• heh… they’ve said that of several wars we’ve faught in before… :-?


  • @city:

    GeZe,

    I’m afraid that you are mistaken about what is necessary for a WW3 to take place…

    You need to have 2 large, formidable, closely-matched opponents for a war of those proportions…

    China is NOWHERE NEAR OUR POWER. The importance of tech and air forces cannot be underestimated…

    they would lose decisively, and therefore, not get involved in the first place.

    firts of all the have tha largest militery in the world second there terranie would make it a hard country to take over completely,the himilayas, the desert, its the 3rd largest country in the world, and the HAVE nuclear weapons!


  • Okay everyone,
    Step away from the crazyness.
    Slowly - you’re not used to not being crazy. . . i understand that, so baby steps.
    Let me know when you are done being all 1950’s America.


  • eh… this is all speculation. Not like we have any real power… :-?


  • @cystic:

    Okay everyone,
    Step away from the crazyness.
    Slowly - you’re not used to not being crazy. . . i understand that, so baby steps.
    Let me know when you are done being all 1950’s America.

    lol roflmao


  • @cystic:

    Good Lord!!!

    More to that later 😉

    The world is a much bigger and more complex place than many here realize. Certainly i may be seen as an idiot (savant?) peacenik, however in my (very limited) travel experiences, i’ve come to realize (shockingly) that people are very much a like in many respects everywhere. They do not all want to take over the world (well, 'cept for in America where they do not even know what goes on in the world that they seek to control), they all have their needs, wants and wishes and most of those do not include being invaded. I have also come to realize that many of these people are very different in their cultures and ways of thinking. Why is it that we in the west, like the Europeans of old continually seek to dominate, shape and change these ways into our image?

    I don’t see you as an idiot, and i agree from my limited experiences. Man is man, each the same, yet each unique.
    And i think i do have an answer to your question:
    Missionaric (sp?) spirit. The christian church (emphasising the church, christianity has the spirit to convert everyone, that is a seed that grew and found it means in the church). If you know you are right (like the pope), then by definition people who think differently are wrong. If you then have the power to “teach” them…. voilá.
    Pretty simple model, but it shows what i think, in rough terms.


  • I think that “missionaric spirit” (not an entirely inappropriate neologism) need not be entertwined w/ imperialism. Certainly many have used Christian symbols to enslave people in the past, but i am not certain that this is of the same “go out and tell the world with love” raison d’etre that drives missionaries. The Mennonite Central Committee does not care where the oil is, just where they can provide food, blankets and other services to needy people.


  • @cystic:

    I think that “missionaric spirit” (not an entirely inappropriate neologism) need not be entertwined w/ imperialism.
    Certainly many have used Christian symbols to enslave people in the past, but i am not certain that this is of the same “go out and tell the world with love” raison d’etre that drives missionaries. The Mennonite Central Committee does not care where the oil is, just where they can provide food, blankets and other services to needy people.

    It need not be intertwined, but IMHO it often enough was. In the name of the cross bloody wars were fought first in europe (against saxons by Charlemagne AFAIR, later the Order of German Knights in Russia, the Crusades, the Reconquista in Spain). These were wars which of course were for “power”; but you shouldn’t underestimate the influence of the christian belief and of the christian church.
    Of course, if you go back further…
    then we find the (late) Roman Empire, ruling “the world” with a christian Emperor in Rome and Konstantinople. Maybe losing this, a single world-dominating ruler, was one of the reasons for later kings to conquer in the name of the cross: to become a king as big as the Roman emperors, to let christianity rule over the world again. This desire, together with the desire for a united christian world under one ruler (which showed itself in the Holy Roman Empire with Charlemagne as first Emperor), can explain a lot IMHO.
    And after that, we (westerners) just never stopped behaving like that.

    The Mennonites are a pretty “new” “sect” inside christianity. When we talk of christians, especially in a historical context, i think we should concentrate on the Catholics and their views… and the official views still are pretty medieval there.


