IIRC), what kind of threat would NK's military be to us? Aren't they stuck in a bit of a timewarp? (and broke as hell)
The North Koreans have a really really tough military ( British-trained ) and are very hard. They saw off the US once and could easily break several divisions. Plus it's very difficult terrain, and the Chinese might get involved again ( after all, they'd find it difficult to believe the US wouldn't come after them if she won. If America had won back in the 50s then MacArthur for one would have been raring to install Chiang back again as not only a faithful ( sort-of ) ally, but as a shining exemplar of democratic values ).

As for being in a time-warp, although their estimable leader is demented ( if he is still alive and not being held under house-arrest by his generals ), that might be an advantage: remember it was the Red Army --- with masses and masses of help from their friends --- that smashed the superb German War-Machine and not the battles west of the Rhine.

Being broke might also give them an added incentive, unless they actually start starving to death: if I were a Korean peasant I'd certainly want to kill someone.



Claverhouse

[crule81]

The North Koreans have a really really tough military ( British-trained ) and are very hard. They saw off the US once and could easily break several divisions. Plus it's very difficult terrain, and the Chinese might get involved again ( after all, they'd find it difficult to believe the US wouldn't come after them if she won. If America had won back in the 50s then MacArthur for one would have been raring to install Chiang back again as not only a faithful ( sort-of ) ally, but as a shining exemplar of democratic values ).

As for being in a time-warp, although their estimable leader is demented ( if he is still alive and not being held under house-arrest by his generals ), that might be an advantage: remember it was the Red Army --- with masses and masses of help from their friends --- that smashed the superb German War-Machine and not the battles west of the Rhine.

Being broke might also give them an added incentive, unless they actually start starving to death: if I were a Korean peasant I'd certainly want to kill someone.


The North Korean Army is too technologically inferior to put up much of a fight in a full-scale conventional war. Any numerical advantage they may have means nothing when their main battle tank is a version of the T-55. The US Army was meant to fight this kind of war. The North Korean airforce will not be able to get off the ground and their tank forces would be smashed in a matter of days. The demise of the North Korean army would be even quicker if they attempted an initial offensive against the South. The North Koreans are not stupid enough to risk that, though. If North Korea is attacked by the US, their only hope would be insurgency.

China would never take the risk of throwing their weight behind a tiny 3rd world country when they would have so much to lose economically by doing so. China has and is benefitting the most as a result of a good relationship with the US. The North Korean regime is an embarassment for China anyway. The US has no major qualms with China and I don't believe a unified Korea peninsula under US some influence would be seen as an immediate threat to Chinese security. China would probably appreciate the open market next door. The Chinese would rush in to rebuild the North. Maybe sometime down the road, however . . .

[Dman]

North Korea reportedly has ICBM technology capable of reaching the west coast of the US. Throw a nuclear warhead on one of those babies...

Plus, the problem with them is they will not hesitate to sell their nuclear technology to anyone with enough money to buy it. They are a double threat.

And although they are known for grandstanding, they are very much isolated.

[mgb]

The North Korean Army is too technologically inferior to put up much of a fight in a full-scale conventional war. Any numerical advantage they may have means nothing when their main battle tank is a version of the T-55. The US Army was meant to fight this kind of war. The North Korean airforce will not be able to get off the ground and their tank forces would be smashed in a matter of days. The demise of the North Korean army would be even quicker if they attempted an initial offensive against the South. The North Koreans are not stupid enough to risk that, though. If North Korea is attacked by the US, their only hope would be insurgency.

China would never take the risk of throwing their weight behind a tiny 3rd world country when they would have so much to lose economically by doing so. China has and is benefitting the most as a result of a good relationship with the US. The North Korean regime is an embarassment for China anyway. The US has no major qualms with China and I don't believe a unified Korea peninsula under US some influence would be seen as an immediate threat to Chinese security. China would probably appreciate the open market next door. The Chinese would rush in to rebuild the North. Maybe sometime down the road, however . . .

North Korea isn't going to attack the US. Their missile technology is not sophisticated enough for them to do more than "lob" a missile at the US. They can hit Japan with some pretty good accuracy and would take a shot at them if backed into a corner.

The US shouldn't count on getting a lot of Asian support if they decide to rush to war.

And, as I said before, the US military is stretched thin as it is, and doesn't have the ability to fight a ground war on another front without doing something drastic like say, reinstating the draft.

[HeyBooU]

I would say being the third largest military in the world would make things a little tougher then Iraq. I don't doubt we could win really. It would just be at a much higher cost. But I do beleive they have the abilities to bomb Japan and South Korea. It's not like Iraq had any missles to speak of.

Edit: Well, applies while I was writing this made this post pretty much invalid. Sorry, haha.

[mgb]

I would say being the third largest military in the world would make things a little tougher then Iraq. I don't doubt we could win really. It would just be at a much higher cost. But I do beleive they have the abilities to bomb Japan and South Korea. It's not like Iraq had any missles to speak of.

Edit: Well, applies while I was writing this made this post pretty much invalid. Sorry, haha.

They won't shoot a nuke at the South Koreans. They seem them as equals. They HATE, ABSOLUTELY HATE, the Japanese.

