| ehos |
It's still not 'verified'. Many countries 'condemned' it (as expected).
The US took it one step further and stated NK is shipping nuke tech. to Iran/Syria.
I lived though the cold war (not fun), is this the start of something similar? (It took NK 15 years to get to this day...) |
|
|
| S2000_rider |
| I'm actually happy then NK has nukes...This ensures the U.S. will NOT attack NK. I'm just hoping that Iran is able to build a Nuke as soon as possible so as to deter the U.S. from attacking. |
|
|
| Kiddo |
| karma's a bitch good luck america :P |
|
|
| onestepback |
quote:
Originally posted by Kiddo
karma's a bitch good luck america :P
The only downside to this statement is that if US gets involved, it is almost certain that Canada will follow. :dunno:
As S2000_rider said, a balance of power would deter one side from starting something (Cold War). I really believe this will be the start of a new "Cold War".:dunno: |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by Kiddo
karma's a bitch good luck america :P
Good Luck America?
NK couldn't touch the States, nuke or not. They have no method of delivery.
The US could turn NK into a glass parking lot if they wanted. |
|
|
| stealth |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Good Luck America?
NK couldn't touch the States, nuke or not. They have no method of delivery.
The US could turn NK into a glass parking lot if they wanted.
How do you know they have no method of delivery?
There would be no real point in having nuclear weapons if you can't use them to the fullest potential.
A lot of information is classified, and I have no doubt they can reach any target they please.
Good for North Korea:thumbup: |
|
|
| S2000_rider |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Good Luck America?
NK couldn't touch the States, nuke or not. They have no method of delivery.
The US could turn NK into a glass parking lot if they wanted.
Could they? Absolutely! Would they...hell no...again...because NK has nukes, the US won't do jack shit but try to push for more useless sanctions.
Again, I'm just hoping Iran HURRIES the hell up and produces a nuke! The sooner the better!!! |
|
|
| boarderfatty |
I say North America should stay the fuck out, let Europe, and Asia deal with it, its not our fucken problem if they blow the shit outta each other.
Plus if we go in it just gives others like s2000_rider more to rant about, "invading another countries sovereignty, opressing the people, trying to force our beliefs on them"
Like everyone says why waste our soldiers on a fight thats not even ours.
Also i doubt NK has the capabilities to hit NA, they are always fast to flaunt their shit to the world, and so far all they can hit is Japan, so who gives the fuck, not our problem. I'll start worryin when it hits my back yard.
Sorry to rant but i am sick of all this shit |
|
|
| Tech2 |
Consider this:
Under 1 kiloton nuke is exactly the ballpark for "suitcase" sized weapons. As in 60x40x20 inch cases weighing 50 pounds or so. At least this is the approximate size of the old US davey crocket size weapons. Method of delivery? Some guy. Quite a bit easier to work right than an ICBM (that already failed in testing). Even if it's a big ass bomb, you can still fit it in a shipping container.
Of course, a half a kiloton is quite possibly a misfire... |
|
|
| Driven |
| I don't know why anyone would be happy in hearing a country is capable of producing nuclear weapons... wait til your family becomes collateral damage.. you'll have a way different perspective. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by S2000_rider
I'm actually happy then NK has nukes...This ensures the U.S. will NOT attack NK. I'm just hoping that Iran is able to build a Nuke as soon as possible so as to deter the U.S. from attacking.
You mean like how Saddam's WMD's kept them out of Iraq?
Think about it......PRK shipping nukes to Iran? How? The US has an embargo and a large military presence, not to mention constant surveillance. Not only would this be "confirmed" in hours, there'd be no "maybe" about it.
This seems like the same sort of false intel as Saddam actively seeking weapon's grade plutonium (something he hadn't done since the 80's). The spin mentioning Iran sounds like pure White House propaganda to gear up for the Iran invasion that we know the Bush Admin is hoping for.
It's the same type of false, twisted, "leaked" intel that enabled them to convince the US population that the entire world believed Saddam had Nukes (something no one in the world believed, not even US intelligence services). Gas? Maybe. Nerve agents? Maybe. But nukes? No one believed that, and no one believed Saddam was ramping up his WMD program or not complying with UN resolutions.
The US is not infallable. They are not indestrcutible. But North Korea is not that threat. Like has been mentioned, they have no delivery system. If they just tested their first nuke, it will be years before they can refine and miniaturize it for suitcase type applications. They're best missle reaches Japan, sometimes. Plus they know they'd be anihilated the second they nuked US forces in South Korea or US warships in international waters.
Not only that, but PRK doesn't have that mentality. You're taking the anti-Western extremist mentality we've seen in the Middle East and applied it to PRK. It doesn't work that way. PRK isn't anti-West to that extent. They want the west out of RoK, not eliminated from the planet.
