Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Feb 18, 2006.
More to come... it's a good read.
What is wrong with you guys?
A slightly less sensationalist article from the straight dope:
Cool topic though. But the premise is wrong - as a matter of fact, the world is very lucky that we're inherently isolationist. With the military superiority that we've had since 1945, we could have easily taken over every country on the globe by now.
You jest, surely? One little, defenceless Iraq has almost broken your army.
As did poor little Vietnam, and even poorer, even smaller Somalia.
I hope he's joking but I think not.
We pull a lot of punches when we fight our wars now. I'm not talking about today's USA and today's world. I'm talking about a post-WWII USA armed with nuclear weapons and a fanatical, ruthless, Alexander-the-Great drive to conquer the world. That US would easily take the Western Hemisphere and would have a good shot at the globe. But instead, after WWII, you saw a USA that was more interested in rebuilding the planet and getting on with its life than in conquering it.
I very much doubt that. No army could deal with uprisings et al in different occupied countries. You can barely cope with Iraq ( with international help ), take away the international help and the us would be swamped.
Stop what ever you taking. They giving you delusions.
As a previous poster said "what is wrong with you" ?!!!!
Having plans to take over what ever country you wish. Aggressive War Mongers.
And you haven't changed even in the 21st century.
Thanks skunk,that is a very lucid and accurate article of US paranoia,the people of the US could well find it useful to know their own history.The fallacy of assuming that an all out attack followed by installing a puppet government would destroy a country,like say Canada is stupid,can you imagine how long a guerilla war in Canada could be effectively waged and that just one country.The raising of Projection is interesting and applies not only to countries but to individuals something religions have traded on for thousands of years.
That's because stupidity is timeless.
Edit for clarification: I'm talking about the U.S., not tristan.
Especially when Canada is the second largest land mass.... the us army could not possibly effectively control such a large area.
And what's the point? Certainly history should teach us that Empires are doomed to fail when they're overstretched. The British and Roman and Habsburg empires are clear proof of that. Nations want self-determination, when that is denied they will rise up.
Your last statement is pure bunk. The Marshall Plan was geared towards the prevention of communism and broadening of US commercial interests. Had it not been for the rise of communism throughout Europe, the MP would never have come to light.
well just by looking at the numbers of infantry, tanks, artillery there is no way the US could have won if they would have waged a war against the soviet union after WW2... the fact that the US possessed nuclear weapons or better the capacity to produce them wouldn't have changed much since the US was far from producing them in huge stockpiles
Just one big fly in the paranoia ointment: During the inter-war period, the United States was a nation with virtually no military, and no political will to sustain foreign adventures, even in support of historical allies in deep peril. In reality, these "plans" represent so much military noodling, which I suspect most nation's militaries do at one level or other.
I'd tend to think there's a bit of difference between nuking half the world into submission and imperial conquest.
Canada *has* developed a dangerous lead in Zamboni technology. Hmm...
Shhh.. We're trying to keep that on on ice...
last i was in canada, a cop pointed a zamboni at me and yelled "freeze!"
Did he let you skate?
that was my goal.
Quite a trick you pulled out of your hat!
letting me go was good, but getting an apology was the icing.
Yes, I can see that he really stepped out of the crease on that one.
i was careful not to cross that thin blue line.
I happen to think America is an Empire - and has been since before it's official beginnings.
When the US was still an embryonic Nation hugging the Eastern seaboard, it found it intolerable that the guns of European powers should be at it's rear - the French in the Mississippi Valley, the Spanish in the Southwest, the British in Canada and the Northwest. So it began an Imperial expansion into the Western territories that eventually constituted the modern United States.
There is also the nature of unintended consequences - the militarism of Hitler and Tojo brought the US out of it's self-imposed isolation to meet the security threat they posed. The unintended consequence of eventual success in these areas was the encampment of the Soviet Army in the heart of Europe and a Chinese Civil War which brought communists to power - New threats that led to futher American Imperial Expansion.
Four decades later, the victory over Communism led to more unintended consequences. Breaking the will of the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980's required training and arming radical Islamic guerillas who subsequently turned on the US after it was over. Islamic Terrorism became the edge of seeping anarchy that followed in the wake of the collapsing Soviet Empire in Eurasia, and of collapsed European Empires on other continents - the most benign antidote to which is the establishment of new imperial domains.
The US currently has bases in 59 countries of territories, and even before 9/11 carried out military missions in 170 countries each year.
The US Empire is perhaps more implicit that explicit, however - akin to Archaemenid Persia in the 5th century BC - when the victory of a weakened Sparta over Athens in the Peloponnesian War gave Persia nominal control of the Greeek archipelago in the West, even as Persia's eastern borderslands were insecure, partisan struggles ensued and local alliances of convenience were necessary fro military operations.
The US is an Empire withour colonies - instead relying on their military equipment and the training and maintenace that went along with it - which helped to bind regimes to us.
As for the possible contradiction between Empire and our Democratic values, it might be worth noting that Rome, Venice and Britain were the most morally enlightened States of their Age. Liberalism at home and a pragmatic, often ruthless policy abroad have not been uncommon in the history of Empires.
Our Empire building has advanced through phases beginning with the establishing bases in the Carribean, the Pacific and North Atlantic to expand our Continental defense perimeter and protect New Economic Interests. The second Phase involved building large bases around the Soviet Union in West Germany, Turkey and the Korean Peninsula. The current Phase involves an emphasis on rapid mobility to deal with peacekeeping interventions, ant-terrorist strikes and containment of Rogue States, while simultaneously dealing with the twin threat of radical Islam and a Rising China.
All of these strategies were the Legacies of Rome. Rome, like Britain, knew it could not be strong everywhere, that there were places it would have to withdraw ignominiously, and other places where it would not be prudent to intervene, Rome emphasized the rapid strategic reaction of it's forces rather than their continual presence in too many areas.
As for the US's "war-like" stance, I leave you with a quote from British War historian Sir Michael Howard:
"America's oft-noted optimistical ecumenicism, the basis for peace and disarmament movements, was largely limited to the North-east of the the United States. Further West and South, quite another spirit began to predominate. The experience of settlement, fronteir and territorial extension was producing a war culture...It assumed no progress toward a peaceful Global society, but a continued struggle in which the use of violence was justified by individual conscience and brute necessity...A century or so later, when Global organization began to appear possible and necessary, an image that came to many American minds was not that of balancing power between states, but of protecting law and order against it's disturbers...a sheriff with his posse comitatus. If human corruption and inefficiency made this impossible, it must be provided by the efforts of a few good men following the dictates of a moral law within."
Amazing you didn't get called for interference for this one timer!
At any rate.. If America invades Canada, where the **** will I go then? It's only a matter of time before I move there. And I really don't need Dubbaya ****ing anything else up for me, or my other brethren who decide to head north (where Hockey, Beer, hot women, and polar bears are the norm).