  • F_alk, you are obviously anti-religious, and hence you stopped looking at the history of imperialism and “manifest destinies” around the time of the beginnings of the catholic church. The Romans prior to that had much greater imperialistic tendencies with NO missionaric spirit. As did the Greeks before them, as well as the Persians, Assyrians, the Egyptions, the Chinese and Mongols, the Aztecs the Iroquois blah blah blah. To blame current American war-mongering on religious zeal when Christ was extremely clear in his admonishing us to love our enemies is i believe a mistake.
    The fact is, it takes little effort for someone to yell “look over there. They might attack us. The best way to deal with this is to attack us first”. Similarly human nature decrees that since this guy yelled, he must be right, and it is imperitive to jump into a fight. May this man be motivated by religious issues? Possibly. As well as economic, political and other selfish ones. Because of a desire to make the world outside of his tiny realm a better place . . . ?


  • @cystic:

    F_alk, you are obviously anti-religious,

    anti-church fits better

    and hence you stopped looking at the history of imperialism and “manifest destinies” around the time of the beginnings of the catholic church. The Romans prior to that had much greater imperialistic tendencies with NO missionaric spirit. As did the Greeks before them, as well as the Persians, Assyrians, the Egyptions, the Chinese and Mongols, the Aztecs the Iroquois blah blah blah. To blame current American war-mongering on religious zeal when Christ was extremely clear in his admonishing us to love our enemies is i believe a mistake.

    Yes, the Romans were imperialistic, but they showed a lot of “respect” to the conquered people, for example in fitting in their panteon into the roman one and not “killing” their gods. The Greek imperialism was rather small scale, with the expansion either limited to close-by areas as the turkish coast, or when far away building trade-cities.
    But you are right, there was no missionaric spirit by those cultures.
    That’s why i mentioned it as one of the main differences between western “imperialism” (not to be confused with the late 19th century phenomenon). And i don’t only blame the american war-mongering on that, but more or less all european-rooted imperialism (see the older post with the examples).
    Sure, Christ said you shouldn’t do that that way, but still the merging of christianity and roman culture lead IMHO to this “new” class of colonialism.

    The fact is, it takes little effort for someone to yell “look over there. They might attack us. The best way to deal with this is to attack us first”. Similarly human nature decrees that since this guy yelled, he must be right, and it is imperitive to jump into a fight. May this man be motivated by religious issues? Possibly. As well as economic, political and other selfish ones. Because of a desire to make the world outside of his tiny realm a better place . . . ?

    The different motives are probably all true, but most often in “western” history, this motives where “morally legalized” by taking the cross:
    Have a look at how each army in the first world war was blessed by their priests. “God with us” was a common phrase for any combatant there.
    I don’t blame christianity, i blame the church for becoming too word-ly, therefore having interest in defending its power and property, for getting too involved into political games of power, for getting corrupted.
    Today, the situation of the church is different. It lost most of its power. Though it’s still influential in spiritual questions, and that’s where it belongs IMHO.


  • About intervention by China, remember that Sinkiang makes up about a third of China and it is sparsely populated. It also is one of China’s occupied territories. It is most likely safe to say that Tibet would rise up against China after an invasion would start by the US and that Manchuria might as well, as it has also been hoping for independence from China. I doubt that Chinese would be willing to risk not only nuclear war, but domestic risings while they attempt to repel an invasion by the world’s superpower.


  • well, 'cept for in America where they do not even know what goes on in the world

    A’hem… :evil: I hardly doubt that anyone else in the world really understands us either. Most of the world’s opinion about us is formed out of jealously. :-?

    Consider the following possible scenario…

    • Russia, China, or France veto the Iraq resolution.
    • Bush decides to attack Iraq and begins collecting forces in the gulf
    • Iran begins moving forces to its border with Iraq to “secure the border” for the upcoming US invasion.
    • The US attacks Iraq. Initial bombing is messy, the bulk of Iraqi forces are in urban centers. Ground forces are needed.
    • US commits ground forces to Iraq.
    • China invades Taiwan claiming the US military hardware sold to Taiwan is a serious threat to Mainland China. A preventive/defensive strike is warranted by China for the same reasons the U.S. is invading Iraq.
    • Iranian forces cross the Iraqi border. Iran claims it is crossing the border to provide humanitarian relief to innocent Iraqi civilians caught in the conflict. The Iranian troops are there simply to provide security for Iranian humanitarian relief workers and Iraqi citizens who might otherwise be terrorized by elements of Saddams military. It is noted however that Iranian military forces seem to be focused on diffing in around eastern Iraqi oil fields.

    I think if it escalated to that proportion, then we’d have to make some serious alliances. That above scenario would be grounds for a world-class war, not simply an American war.