If the US wanted to invade PRK, they could easily do so. Afterall, they're still at war. As is Canada and the UK and all the other nations that were allied in the Korean Conflict. No peace treaty was ever signed. They could push north of the 38th Parallel into PRK and it would be a more legal invasion than the Iraq invasion. They don't need to convince anyone. Invading Iran, however. That's another story.
The downfall of the US will be brought on by the vastness of their empire, not some minor nation. Think of Ancient Greece, or Ancient Rome, or Macedon. None were destroyed by minor warring factions taking on their empirical might, they were destroyed by the sheer size of their empires. It's too expensive to maintain an empire. Why do you think the UK isn't trying to subjugate nations like the US? They've had their empire, they've seen what it can do, and they were quick to allow nations to seperate themselves near the end of their empire because they knew it was either that or perish.
The reduction in power caused by a constant spreading of militaries and politics and the increased cost of infrastructure over a larger area may allow a small nation to topple a large, but PRK is WAY too far away to be able to do that. Canada, Mexico, maybe even Cuba might have a chance IF and WHEN the US spreads themselves too thin.
PRK is at worst a thorn in their side. The US has one need above others: oil. The military-industrial complex governs the US. It's the place from which all it's power is derived. It's power as a nation, and the power of it's individual leaders. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has looked at making friends with those whom could help maintain that complex. Initially with Saudi Arabia, the largest supply of crude in the world. After that, it tried Iran and failed. It's actions caused the anti-Western ayatollah khomeini to rise to power. So it moved on to Iraq to try and push into Iran, which failed when Saddam became an enemy after invading Saudi Arabia (though it was viewed as an ally up to that point).
In order to secure the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world (Iran), Iraq had to be quieted. Iraq is the military power of the Arab-run middle east in terms of oil-controlling nations (Egypt having a more powerful military but being in no position to reinforce or assist Iran). With Iraq done, Iran is the next problem.
Why? A military needs many things: water, people, equipment, munitions, etc. But it's most vital asset is oil. Oil powers the equipment that builds the military machines, manufactures the munitions, and moves the military around to the far reaches of it's empire. And don't believe for one second that oil isn't the biggest factor in the mind of the US.
9-11 sparked an international outcry against terrorism. Afghanistan was an action AGAINST terrorism, supported by the government in place. Iraq was BS, and the world knows it. The international sympathy the US had is gone, completely eliminated. Why? Of all the places to combat terrorism, Iraq was one of the last places to go. Syria, Egypt, and a host of others were much better targets. But both are US allies, and neither one has oil. So the US tried to tie Iraq to 9-11. When that failed, they tried to convince the world by making WMD's seem like an imminent threat to the security of the middle east and the world. When they failed they went at it alone, with only the UK for support (a nation even shorter on oil than the US with a military complex almost as vital).
Mark my words, Iran is the next target of the US. PRK, China, or whoever the US chooses to "leak" intel about, it will ALWAYS come back to Iran, until Iran has had it's anti-West government removed, a pro-West one established, and permanent bases being constructed with a sizable presence.
We're relatively safe in oil-rich midwest Canada, thanks to our friendly trade. But should we change that in some way, we'd quickly become a target too. That's how empires work.
For a better-explained overview of the situation, you should watch "Why We Fight", a documentary produced by the BBC on the Military-Industrial Complex. It's one of the best movies I've ever seen, endorsed by people like Sen. John McCain who know a thing or two about the US machine as well as war in general. It's very enlightening. |
|
|
| Inzane |
I just hope those of us that have kids or plan to have kids don't have to watch them grow up breathing nuclear fallout.
The apathetic (and ignorant) Canadians have to get their heads out of the sand and realise that these world events affect us too.
Generally speaking what's bad for the US is bad for Canada too. |
|
|
| ae1969 |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
...........Not only that, but PRK doesn't have that mentality. You're taking the anti-Western extremist mentality we've seen in the Middle East and applied it to PRK. It doesn't work that way. PRK isn't anti-West to that extent. They want the west out of RoK, not eliminated from the planet........
Many good points DT.
THe one above definitely sets the basis for the next stage of strategic invasions by the U.S.
All that is needed is a small leak of nuclear intelligence heading to Iran.........
The only thing I would of wished is that China would of taken a larger role in the world stage than it has. It needs to bring PRK back in line.
The thing we forget about the COld War is that the superpowers had no intention of blowing themselves into extinction. The goal was to maintain a geographic sphere of influence. There was no intention by either party to exterminate the other.
THere were definitely some close calls in that era but calm, sane minds prevailed.
If Iran had a nuclear device and had the capability of striking Israel would those same 'sane and calm' minds prevail ??? ........... |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by ae1969
Many good points DT.
THe one above definitely sets the basis for the next stage of strategic invasions by the U.S.