[Miss Anthropic]

They won't shoot a nuke at the South Koreans. They seem them as equals. They HATE, ABSOLUTELY HATE, the Japanese.
Not exactly from my understanding....they might not nuke the South Koreans, but they certainly can't agree on how to merge the two halves of the country--I don't see that as equal

[Dman]

It isn’t necessarily about who would “win” if there were a war between the US and NK. It isn’t even about a potential war. It’s about political maneuvering. Once they prove they have nuke capability and are within striking distance, the game changes and everyone knows it. It’s a bargaining chip. The world has to pay attention now, and war is no longer an option. Under isolation and desperately lacking in funds, this is there only option if their regime wants to remain in power.

Although it’s in the popular media right now, they have been positioning this way for at least a decade – the only difference now is that there seems to be more evidence that they really do have nuclear technology.

It’s quite a savvy move, even if it is an obvious one. Gain nuclear power so no one will invade you, and suddenly everyone is willing to give you concessions in an effort to persuade you to stay “friendly” and join the world market. The contingency plan is that if the world takes a hard-line approach and refuses to provide concessions, just simply threaten, or actually do, sell the nuclear weapons and technology to the highest bidder. This creates and conundrum for the world powers, and provides the regime with the much needed money for it to survive.

It’s a win-win situation for NK.

Iran recognizes this and has followed suit – but the difference is that Iran has plenty of money. For this reason it is less likely that Iran would sell it’s arms. That’s why NK is actually the much larger threat – they are desperate and don’t have much to lose.

[mgb]

Not exactly from my understanding....they might not nuke the South Koreans, but they certainly can't agree on how to merge the two halves of the country--I don't see that as equal

I think NK sees SK, not as a seperate group of people, but that they are all Koreans. Not like, say the Japanese.

[Hawkon]

North Korea isn't going to attack the US. Their missile technology is not sophisticated enough for them to do more than "lob" a missile at the US. They can hit Japan with some pretty good accuracy and would take a shot at them if backed into a corner.

The US shouldn't count on getting a lot of Asian support if they decide to rush to war.

And, as I said before, the US military is stretched thin as it is, and doesn't have the ability to fight a ground war on another front without doing something drastic like say, reinstating the draft.

NEVER underestimate a communistic country with an insane leader.
Look at them as script kiddies. They want what we have, they can't get it because they're using stupid methods. They lack some gadgets to be able to do fatal damage, BUT - over time they might be able to gather up what they need to do enough to erase the face of the earth.

For ages, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has tried to bribe NK into NOT continuing their development of A-weapons. They've been paid in the way of huge sums to stop. Now it seems they have not, and for all we know - they've spent the money on further development of A-weapons.

I think; carefully take out their weapons NOW in a bomb campaign (as Bush so nicely named it in Iraq) before their weapons are big enough to strike back. They are in no way going to pull back.

*hides from miss'es flying*

[crule81]

I think; carefully take out their weapons NOW in a bomb campaign (as Bush so nicely named it in Iraq) before their weapons are big enough to strike back. They are in no way going to pull back.


That means finding the alleged weapon(s), which isn't simple. It would have been much easier to take out installations where the materials for the weapon(s) were produced. But that time may have passed. Of course, it wouldn't be surprising if North Korea is lying about all of this. We should dare them to test one.

[Dman]

I reiterate my post on the previous page – NK has nothing to gain by actually using a nuclear weapon and starting a war. It’s posturing. They must be catered to if they have nuclear capability, they know war will not be an option.

War isn’t what it’s about – that’s the propaganda speaking.

Regarding whether or not they have nukes is an interesting matter though – if they did, you would think they would have proven it in the only way a nation can prove it has the ability – testing one. They’ve tested long range missile capability in order to prove that, why haven’t they tested a nuclear bomb? It’s likely a bluff until they truly have one, which conceivably isn’t far off.

IMO that’s why the US has not fully accepted their statements and continues to take a hard-line approach with them. Once it is proven they have the ability, like I said before, the game changes significantly.

[crule81]

On the Wall Street section of My Yahoo, it said that the stock market began to make gains today in part as a result of rumors that Kim Jong Il has been deposed. Now, I've heard for a few weeks that this may be true, but is there any information new today that would cause Wall Street to act this way? I couldn't find anything on CNN.com or Foxnews.

[Hawkon]

I reiterate my post on the previous page – NK has nothing to gain by actually using a nuclear weapon and starting a war. It’s posturing. They must be catered to if they have nuclear capability, they know war will not be an option.

War isn’t what it’s about – that’s the propaganda speaking.

Regarding whether or not they have nukes is an interesting matter though – if they did, you would think they would have proven it in the only way a nation can prove it has the ability – testing one. They’ve tested long range missile capability in order to prove that, why haven’t they tested a nuclear bomb? It’s likely a bluff until they truly have one, which conceivably isn’t far off.

IMO that’s why the US has not fully accepted their statements and continues to take a hard-line approach with them. Once it is proven they have the ability, like I said before, the game changes significantly.


Well, they've already broadcasted that they're GOING to test one of these nukes in the near future.