  • I would think that the Iranians would be crossing the border as part of the coalition. Let’s not forget that part of Iraq was promised to Jordan, I’m sure they would help too.


  • Geze,

    In response to your claims:

    A.) The largest military in the world, if unarmed, can be mowed down by machine guns.
    B) We wouldn’t be invading China, merely keeping them out of a North Korean conflict.
    C) The Himilayas and the desert contain about 4 FREAKIN PERCENT OF CHINA’S POPULATION!!!
    D) Third largest country still loses to #1 military…
    E) We sold them the nukes that they do have, so who do YOU think has MORE nukes?
    F) (just a side note…) The reason that WW3 wasn’t started during the Cold War was this… if they launch nukes against US, they WILL BE DEAD IN 15 MINUTES!!! (If they are lucky)


  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    well, 'cept for in America where they do not even know what goes on in the world

    A’hem… :evil: I hardly doubt that anyone else in the world really understands us either. Most of the world’s opinion about us is formed out of jealously. :-?

    Actually, that’s not true. Most of the hatred toward America in the rest of the world is because we treat non-americans so poorly. How many dictatorships exist soley because of U.S. backing of that dictator? Saddam Hussien used to be one of our best allies because he fought against Iran. Now he’s refusing to be our puppet so we want him out.

    Iran was our enemy because when the Iranians rose up and overthrew the Shah to install a democracy, we helped the Shah overthrow the fledgling democracy and remain a tyrant. Ironic that America would overthrow a democracy, but I guess cheap oil for U.S. citizens comes before freedom for non-Americans. Of course as a consequence of our actions to maintian the Shah, militant Islam rose to power in Iran and overthrew the Shah. Remember the Iranian hostages? Didn’t you ever wonder why they targeted the U.S embassy. Its because we backed that bastard the Shah. We were getting what we deserved. Oh, but in America the media was all “Why is this happening to us.” “poor us” “Muslims are bad” … Puh-lease

    Consider the following possible scenario…

    • Russia, China, or France veto the Iraq resolution.
    • Bush decides to attack Iraq and begins collecting forces in the gulf
    • Iran begins moving forces to its border with Iraq to “secure the border” for the upcoming US invasion.
    • The US attacks Iraq. Initial bombing is messy, the bulk of Iraqi forces are in urban centers. Ground forces are needed.
    • US commits ground forces to Iraq.
    • China invades Taiwan claiming the US military hardware sold to Taiwan is a serious threat to Mainland China. A preventive/defensive strike is warranted by China for the same reasons the U.S. is invading Iraq.
    • Iranian forces cross the Iraqi border. Iran claims it is crossing the border to provide humanitarian relief to innocent Iraqi civilians caught in the conflict. The Iranian troops are there simply to provide security for Iranian humanitarian relief workers and Iraqi citizens who might otherwise be terrorized by elements of Saddams military. It is noted however that Iranian military forces seem to be focused on diffing in around eastern Iraqi oil fields.

    I think if it escalated to that proportion, then we’d have to make some serious alliances. That above scenario would be grounds for a world-class war, not simply an American war.

    Alliances with whom? We already declared Iran to be part of the “Axis of Evil”. Do you really think they are just going to sit there while we kick Iraqs ass, and we keep hinting “You’re next!”. The U.S. forced would be screwed if Iran attacked us in Iraq. But as I suggested above, they would more likely take control of Iraq oil fields under a pretext of humanitarian relief. If the U.S. killed any Iranains you can be sure it would be a catalyst for mobilising the Arab world against the U.S. If America launches an attack on Iraq without U.N. support, then it is a U.S. only war. The NATO treaty does not allow our allies to help us invade other countries.


  • @city:

    Geze,

    In response to your claims:

    A.) The largest military in the world, if unarmed, can be mowed down by machine guns.
    B) We wouldn’t be invading China, merely keeping them out of a North Korean conflict.
    C) The Himilayas and the desert contain about 4 FREAKIN PERCENT OF CHINA’S POPULATION!!!
    D) Third largest country still loses to #1 military…
    E) We sold them the nukes that they do have, so who do YOU think has MORE nukes?
    F) (just a side note…) The reason that WW3 wasn’t started during the Cold War was this… if they launch nukes against US, they WILL BE DEAD IN 15 MINUTES!!! (If they are lucky)

    If the U.S. attacked North Korea, then China would help to defend them. We were winning the Korean war until China helped them the last time. Our technology edge didn’t help much them. When you’re outnumbered 20 to 1 its hard to win any battle.