All that is needed is a small leak of nuclear intelligence heading to Iran.........
The only thing I would of wished is that China would of taken a larger role in the world stage than it has. It needs to bring PRK back in line.
The thing we forget about the COld War is that the superpowers had no intention of blowing themselves into extinction. The goal was to maintain a geographic sphere of influence. There was no intention by either party to exterminate the other.
THere were definitely some close calls in that era but calm, sane minds prevailed.
If Iran had a nuclear device and had the capability of striking Israel would those same 'sane and calm' minds prevail ??? ...........
The Cold War was a mess. I mean, you're right, neither side wanted to exterminate the other, but both sides were prepared to do it. I can't speak for the soviets, but I know the US side had actually done studies that outlined build up times. Some people advocated a pre-emptive strike on the USSR, despite the Nuclear Winter that would follow, because they knew that the west could ramp up production and return to pre-apocolyptic strength decades faster than the Soviet Union, so they could hit them again and this time be safe. It was a strange place.
I think what the US is most scared of is one of these unfavorable nations getting a seat at the big table. Now that Pakistan has the big 'uns, there's been a lot of heated debate about giving them a permanent seat on the Security Council, giving them veto powers with all the other Nuke powers. THe logic being that's sorta what the UNSC was designed for, let the big boys talk before wiping out the planet. Imagine PRK with Veto, or Iran. The US would be none to pleased. They'd have a hard time passing any resolution at all, and it'd turn the tide of the resolutions with regards to the middle east constant;y favoring Isreal (not commenting on whether or not that's fair or just, just that it's what happens right now).
I think China wants to stay out of Korea right now. They have that whole Taiwan thing to worry about. Plus I don't think China really cares anymore. As much as people deny it, the US really was trying to stop the spread of communism, and China/Russia really were pushing to spread it. The ideologies where key to strengthening their power. But neither side rivals the US anymore.
The US has taken steps to ensure they remain the worlds only super power, and no matter what China wants to do, they don't have the economic base to ramp up R&D and production to match the technology of the US Military-Industrial complex. They're already decades behind in equipment and training.
The fact is, there's only one country that can afford a military like the US has, and that's the US. And quite simply, until another country decides to set up a similar economic system where they borrow money only from themselves and have $0 international debt, the US will always have that market cornered. The US economy is THE economy in the world. Even if you hate the US, you have to accept that they know money and how to manage it. A huge debt seems like an issue, except it's not owed to anyone, and the US can wipe their hands and clean the slate.
And China knows that. So why should they get involved in Korea? They know Korea can't win the war. so there's no reason to back them anymore. Back during the Cold War they had the USSR helping them too, and it was a proxy war against the evil Imperialist Pigdogs. China has changed a lot since then. I don't think they fear the capilists anymore, they just don't care to follow suit. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
I think the Republicans and GWB no longer have the political capital or the military resources to move on Iran after what has gone on in Iraq. They may want to, but they won't get the support needed to carry on in that direction. It would take a full scale attack by Iran on Israel or the US to give GWB the excuse to invade Iran. Ideology & profits are one thing, but if you aren't in control of the White House or Congress you don't get the chance to capitilize on them.
As for Korea, the Great Leader is unlikely to use his new toy on other countries as it would certainly mean the end of his reign. The biggest fear I have of their nuclear capabilities is that they would sell them off to someone who would use them. They are a staggeringly poor nation with people actually starving to death, and they don't have the natural resources to sustain them in the face of stepped up embargoes by the rest of the world. It would be tempting for Kim to make a side deal on the Nukes to keep his cash flow going. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
I just hope those of us that have kids or plan to have kids don't have to watch them grow up breathing nuclear fallout.
The apathetic (and ignorant) Canadians have to get their heads out of the sand and realise that these world events affect us too.
Generally speaking what's bad for the US is bad for Canada too.
I really disagree with this. I know you said generally, but for far too long Canada has been a US puppet. I agree Canadians are too apathetic. We feel sorry for poor Israel..........and also for poor Lebanon. We feel sorry for the poor US and the terrorist attacks..........and we feel sorry for Al Qaeda.
We need to decide for ourselves what we do and don't agree with. But a large chunk of the time, what's good for Canada is to disagree with the US and call them on their crap. The last thing Canada needs is to be considered one of the vassal nations in the US empire, and we're close to that. As it is most people are content to keep letting our military dwindle since we have the US to protect us.
What happens when the US wants our oil? Or our electricity? Or our fresh water? Or what happens if the US gets attacked and activates our bilateral defence agreement and we have to go help them? 60,000 troops is way to small. 90 tanks is not enough. 120 fighter planes is peanuts.