WHY they have nuclear weapons is a totally different discussion, though. Why the heck do they need them? To keep the western world at a distance? Might be a way to say "no way if you're going to mess up our communist government". On the other hand, they're saying "now you have a reason to make our government revolt"...

As I said in a previous post; kiddies!

[Dman]

Well, they've already broadcasted that they're GOING to test one of these nukes in the near future.

WHY they have nuclear weapons is a totally different discussion, though. Why the heck do they need them? To keep the western world at a distance? Might be a way to say "no way if you're going to mess up our communist government". On the other hand, they're saying "now you have a reason to make our government revolt"...

As I said in a previous post; kiddies!

Claiming they’re “going to” test a nuke and actually doing it are two different things. The claim is just more propaganda, until they actually set one off.

And as I said in “previous posts”, they need nuclear weapons because that is the only way the regime can survive. With nukes, they will not be invaded, they will be catered to. Think China, Pakistan, India. The world must pay attention and give respect to a nuclear-armed country. Posturing.

[Hawkon]

Difference is, as you say, we -KNOW- that China, Pakistan and India have got dangerous misses. NK says they do, and in order to follow the line of their half-comrads, they need to prove their position by testing one. Up till that point - they're a joke.

I think we'll see a test missile soon... by that time, it's too late for actions of demilitarization.

Another question is; what is China going to do if a "country of freedom" (read: NATO) invades NK? I do not know their relations, but history (ref. cold war) has proven that similar governments stick together when we're talking about communism.

[melancholeric]

Another question is; what is China going to do if a "country of freedom" (read: NATO) invades NK? I do not know their relations, but history (ref. cold war) has proven that similar governments stick together when we're talking about communism.

Not quite that simple. China and the USSR were near to a full-scale war at one point. ( Too lazy to check the exact years. ) Also, Vietnam invaded Cambodia at late seventies, after which China invaded Vietnam. All of those were communist countries. There are plenty of similar examples.

China is not going to stick up with NK, they have too much to lose. They are doing well economically, they have good relations to west ( including trade ) etc. Besides, one could argue that they are fairly capitalist nowadays anyway.

What motives do they have to defend NK?

[Hawkon]

What motives do they have to defend NK?

Ideals?

If NATO is to invade NK, history shows they're not going to insert a communistic government.

Are we past the age of ideals yet, or is communism vs capitalism still an issue?

[melancholeric]

Communism vs. capitalism is hardly an issue anymore, especially in case of China, that has rapidly developed somewhat semicapitalistic system and good relations to west. They are not going to jeopardize that for NK. NK has pretty much nothing to offer.

And once again, even during the cold war, communist countries had their schisms. So why would these ideals have any significance now when cold war is long forgotten?

( I don't know much about the China - NK relations, but somehow the idea of China defending the dirt-poor troublemaker called North Korea doesn't strike as particularly plausible. )

[Shai Gar]

simple. NK has nukes, they can nuke japan and SK. the USA arent going to attack NK

[Dman]

Agreed with melancholeric. China doesn’t want that kind of attention so close to its border, especially for a bass ackwards country like NK which, as pointed out, has nothing to offer. Just a trouble maker. And no country ever defended another country for “ideals”, it’s always about power and money and always has been.

[mgb]

And it looks like Syria is going to come from behind and win by a nose.

[MacGuffin]

I figure we got enough bombs for both.

[mgb]

I figure we got enough bombs for both.

I'm glad that you haven't lost that "Go Gettum" attitude.

[sbw]

And it looks like Syria is going to come from behind and win by a nose.

Didn't read the thread, was about to say that syria's gonna win.

Scott

[Aryan]

Well, iran its starting to form an alliance with its middle-east partners, like syria, so that it doesnt end up being iraq.

Perhaps, the alliance would grow into a much larger front making it hard and more dear for the US to break it.

What if now NK, joins Iran ,and syria, along with other middle eastern countries.

Wouldnt we have a third world war ?

[mgb]

Well, iran its starting to form an alliance with its middle-east partners, like syria, so that it doesnt end up being iraq.

Perhaps, the alliance would grow into a much larger front making it hard and more dear for the US to break it.

What if now NK, joins Iran ,and syria, along with other middle eastern countries.

Wouldnt we have a third world war ?

You'd have to wonder how well the "Coalition" would hold up if the US wanted to attack another or more countries.

[Claverhouse]

Well, iran its starting to form an alliance with its middle-east partners, like syria, so that it doesnt end up being iraq.

Perhaps, the alliance would grow into a much larger front making it hard and more dear for the US to break it.

What if now NK, joins Iran ,and syria, along with other middle eastern countries.

Wouldnt we have a third world war ?

Well, the shi'ite dominated 'parliament' ( they were the one's who voted, in temporary conjunction with the Kurds: although they'd have won anyway, seeing as how there's lots more of them --- don'cha just love confessional politics ? ) set up by the victorious yanks has already indicated that the first item on the agenda is the withdrawal of the foreign forces in Iraq; including all the 'contractors'. ( Then nullifying all the economic edicts, such as oil agreements etc. --- they may even renounce the edict that Iraqi farmers should destroy their seed each year and buy only from the good GM grain of Monsanto... ) ( Then deciding to institute a welfare state ). If they then have a civil war to sort out their differences, and Kurdistan eventuates, the sunnis may set up their own state, and the shi'ites then decide to form a permanent bond with their brethren in Iran. Basically a greatly enlarged Iran with real WMDs.

The USA will then have to fight Iran and Syria simultaneously. North Korea would have to be left on the back-burner until they nuke somebody for the hell of it.

Still, Iraq was never a proper country anyway, the British messed the region up just by creating it. And then along came Bush.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Shai Gar]

Agreed with melancholeric. China doesn’t want that kind of attention so close to its border, especially for a bass ackwards country like NK which, as pointed out, has nothing to offer. Just a trouble maker. And no country ever defended another country for “ideals”, it’s always about power and money and always has been.
just because the US doesnt defend nations out of idealistic reasons doesnt mean other nations dont. China defended north korea for these reasons during the korean war. Australia defended England in both world wars out of an ideal and nothing more

[Dman]

just because the US doesnt defend nations out of idealistic reasons doesnt mean other nations dont. China defended north korea for these reasons during the korean war. Australia defended England in both world wars out of an ideal and nothing more

I hope you don't truly believe that.

[mgb]

just because the US doesnt defend nations out of idealistic reasons doesnt mean other nations dont. China defended north korea for these reasons during the korean war. Australia defended England in both world wars out of an ideal and nothing more

You really can't say that Australia defended England. More that Australia was England whipping boy. And now it is the US's.

[Claverhouse]

just because the US doesnt defend nations out of idealistic reasons doesnt mean other nations dont. China defended north korea for these reasons during the korean war. Australia defended England in both world wars out of an ideal and nothing more That's true regarding China --- and it would be the same again, no matter what they think about the present North Koreans --- although it wasn't solely an idealistic ( and realistic/rational ) impulse to defend the communist international; there is also 'face' to consider.

China hasn't yet renounced communist ideals, nor is very likely to do so in the near future.

As to Australia, the choice to fight for Britain ( or rather, 'The Empire', which meant far more to older generations of colonials than the Motherland ) was idealistic in WWI. Also as idealism so often is, wrong-headed and on the wrong ( democratic ) side. Britain didn't actually exploit Australia, but she certainly used up the considerable fighting skills of the Australians and the Canadians to soak up her own deficiencies. Without these soldiers Britain would definitely have lost.

In WWII though, there was a direct threat to Australasia from the Japanese, and this would have existed, and still exists, without any European entanglements. Britain did a poor best in return. Nonetheless, Australia only has a choice between relying on Europe or on America: the venerable Vialls had a recent paper (http://vialls.net/cowards/byebye2.html)on how Australia has been doing the last since 1942.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dman]

China defended NK because it was in CHINA's best interest, not for "idealistic reasons".

You may as well say Citicorp covered for Enron due to “idealistic reasons”.

[Claverhouse]

China defended NK because it was in CHINA's best interest, not for "idealistic reasons".

You may as well say Citicorp covered for Enron due to “idealistic reasons”.
You underestimate the pure idealism that attracted so many lunatics to that odious and disgustingly democratic utopian god-that-failed in the last two centuries.

I blame Gracchus Baboeuf.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Shai Gar]

as claverhouse said, with china, but he forgot that the western powers had been fucking with china and indo china, china just got itself on its feet to defend itself from the GMD and the other world powers and then they overthrew them, then mao followed sun yutsen's ideology and spread it, defending anyone who was being exploited by the hairy barbarians (europeans and yanks) and seeding the communist ideals.

and claver what are you talking about in the second one?

[Shai Gar]

and if the US ends sanctions on NK NK wont all of a sudden love the US, because they all know why they are starving, the sanctions are stopping food getting to them

[Claverhouse]

and claver what are you talking about in the second one? [ I'm assuming you mean post 44. since I've posted 4 times here ]


I was talking about the fact that communism, however risible in theory and practice, has a great allure of humanitarian idealism at it's core. Even horrible old thugs like Lenin & Stalin weren't motivated solely by power/cruelty: they also genuinely believed in that junk.

Paraphrased from my favourite Cabell: ''For he saw that these people were entirely truthful in their delusion therefore there was no hope left at all: this seemed to him the saddest thing of all".

It can be applied to various believers... Not least the capitalist stooges who oppose communism rightly because it was a threat, but pointlessly since they believe in the same godless ultimate goals of freedom and democracy*.

Communism in the West has merely morphed into the achievement of the tenets of Political Correctness. In the East, and amidst the truly oppressed under various hideous regimes, some supported and some opposed --- at whim --- by the US New Order, it still lives in it's purer form of Stalinesque idiocy.



Claverhouse :ph34r:



* As defined by their leaders.

[Shai Gar]

no i meant post 44

[Claverhouse]

Yep, that's the one I meant ( I couldn't check the number by rolling below in the reply box, because it takes out that info; and my line was too engaged downloading to open another window ).




Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dman]

and if the US ends sanctions on NK NK wont all of a sudden love the US, because they all know why they are starving, the sanctions are stopping food getting to them

The NK propaganda machine is the one claiming the sanctions are starving them. Although those don't help, the true reason is because of the LEADERS of that country. Isn't it their duty to prevent their own people from starving? Is there * nothing * they can do to prevent starvation? The regime sure isn't starving, wonder where they're getting their meals?