Our troops deploy to the desert with green camouflage. Our aircraft ship off for war (eg Gulf War) unable to drop current-technology muinitions due to dated weapons control systems. Our equipment and platforms can't be delivered to areas of deployment without assistance from other nations.
At this point, only our consititution is allowing us to call ourselves a "sovereign" state. When the US decided to go into Iraq, Canada said no. That was a good moment. While many people supported that war, Canada couldn't do it. We didn't have the resources, and I think for the most part, the population didn't agree with Iraq.
A lot of the problems the US is facing are problems they've created for themselves. The CIA helped overthrow the Shah in Iran, and Khomeini rose to power and began an anti-West sentiment. To deal with that they enlisted the help of the Hussein family, furnished them with arms, intelligence, technology and funds to fight the Iranians. Ended up going to war to overthrow the Hussein's, established a US-friendly government, which in recent months has become decided less so, and in time might become as anti-West as Khomeini. Then what?
Terrorists are pouring in from Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. All to fight the evil infidels. Do we really want to side blindly with a country that can go from having the support of the entire world in it's mission to rid the world of terrorists to most hated country in the world in the span of less than a year?
If the US collapsed, it would affect a lot of countries more than it would affect us. I agree that we should worry about what's going on in the world, but we should put very little weight on what's best for the US and focus on what we feel is important as a people. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
I think the Republicans and GWB no longer have the political capital or the military resources to move on Iran after what has gone on in Iraq. They may want to, but they won't get the support needed to carry on in that direction. It would take a full scale attack by Iran on Israel or the US to give GWB the excuse to invade Iran. Ideology & profits are one thing, but if you aren't in control of the White House or Congress you don't get the chance to capitilize on them.
As for Korea, the Great Leader is unlikely to use his new toy on other countries as it would certainly mean the end of his reign. The biggest fear I have of their nuclear capabilities is that they would sell them off to someone who would use them. They are a staggeringly poor nation with people actually starving to death, and they don't have the natural resources to sustain them in the face of stepped up embargoes by the rest of the world. It would be tempting for Kim to make a side deal on the Nukes to keep his cash flow going.
The only limiting factor to the US ability to wage war in Iran, IMO, is oil. If there's enough oil to keep the engines running, the US can push in once they tidy up Iraq. The extremists know that, and that's why they're turning Iraq into the complete warzone it is now. THey know if they backoff, the US will roll into ANOTHER Arab state, something even the non-extremists don't want.
With their new 13 permanent bases in Iraq, all stationed around major sources of oil, I don't see it as being a problem. They will need to finish up in Iraq first, which will take awhile. The question is.........will an extreme Republican government come to power after Bush's term? I don't think so. I don't think the Democrats will sweep, I see a more centrist government coming to power, with views similiar to John McCain's. And that will put the breaks on an Iran invasion.
You have to remember, Bush doesn't need Congress. He's been given the green light to use military force, including the release of nuclear weapons, in the Middle East as he seas fit.
I agree that PRK isn't a threat. But I don't think Jong-Il will sell of the actual hardware himself. He loses power by doing that. He could sell the know-how I suppose, but building nukes isn't hard. 5 or 6 of us could read up on it out of a book and build one in a few months. The hard part is the weapon's grade fissionable material. But if you're worried about poor nations selling plutonium, Africa should be the concern, not Korea. |
|
|
| Inzane |
If the US gets hit with a massive attack, nuclear OR biological, we will suffer.
If the US loses "control" of oil, we will suffer.
If the US economy collapses, we will suffer.
As for what the US has done over decades around the world, rightly or wrongly, Canada today enjoys the fruits of their (US) efforts.
I agree that we shouldn't be puppets. However we owe much to the US for where we are. Canada by itself does not actually have that much to be proud of on the world stage today (other than foreign aid).
We may not be the same as Americans, but we share much in terms of lifestyle and culture. Like it or not, we are a part of the "western world". We are capitalists, we are heavy consumers, we have our share of selfishness and greed, etc. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
If the US gets hit with a massive attack, nuclear OR biological, we will suffer.
If the US loses "control" of oil, we will suffer.
If the US economy collapses, we will suffer.
As for what the US has done over decades around the world, rightly or wrongly, Canada today enjoys the fruits of their (US) efforts.
I agree that we shouldn't be puppets. However we owe much to the US for where we are. Canada by itself does not actually have that much to be proud of on the world stage today (other than foreign aid).
We may not be the same as Americans, but we share much in terms of lifestyle and culture. Like it or not, we are a part of the "western world". We are capitalists, we are heavy consumers, we have our share of selfishness and greed, etc.
The US got hit with a massive attack. 9-11 was huge. We didn't suffer. Unless they nuke something close and we get fallout, I think we're good. The US economy collapsing would affect us just as much as any other major economy collapsing, but we can't try and please every nation that has a strong economy.