Suppose Hawaii was overpopulated and could not feed itself. Then they said F - you World! We won't live by your standards or rules and we don't want to be part of your evil society! So the world says, well, ok, F - you too. You don't want our business, , you don't want to play by the rules, we won't give it to you then. Now Hawaii cannot feed its citizens. Whose fault is that? The rest of the world? Of course! not.

[Dman]

Claverhouse I understand what you're saying, and as you implied, the US can fall under the same argument that its actions are due to "ideals".

My point is that you cannot isolate the US actions as fundamentally different than that of virtually all other nations, which is its own self preservation and self interest, even if it is claimed to be protecting "ideals". Of course it is! Why is it "bad" when the US does it, but not others? It's all in the eye of the beholder. I'm just trying to provide some balance for those who seem to think their nation is "above" any other and does not engage in the same types of activities when given the opportunity.

[Shai Gar]

it is bad when everyone does it, but the US does it the most, imposes sanctions on 52% of the worlds population, invades nations who do not follow the US's rules and then claims to be the good guy.

and north korea's leaders do the best they can with the sanctions imposed on them, but as everyone knows sanctions never hurt the people that they are supposedly aimed at (leaders) and only ever hurt the people (true aimed at people). dont even think about blaming Kim Jong ILL, it was the US who put the land mines there so they cannot trade with their cousins to the south. and dont claim the southern koreans are scared of them because the people in South K hate the US

[DevNull]

the US does it the most, imposes sanctions on 52% of the worlds population, invades nations who do not follow the US's rules and then claims to be the good guy.

Claiming things is fun and all, but when a country is the only superpower in existance then one has to either admit the US is the good guy or evil is winning.

I vote for good guy status.

Good guys are not perfect. In fact most good guys have a monkey on their back, or so Hollywood tells me now and again.

Heck, I am quite amused at how there are so many people in broken countries (non-superpowers as it were) who are so bent out of shape at their own inadequacy that they turn their anger towards the winners instead of fixing their own problems.

Sucks to be them.

[Claverhouse]

Claiming things is fun and all, but when a country is the only superpower in existance then one has to either admit the US is the good guy or evil is winning.
The latter undoubtedly. But it's not as if the present only superpower status of the US is due to the inherent excellence of it's beliefs or system; nor inevitable due to the superiority of American [ insert whatever you like here ]. Anymore than any previous superpower had the Mandate of Heaven...


I vote for good guy status.

Good guys are not perfect. In fact most good guys have a monkey on their back, or so Hollywood tells me now and again.
Good guys are frequently morons.


Heck, I am quite amused at how there are so many people in broken countries (non-superpowers as it were) who are so bent out of shape at their own inadequacy that they turn their anger towards the winners instead of fixing their own problems.

Sucks to be them.
This makes no sense at all. People generally ( including many Americans ) or people whose countries are inferior to America --- which they must be since America is the only superpower --- shouldn't rise up against or protest against a hideous tyranny just because it's successful both at subjugation and in economy, and stronger than they are ?

A long farewell to Mithradates, to the Christian martyrs, to Luther riding to the Diet, to the Mesoamericans fighting against the Spanish invasion, to overthrowing various scum-sucking monsters from Cromwell to Robespierre to the Grand Old Soviet Union all massively powerful in their day. Just roll over and knuckle down...

Or they're just projecting from their own inadequacies and problems ? Since only a feeblewit would claim America is superior to other countries in any other field than wealth, or to any other civilised peoples in the past, why should this be so ? Florence alone in one century had more genius than the whole of American history.

America has had some great writers, and no doubt most Americans are as nice as most other non-Americans in the same proportions: that doesn't mean that the rest of the world should do what America's government thinks they should, nor that they shouldn't despise it's patronising mission-statements and short-sighted messing-ups. As for the 'problems' the dissenters should address, half the time these are caused by the US state department and US business practice. Not only has Latin America been ransacked and had governments installed by US marines; but they've fucked up SE Asia from Vietnam onwards to Burma & Indonesia, dominated a weakly-led Europe from 1945, and raped the Middle East by interference, both in installing regimes and breaking them, all with the war-cry of 'For Democracy, Oil & Eretz Israel !'



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dman]

The latter undoubtedly. But it's not as if the present only superpower status of the US is due to the inherent excellence of it's beliefs or system; nor inevitable due to the superiority of American [ insert whatever you like here ]. Anymore than any previous superpower had the Mandate of Heaven...

Not sure where you are coming from that the US is not currently where it is due to its ideals or system. So what is it due to? Don’t leave us hanging! Are you claiming it is not a superpower due to its economic system or political system? What then? Dumb luck? Or was everyone else in the world too stupid and got taken advantage of?



Good guys are frequently morons.

Bad guys are frequently intelligent. Which is worse?



This makes no sense at all. People generally ( including many Americans ) or people whose countries are inferior to America --- which they must be since America is the only superpower --- shouldn't rise up against or protest against a hideous tyranny just because it's successful both at subjugation and in economy, and stronger than they are ?