What fruits do we enjoy from US efforts? And which actions are you talking about? Grenada, Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, Columbia? I don't see us enjoying "fruits" of US actions.
I agree Canada hasn't done anything, but backing the US because "what's good for the US is good for us" won't help. Doing what we think is right REGARDLESS of how it effects the US will. |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Doing what we think is right REGARDLESS of how it effects the US will.
I agree with you on that. But that shouldn't include covering our eyes & ears and putting our heads in the sand, hoping all these world problems will just blow over and not affect us. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
I agree with you on that. But that shouldn't include covering our eyes & ears and putting our heads in the sand, hoping all these world problems will just blow over and not affect us.
It shouldn't include us swallowing the load that the neocons are shovelling out about Iran either. They're on the ropes in terms of public opinion in the US and are looking for anything to distract or redirect from the way things are going down there (and in Iraq) which is why you see this failed NK test being spun into some sort of nookoolar threat from Iran.
It'll get sillier as we get closer to November 7th. :( |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
I agree with you on that. But that shouldn't include covering our eyes & ears and putting our heads in the sand, hoping all these world problems will just blow over and not affect us.
Couldn't agree more. Playing ostrich won't accomplish anything, and I've always agreed with you that Canadians are too apathetic. |
|
|
| ehos |
You can never defeat an 'ism' with a force of arms. In otherwords, the last cold war, 'communism/socialism' could never have been defeated with force.
An 'ism' has to be replaced with something (for better or worse). Communism was replaced with capitalism.
The problem with the middle east, NK etc as I see it is, that their 'ism' can never be replaced with capitalism. So ideologically there is no way to 'win'. (By win I don't mean subjigation, I mean the same 'win' that occured in Russia, a peace or resolution).
What's the 'ism' that we're fighting in the middle east/NK? I think it's basically anti-Americanism (so how the hell can America ever hope to defeat it by replacing it with 'Americanism'?) Not going to happen. Ever.
Regan may have seemed like a dummy from the outside, but he did inherently realize that socialism had one huge hole in it, the people were inherently dissatisfied. The question is, is anyone dissatisfied enough in the middle east (maybe in NK) to do anything about it?
Not likely again.
I'm 100% against the Iraq war, but honestly, I'm kinda glad the Americans are getting crushed financially, socially and politcally over there. Maybe the answer isn't changing the ME, maybe it's about changing 'Americanism'.
I go back to history when America was isolationists, that was their greatest time of prosperity/wealth. After that time, it's been a steady downhill trudge. |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
I go back to history when America was isolationists, that was their greatest time of prosperity/wealth.
Which time period are you referring to? Prior to WWII, I seem to remember there was a rather large depression. (And following that war there was tremendous prosperity in the US.)
Or are you talking about pre-WWI? |
|
|
| ehos |
It's two fold, the same isolationism caused the great depression, but it also allowed the US to become a superpower. Isolationism ended after WWII.
To be more clear, there was still a gap of time between WWII, and when America started to exercise it's powers abroad (I'm hard pressed to put an event, but well before Vietnam, though thats probably the prime case showing how interference backfired). |
|
|
| THUD |
I don't like the NK leader I would chop off his head and hang it on a wall.
I do like the Iranian president minus the whole wipe out Israel thing, But he is a whole lot more stable than NK.
If you have ever heard him speak at the UN or any of his speeches he is a smart guy.
NK leader is far from stable and that is obvious and not just because his sideburns are shaved way way up but mostly because he acts like a child.
Few months back the japan president came to visit bush and NK fired off some missiles and caused some shit and every time Bush has gone to or anyone from Asia visit bush he's doing something to get on CNN.
It's a pattern I have noticed or the past few years GWB can't talk to japan without NK stirin the pot some how.
This will go a few ways but ether this is solved by diplomacy or we goto war or diplomacy prolongs the inevitable war.
Given the way the UN and everyone else is handling the whole thing so far it's just gonna be finger pointing mess were Cowardly politicians stumble the whole way and NK finally just attacks someone.
I have always wondered if I would ever face something called a The draft or even if more dier times a Force draft were basically the government is forced to round up all able bodied citizens to fight.
I need to hurry up and build a space ship so I can get off this rock for a while. :beer:
NK daily news http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm
This is something we could all use a bit more of http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/wisdom.html |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
It's two fold, the same isolationism caused the great depression, but it also allowed the US to become a superpower. Isolationism ended after WWII.
To be more clear, there was still a gap of time between WWII, and when America started to exercise it's powers abroad (I'm hard pressed to put an event, but well before Vietnam, though thats probably the prime case showing how interference backfired).