Or they're just projecting from their own inadequacies and problems ? Since only a feeblewit would claim America is superior to other countries in any other field than wealth, or to any other civilised peoples in the past, why should this be so ? Florence alone in one century had more genius than the whole of American history.
Claverhouse :ph34r:

Ironically the geniuses usually flock to America, where they generally have a higher likelihood of fulfilling their ambitions than elsewhere (save cloning and stem cell research, dammit). And why does America have more wealth? Just better crooks than all others? Nice try, but don’t think that can be backed up (unless you are Marxist and believe that ANY form of profit is crooked).

But the reason America does what it does is because it’s what has gotten it to the top of the game, which is what I think Devnull was implying. My contention is that when one nation is at the top of the game, it has two choices – use that power to help bring along the rest of the world, or use that power to crush the up and coming competition and dominate ruthlessly. Anyone who truly thinks that the US is choosing the latter is kidding themselves, IMO. If the US was actually choosing this tactic, the world would be a much uglier place than it is. The US is smarter than this and knows it must bring the world along to survive. It’s common sense. However, the US has the obligation to maintain its status as numero uno as well; it’s only natural you don’t get to the top by giving in to everyone else. Balancing the two opposing values of “helping” the rest of the world and maintaining number one status is the trick. The US can only act in the best interests of other countries to a certain degree before it undermines itself. This is where I’m coming from when I state that many other countries would do the same thing – what choice is there? Be too nice and you snuff yourself out, be too evil and the world revolts and you get snuffed out. It’s a delicate balance. As long as people accept this and do their best to remain objective about the situation, I understand. But to bash for the sake of bashing or feeling elitist doesn’t do anyone any good.

[Claverhouse]

Not sure where you are coming from that the US is not currently where it is due to its ideals or system. So what is it due to? Don’t leave us hanging! Are you claiming it is not a superpower due to its economic system or political system? What then? Dumb luck? Or was everyone else in the world too stupid and got taken advantage of?
None of the above: it is merely due to the inevitable processes of history, and those consequences of different wars. Suppose the Chinese had 'discovered' and colonised North America instead, or the Secessionists had successfully split it in two ? Since historical events played out as they did, and the major competitors were crushed, rightly or wrongly, the US was bound to become top dog for a while.

Luck definitely played a part, but it wasn't dumb. The early colonists entered a practically virgin continent abundant with brilliant resources, and then were safe in any overseas wars because the place is so enormous --- it takes 3000 miles to get to it from Europe, and there's another 3000 miles to go before you see the Pacific --- and after a while the population was so large they couldn't be conquered.

These would apply whatever economic or political system was adopted, even soviet communism or some kind of scientific oligarchy whereby a small body of savants ran everything. A population that size yields a tax income that cannot be matched anywhere: others have equally massive populations, but their lands were formed before capitalism and are exhausted by over-use.




Bad guys are frequently intelligent. Which is worse?
I think I'd rather have some bastard like Peter the Great ruling me than Jimmy Carter or Hilary Clinton. Particularly if I wanted to survive...


Ironically the geniuses usually flock to America, where they generally have a higher likelihood of fulfilling their ambitions than elsewhere (save cloning and stem cell research, dammit). And why does America have more wealth? Just better crooks than all others? Nice try, but don’t think that can be backed up (unless you are Marxist and believe that ANY form of profit is crooked).
See above. But the fact that most Americans aren't crooks doesn't mean that it's ruling class aren't crooks...


But the reason America does what it does is because it’s what has gotten it to the top of the game, which is what I think Devnull was implying. My contention is that when one nation is at the top of the game, it has two choices – use that power to help bring along the rest of the world, or use that power to crush the up and coming competition and dominate ruthlessly. Anyone who truly thinks that the US is choosing the latter is kidding themselves, IMO. If the US was actually choosing this tactic, the world would be a much uglier place than it is. The US is smarter than this and knows it must bring the world along to survive. It’s common sense. However, the US has the obligation to maintain its status as numero uno as well; it’s only natural you don’t get to the top by giving in to everyone else. Balancing the two opposing values of “helping” the rest of the world and maintaining number one status is the trick. The US can only act in the best interests of other countries to a certain degree before it undermines itself. This is where I’m coming from when I state that many other countries would do the same thing – what choice is there? Be too nice and you snuff yourself out, be too evil and the world revolts and you get snuffed out. It’s a delicate balance. As long as people accept this and do their best to remain objective about the situation, I understand. But to bash for the sake of bashing or feeling elitist doesn’t do anyone any good.
But if 'bringing the world along to survive' means that all other countries have to conform to American desires for their governance and customs, how does this differ from ruling them ? 'For their own good', naturally...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dman]

None of the above: it is merely due to the inevitable processes of history, and those consequences of different wars. Suppose the Chinese had 'discovered' and colonised North America instead, or the Secessionists had successfully split it in two ? Since historical events played out as they did, and the major competitors were crushed, rightly or wrongly, the US was bound to become top dog for a while.