I don't think isolationism allowed the US to become a superpower. In my poli sci class this came up and it was a topic of much debate. Personally, I don't think isolationism helped them rise. Prior to WWII, the US was just another major nation, and the superpowers were the Commonwealth of the United Kingdom and it's Dominions and Germany. The British Empire was still declining, and it remained one of the most powerful states in the world. Germany was unequalled in economy and industry at that time and their power was on the rise and already higher than everyone else despite the restrictions in place after WWI.
By the time WWII was over, Germany's economy and industrial abilities were obliterated. The Dominions of the Commonwealth had proven their ability to function independantly and everyone knew it was only a matter of time before the Empire was completely gone.
It was during WWII (after the US declaration of war in 1941) that the US rose to a superpower. And by the time that happened, isolationism was out the window and the US was fully involved in the world stage in all aspects, including trade.
In fact, I would argue it was the END of "isolationism" that skyrocketed the US to superpowerdom. But the US, despite claiming to be isolationists, never really were. In 1890 the US was in Buenos Aires, in 1891 they were in Haiti, in 1893 they overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii and annexed it, in 1894 they occupied part of Nicaragua, from 1894 to 1896 the US was in China, Korea, Panama and back into Nicaragua, between 1898 and 1910 the US was in China agian, the Phillipines, Cuba, Puerto Rico (which they siezed from Spain and still occupy), Guam, Samoa, Nicaragua (again), Panama (again), Honduras, the Dominican Republic, and Korea. From 1911 to 1941 the US maintained a presence in China with constant squirmishes. I can go on, but I think you get my point.
WWII ended in 1945, as we all know. In 1946 the US began passing out orders to the world. The soviets were told they MUST leave Iran and the US sent troops to Yugoslavia after a plane was shot down. In 1947 the US deployed bombers to Uraguay as a show of force. In 1947-1949 during the Civil War in Greece, the US directed and supplied the right-wing faction. There were other minor squirmishes worldwide, but the big start to the US pattern of unilateral intervention was when the CIA directed the war against the Huks in the Phillipines. In 1950 the US helped Puerto Rico put down a rebellion lead by anti-American factions. And of course 1950 also marked the start of Korea, a US led war to prevent the spread of "communism".
In 1953 the US installed the Shah in Iran. In 1954 they helped the French in Vietnam with supplies and directed an invasion in Guatemala, in 1956 the took part during the Suez Canal invasion evacuating foreigners from the area. In 1958 the US moved in and occupied Lebanon. 1960-1975 was Vietnam. 1961 the US failed the invasion in Cuba. 1962 they moved to blockage Cuban trade in the Missile Crisis. 1962 they went into Laos. 1964 back into Panama. In 1965 the CIA assisted in coup in Inodonesia that killed a million people. In 1965 the Marines went into the Dominican again and halted democratic elections. 1966 Special Forces moved against rebels in Guatamala. Between 1969 and 1975 the US killed almost 2 million people (mostly civilians, many starved) in Cambodia. In 1970 they invaded Oman. 1971 back into Laos including carpet bombing villiages of farmers. In 1973 they overthrew the anti-West president of Chile. 1975 they bombed Cambodia. Starting in 1976 up to the mid 90's the US helped rebels in Angola. 1981 there was the Iran Contra. In 1982 the US attacked muslims in Lebanon. In 83 the US invaded Grenada "against the rebels" four (yes, four, as in 4) YEARS after the revolution. In 1987 the US sided with Hussein and assisted in the war against Iran. In 1989 back into Panama, 2000+ killed. In 1990 we had the Guld War, and the ensuing build-up in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE and Israel in preparation for the inevitable securing of oil. Why do I say oil insead of "humanitarian" like they claim? They didn't stop the Kurds and Shiites in the area from massacring each other. Then Somalia, Yugo, Bosnia, Haiti, Croatia, the Congo (Rwanda), Liberia, Albania, Sudan, etc.
And of course, the piece de resistance, in 1988 the attack on their former CIA training camp in Afghanistan that was used to form and train Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden.
The US has ALWAYS flexed military muscle in international matters, since it's inception. And it hasn't been afraid to use force on it's own citizens either. In fact, if the US people were to read up on the stuff they've done in the past decade or so, they'd understand why these countries hate Americans. The blowblack has actually been pretty small when you consider how many toes they've stepped on to satisfy their own interests.
And what are US interests? US businesses and oil. The almighty dollar. And yes, we here in Canada are falling into that same trap, putting money above all else. What we SHOULD be doing is mobilizing our forces for good. Afghanistan is to rid the world of terrorists, good move. Now lets send a few battalions into Africa with Pakistan and the other large militaries who want to end the civil wars there. Or deploy to places like Zaire where death squads are still murdering civilians for no reason.
The turning point was the communications revolution. Suddenly we got word at what the US was doing. I think there were 2 key incidents that put the US in a negative light, despite their intentions, namely the Bay of Pigs and the Gulf of Tonkin.
I don't think Canada needs to follow the US, we need to take point. We should be leading the way. Like the UK and the US, and much of the EU, we have relative peace and prosperity in our country, and we should be turning that around and using it for good, not to help Haliburton and Coca-Cola get richer. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by S2000_rider
I'm actually happy then NK has nukes...This ensures the U.S. will NOT attack NK.
NK doesn't have a way to deliver their nuclear weapons as of yet, and are most likely years away from developing any sort of delivery system.
If the US (And the UN) struck now there would be little chance of it escalating into a nuclear showdown.
quote:
I'm just hoping that Iran is able to build a Nuke as soon as possible so as to deter the U.S. from attacking.
The US has the technology and capability to completely wipe a country of Iran's size off the map within 24 hours, without needing nuclear weapons.
I would hazard to guess that they also have many different technologies (That haven't been field tested) to prevent a nuclear launch.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the US in either scenario above. But, when you're dealing with the playground bully fighting back sometimes gets you dog shit shoved in your face. |
|
|
| SilverZ24 |
I love how everytime there is something bad posted about any country in the world, it always comes back to bashing the us. lol :beer:
Some people here sound like they would rather border Iran or NK than the US. :blink: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverZ24
I love how everytime there is something bad posted about any country in the world, it always comes back to bashing the us. lol :beer:
Some people here sound like they would rather border Iran or NK than the US. :blink:
True, but how thinks sound isn't always the truth. As an example, I named a multitude of times the US unilaterally invaded a nation to serve their interests or aided an evil regime come to power. But it was in the context of demonstrating the falsehood of US isolationism. Canada has done some pretty terrible things herself, such as training a police force that later overthrew a democratically elected government with extreme violence, then sending in special forces to restore the government to power only to find out years later that the government was overthrown because it tended to massacre those who didn't support it. :S Ooops.
You can expect the US to do what's best for the US. There seems to be a schism in this thread. Those who feel we should back the US because we're allies, and those who feel we should mimick the US, and do what's best for us regardless of what our allies think about it.
In many cases, going along with the US is a good plan IMO (Afghanistan for example), in some cases it isn't (Iraq). I don't agree with following the US simply because they're the US, but at the same time, the US is a very powerful nation that has done a lot of good in the world.
The problem we run into is that most people are obviously right or obviously left in this day and age. Both sides view a centrist as the "enemy". I know people who are right who accuse me of being a socialist and a communist because I don't agree with being a US puppet and despise much of their foreign policy. I know people who are left who accuse me of being a republican at heart because I agree with a lot of things the US has done in the past which may or may not have been popular.
I run in the center in many ways. I'm for many social programs and I'm pro choice and for gay marriage, but I'm anti-throwing money away in some social programs and pro-military power and anti-drug (even pot). Then on other issues I run in the middle, like capitalism. So I'm always being accused of siding with the others by some group.
I'm used to being called "anti-American", despite the fact that my best friend lives in Nevada and some of my closest friends are overseas serving in the US military as we speak. I'm also used to being called pro-American.
There are countries I wish we lived beside other then the US. They've done a lot of good but they aren't the greatest partner to have in a lot of cases (look at trade for an example, it's often very lopsided). But we certainly could've done a lot worse. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Canada has done some pretty terrible things herself
That's the problem; is that countries such as the US and Canada are in their "prime" and are world leaders in a sense (With others of course). Because of this, everyone seems to put them under a microscope and point out all the bad things.
But why don't we step back, and take a look throughout history. Countries in their prime all make poor decisions at one point in time. I'm sure we can all think of other countries that have "done some pretty terrible things".
Mankind should evolve over time. But mankind also makes mistakes. Why should you expect the US/Canada to be perfect when no other country in the past has been? |
|
|
| ehos |
DT: Good post on the American involvement around the world, but you missed about 40-50 campaigns :) People can't believe (or fail to acknowledge) that Americans have lead to more regime changes than any other nation (EVER!).
Both world wars are proof positive that America was isolationist before, during, and after. The WORLD faught the wars whereas America mainly stayed out of it. Even the end of the war wasn't to defeat Germany, Russia already did that.
Providing the means to fight the war is what made America a superpower (they conserved their resources and built them up, while the rest of the world expended theirs).
It was mainly to keep Russia from owning all of Europe (ie all of Germany, maybe France? Who knows, alot of Russians died, and they weren't really looking to stop).
Also, there is no reason why Canada should be in Afghanistan. We are for all intents, isolationists. We give the absolute token amount to anything in the world and I think Canada is the best country in the world (well, maybe Australia.. but top 2 or 3 anyways) because of it...
Let the Americans save the world, its' what they are good at. We're great at riding coattails (no shame in that, it's our niche). What does Australia, and most of Europe do? Not much, and look at them. EU is prospering all over, so is China (what does China do for the world?) |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
Only by critiquing and acknowledging mistakes can we learn from them and improve though.