Luck definitely played a part, but it wasn't dumb. The early colonists entered a practically virgin continent abundant with brilliant resources, and then were safe in any overseas wars because the place is so enormous --- it takes 3000 miles to get to it from Europe, and there's another 3000 miles to go before you see the Pacific --- and after a while the population was so large they couldn't be conquered.

These would apply whatever economic or political system was adopted, even soviet communism or some kind of scientific oligarchy whereby a small body of savants ran everything. A population that size yields a tax income that cannot be matched anywhere: others have equally massive populations, but their lands were formed before capitalism and are exhausted by over-use.

Those things may have all played a part in setting up the opportunity, but certainly you don’t claim that those things alone or even primarily contributed to the US becoming a superpower. That’s ridiculous. Under those presumptions, why isn’t Canada a superpower? Mexico?


But if 'bringing the world along to survive' means that all other countries have to conform to American desires for their governance and customs, how does this differ from ruling them ? 'For their own good', naturally...
Claverhouse :ph34r:

Although ideal for the US, I think the US would settle for simply countries opening their markets rather than "have to" conform - does China "have to" conform to get on the good side of American interests? Obviously not.

[Claverhouse]

Those things may have all played a part in setting up the opportunity, but certainly you don’t claim that those things alone or even primarily contributed to the US becoming a superpower. That’s ridiculous. Under those presumptions, why isn’t Canada a superpower? Mexico?
Perhaps the fact that Canada has only a population of 31,859,811 might help ? Plus it's a bit cold. Mexico has three times as many, 108,291,475; some of whom are going north, but America has twice that: 288,903,847.
Mexico is also stultified by many other historic factors --- and geographic. Generally, hot climates are worse for any expansion --- except perhaps metal --- than temperate climes. The US was colonised by hard-working, strong, go-getting miserable northerners at the beginning of the capitalist era.

If the same had started in Lief's time, as was possible --- although the demographics would have militated against any heavy influx ( Actually, just imagine if the Normans had gone west instead of annoying England, Sicily & Byzantium... ) --- America would have paralleled Europe and been in much the same position after another 1000 years of occupation and land-use.



Although ideal for the US, I think the US would settle for simply countries opening their markets rather than "have to" conform - does China "have to" conform to get on the good side of American interests? Obviously not.
Oh, China's gonna conform. The Project for the American Century will make sure of that. If they don't then they'll just have to suffer the consequences of being 'Evil'. They'd better make sure that the neo-cons don't find out China sponsors all this terrifying terrorism we see about us every day.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dman]

Perhaps the fact that Canada has only a population of 31,859,811 might help ? Plus it's a bit cold. Mexico has three times as many, 108,291,475; some of whom are going north, but America has twice that: 288,903,847.
Mexico is also stultified by many other historic factors --- and geographic. Generally, hot climates are worse for any expansion --- except perhaps metal --- than temperate climes. The US was colonised by hard-working, strong, go-getting miserable northerners at the beginning of the capitalist era.
Claverhouse :ph34r:

Ahh yes, but WHY does Canada have a smaller population? Or Mexico? How did the US grow so large on this continent (both in terms of land and population), achieving most of the valuable “real estate” with the moderate climate and bountiful resources? Remember, it started as just 13 colonies on the East coast.

Would you still claim it had nothing to do with beliefs or systems?

The land was just there for the taking, the US got lucky and beat everyone to it, and people moved here for the weather?

[MacGuffin]

None of the above: it is merely due to the inevitable processes of history, and those consequences of different wars.
If there is one thing I don't believe in, it is historic inevitability.

[Claverhouse]

None of the above: it is merely due to the inevitable processes of history, and those consequences of different wars.If there is one thing I don't believe in, it is historic inevitability.
If you reread that, I said nothing about historic inevitability*: I referred to something different, the inevitable consequences of past actions/decisions in the flow of history.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


* Which is marxist drivel. [ Although old Karl did have some insight into the basic patterns, such as monarchy>feudalism>capitalism, each being the enemy of the others, but he lost it with his deluded belief in the masses and their right to power. Still I can forgive him an awful lot for his disdainful reply to Hyndman ( or someone ) in old age, when the latter remarked that as he got older he forgave more: 'Do you ? Do you ?'

Dunno if you want to claim him as a INTP; If EZ wants Adolf... ]

[mgb]

Ahh yes, but WHY does Canada have a smaller population? Or Mexico? How did the US grow so large on this continent (both in terms of land and population), achieving most of the valuable “real estate” with the moderate climate and bountiful resources? Remember, it started as just 13 colonies on the East coast.

Would you still claim it had nothing to do with beliefs or systems?

The land was just there for the taking, the US got lucky and beat everyone to it, and people moved here for the weather?

Claverhouse does have a point. Mexico would be a lot richer now if they had ended up with, say, Texas. All that oil would have changed the demographics of world politics in a big way.

[Dman]

Yes. and my point was why doesn't Mexico have Texas

[Claverhouse]

Yes. and my point was why doesn't Mexico have Texas
Because your army was bigger and better than their's ! Which is the story of World History...