I know for much of the EU, that's why the UK is respected and the US isn't. UK apologized and made reparations for alot of the terrible things it did in forming and maintaining it's empire, something the US refuses to do because it would "look weak".
I like to acknowledge the good AND bad Canada has done, and during the course of intelligent discussion I do so with other nations as the subject comes up as well. |
|
|
| DeathBy240 |
| I think I found out where NK really got the knowledge to build their bomb. it wasn't India, it was CLICK |
|
|
| Blaine B. |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
The fact is, there's only one country that can afford a military like the US has, and that's the US. And quite simply, until another country decides to set up a similar economic system where they borrow money only from themselves and have $0 international debt, the US will always have that market cornered. The US economy is THE economy in the world. Even if you hate the US, you have to accept that they know money and how to manage it. A huge debt seems like an issue, except it's not owed to anyone, and the US can wipe their hands and clean the slate.
And China knows that. So why should they get involved in Korea? They know Korea can't win the war. so there's no reason to back them anymore. Back during the Cold War they had the USSR helping them too, and it was a proxy war against the evil Imperialist Pigdogs. China has changed a lot since then. I don't think they fear the capilists anymore, they just don't care to follow suit.
You had me up until this point. China owns alot of US debt. It's not a problem until they call in the mortgage. WW III anyone? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Blaine B.
You had me up until this point. China owns alot of US debt. It's not a problem until they call in the mortgage. WW III anyone?
That's just it, it won't matter. The US would pay it off quite simply the same way they scrounge together $2.2 billion for a B2, they'll borrow it from themselves. The debt to China is because China is asking for a 2:1 ration of trade, taking advantage of it's surpluses (which perfectly match US defecits). Why shop at 10 different stores when 1 store has it all?
The US has the Federal Reserve system in place and just doesn't care about debt, nor does it have any reason to. If anyone decides to whine about US debt, they'll only screw themselves over.
Think about it, if you were allowed to print your own money, and you borrowed $5 from your printer and charged in interest, what would happen in 50 years if you never paid it back? Nothing. If the bank forclosed on your mortgage, you'd just print off the value of the mortgage and borrow it from your printer instead. If your debt ever started to seriously hurt you, you could just wipe the slate clean because you don't owe debt to anyone but yourself.
Sure, that will have repercussions when an entire country whipes debt, but that will either happen after the US ceases to be a superpower, or it won't have any large effect. If the US remains a superpower, wiping it's debt would change little in the world. Markets would hicup, that's about it. All this talk about a global depression is horseshit. It doesn't even make sense. A global depression? Come on. No one would make money, so they'd start selling goods cheaper. Worst case scenario we'd be back in the 50's where $.25 got you a whole meal.
If it happens after the US ceases to be a superpower, it won't effect us, because markets will be based on yen, or Euro's, or whatever the new superpower uses. I realize the US actually has debt aside from the one they owe themselves, but they can just transfer the debt to themselves and write it off, so it's not really a real debt. No big deal. No one else has that type of economic system in place to do that.
And that's why China does care about Korea. Not in the least. Kim Jong-Il isn't exactly on friendly terms with Chinese military leaders as it is, they certainly aren't going to risk war with the US over it. The chinese military is so poorly equipped, it doesn't matter that it's twice the size of the US military, it'd be decimated in a heartbeat. The only threat to the US would be if the Commonwealth of the United Kingdom and at least half of the European Union joined forces. No country can singlehandedly take them on right now. |
|
|
| S2000_rider |
quote:
Originally posted by Blaine B.
You had me up until this point. China owns alot of US debt. It's not a problem until they call in the mortgage. WW III anyone?
I disagree with WWIII...Everyone know's (including China) that they will never be able make the U.S. pay...
but...
all China has to do...is "SAY" that they are calling U.S. debt and that is MORE then enough to crumble the confidence of the U.S. economy IMO and pummel into a depression. That's far more lethal then any Nuke China could have used. |
|
|
| ehos |
| The US has reneged on world debt before. They will do it again. |
|
|
| ehos |
quote:
Originally posted by S2000_rider
I disagree with WWIII...Everyone know's (including China) that they will never be able make the U.S. pay...
but...
all China has to do...is "SAY" that they are calling U.S. debt and that is MORE then enough to crumble the confidence of the U.S. economy IMO and pummel into a depression. That's far more lethal then any Nuke China could have used.
That would be suicidal for China. They would collapse for sure, the Americans would still survive (they've reneged on world debt before and they did just fine). |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
That would be suicidal for China. They would collapse for sure, the Americans would still survive (they've reneged on world debt before and they did just fine).
I agree. |
|
|
|