Not that having the better army helps if it's much smaller: ask the Germans, they've been beaten up by bigger barbarians more times than they can count...
:whistle:



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Bigger includes more equipment. ]

[Dman]

Because your army was bigger and better than their's ! Which is the story of World History...
Claverhouse :ph34r:
[ Bigger includes more equipment. ]


...because more people were willing to join and fight for a better system and ideal, and there was superior equipment for the armies due to a better system and ideals, etc.

and due to the ideals and systems of the US, the US thrived and became stronger which eventually led to what we have today.

Moral of the story - ideals and systems do count for making the US the superpower that it is today

[Claverhouse]

...because more people were willing to join and fight for a better system and ideal, and there was superior equipment for the armies due to a better system and ideals, etc.

and due to the ideals and systems of the US, the US thrived and became stronger which eventually led to what we have today.

Moral of the story - ideals and systems do count for making the US the superpower that it is today
You are saying that Americans in the 1840s had a better system and ideal than the Mexican republic ? And that this made more Americans willing to fight than the cowardlier Mexicans ? And that they had superior equipment because of the superior virtu of the Americans, them being richer because they were blessed with a better government, and so successful ? That success is proof of God's being on the side of the successful ?


Puritanism evidently still lives, and walks, in America.

***

Apart from the fact that the good side can lose, which seems perhaps unAmerican: even in say WWII, equally large numbers of people fought for the Axis quite enthusiastically --- although many more fought for the Allies ( in neither case because of 'volunteering' so much as that if you are born in any certain country they make sure you fight for them if eligible ): sometimes the Axis had better weaponry than their foes ( as with the vexed question of Russian tanks --- these were more effective and powerful, but crappily made; it was best not to arrange any limb in the loading barrel ) and sometimes the reverse. Some of the later weapons were brilliant, including jets and helicopters and the Tiger II & the Maus tanks. Does that mean that the system which produced this superior equipment was morally better ? In fact, the German tanks may have been inferior or superior to the Russian ones depending upon your criteria, but they were certainly better than the British or American ones ( one of which, can't remember, was nicknamed the Ronson after the lighters ). Neither technological superiority, which the Axis often had, nor numerical superiority, which factor destroyed them, mean moral superiority or that the winner is right. The winner just wins; it doesn't mean any more than that.

And in that case some of the winners, who by your argument, won because more people rallied to their cause thanks to the moral superiority of their systems and ideals, imposed a far more hideous regime than the odious one they displaced. Soviet communism alone is supposed to have killed from 50 - 60 million people.

And, since both were American, and formed by the same methods, how does your theory account for the victory over, and the later hideous aftermath of 'reconstruction', the Confederacy ? [ Note, here Robespierre acclaimed them as morally superior whilst Dev-Null considered them as representing 'evil' --- personally I'm neutral ]. They were practically the same people and represented the same political ideals and much the same economic theory, ( The confederate economy was much less successful due to many factors, including inflation, slave-holding, and food-shortages due to the smaller population --- however proportionately more southern males fought for their cause than did northern males for their's, which dishes your first sentence ).



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dman]

Who said anything about morals.

We were talking about ideals and systems and how they did or did not contribute to the US becoming a superpower. There are many, many variables we can discuss that contributed to how the US came to be what it is; my contention is that ideals and economic systems had a large part to do with it, whereas your contention was that it had nothing to do with it. I think that it is blatantly obvious that they did, but you are not being objective enough to see that. gotta go, more later...

[Dman]

We're getting bogged down in details. Let's take it back to a high-level, big picture perspective.

Why is the US a superpower?

1) Economic and military might

2) Military might is a function of sustainable economic power, to a large degree

3) Sustainable economic power is a direct result of the economic system, which is based upon ideals

4) Even with all the land, population, resources, etc. would the US be a superpower without it's ideals/economic system? No. These keep the system propped up and functioning in a sustainable manner. Without them, the system, although possible to become significant, would eventually fail before ever attaining superpower status.

Disagree?

[Claverhouse]

Who said anything about morals
You did. Post 65.


We were talking about ideals and systems and how they did or did not contribute to the US becoming a superpower. There are many, many variables we can discuss that contributed to how the US came to be what it is; my contention is that ideals and economic systems had a large part to do with it, whereas your contention was that it had nothing to do with it. I think that it is blatantly obvious that they did, but you are not being objective enough to see that. gotta go, more later...
Any country the size of America is going to be a superpower. The question is why is it currently the only one, if you exclude China ( and with a quarter of the world's population I would argue they are one by default, whether or not they have wealth or high-tech ). The main reason has nothing to do with American virtues or vices, but because that's the way history played out, with the main competitors crushed --- sometimes through their own failings, as in the case of the CCCP --- during the twentieth century.

And, unless you are going to argue that history has finished, the fat lady has sung, and God is about to lay the laurel-wreath in awed appreciation on the head of America as Supreme Winner of Eternity, the other question is how long this temporary status will last.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ I would say 40 - 50 years, until the Chinese have organised and got tech that's superior. After all, if the Far East is making the components we use, how difficult will it be for them to gain a lead, and plant enough trojan horses in the stuff they make for our military ? ]

[Dman]

You did. Post 65.

Good one.

But that was "moral of the story", not morals. Singular, not plural. muwhahahah!



Any country the size of America is going to be a superpower.


But again, how does a country become as large as such?

(here we go again)