    Points to consider:

    • China shares a border with North Korea so getting material into N Korea is not an issue for China.
    • The US. would have to ship everything by sea or air to south korea. That is a major disadvantage.
    • China has the largest army in the world. I believe their army is bigger than the entire population of the United states. Using conventional weapons, how long do you think it would take for the US. military to kill half of all Americans. American citizens are even less trained and poorly armed than Chinese soldiers, but to kill millions is just an impossible task. The only way Saddam Hussien was able to stop the Human Wave attacks by Iran was to use chemical weapons targeted using U.S. intelligence information about Iranain troop deployments. If the U.S. resorted to weapons of mass destruction in an attack on North Korea, you can kiss Tokyo goodbye.

    Isn’t is ironic that we condemn Saddam Hussien for using chemical weapons against the Kurds, but not against the Iranians? Probably because we would have to admit publicly that we told Hussien where to drop them. Keep scrubbing noble America, those darn blood stains will come off your hands eventually. :oops:


  • Actually, that’s not true. Most of the hatred toward America in the rest of the world is because we treat non-americans so poorly. How many dictatorships exist soley because of U.S. backing of that dictator? Saddam Hussien used to be one of our best allies because he fought against Iran. Now he’s refusing to be our puppet so we want him out.

    Iran was our enemy because when the Iranians rose up and overthrew the Shah to install a democracy, we helped the Shah overthrow the fledgling democracy and remain a tyrant. Ironic that America would overthrow a democracy, but I guess cheap oil for U.S. citizens comes before freedom for non-Americans. Of course as a consequence of our actions to maintian the Shah, militant Islam rose to power in Iran and overthrew the Shah. Remember the Iranian hostages? Didn’t you ever wonder why they targeted the U.S embassy. Its because we backed that bastard the Shah. We were getting what we deserved. Oh, but in America the media was all “Why is this happening to us.” “poor us” “Muslims are bad” … Puh-lease

    What’s your point? It’s not big news that the U.S. has allied itself with people or countries that later turn into our enemies. Such occurences happened during WW2 with Russia. These alliances, however, HAVE BEEN NECESSARY to defeat a bigger evil. It’s all part of the game.

    I still maintain my opinion that the hatred that most people feel towards America is born out of their jealously for what we have. :-?


  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    What’s your point? It’s not big news that the U.S. has allied itself with people or countries that later turn into our enemies. Such occurences happened during WW2 with Russia. These alliances, however, HAVE BEEN NECESSARY to defeat a bigger evil. It’s all part of the game.

    I still maintain my opinion that the hatred that most people feel towards America is born out of their jealously for what we have. :-?

    Points:
    1. What do we have in America that other people might be jealous of?
    2. There are two major camps of thought on governing. The first (dominant in America) camp says: “The ends justifies the means”, the second camp says it does not. I am a member of the second camp. I believe America should treat all people with the same respect and diginity for basic human rights that it grants its own citizens. That means, not supporting dictators ever (:cough: Pakistan. :cough:) It means not saying its okay to drop Chemical weapons on our enemies (Iran), but not our friends (Kurds). etc


  • Zero,

    There are few things in this world that I know alot about, but one of them is the Korean Conflict.
    I assure you, Korea was very similar to Vietnam: Both times we sent our men in, but didn’t allow them to win… (Containment doesn’t work…)
    If we had wanted to, 300,000 Red Chinese would have never been able to cross the Yalu River into North Korea. At the time, there were 6 bridges ( of respectable proportion) that crossed the Yalu. Supreme Commander of Allied Powers Douglas MacArthur asked for permission to take those bridges out in early 1950. Permission was denied, and the rest is history.

    My point in all of this is this: you might be right in saying that we could never take out the Red Army itself. I just want to make the point that, as in 1950, our tech advantages (in the last case, that was our air power) can stop the army from mobilizing any foreign offensive, and that includes trying to cross that river…


  • @EmuGod:

    I doubt that Chinese would be willing to risk not only nuclear war, but domestic risings while they attempt to repel an invasion by the world’s superpower.

    I hope that the US-Americans are as unwilling to risk a nuclear war as the Chinese.
    And why would a war, being fought in a third country, lead to an invasion of the US into China…. ? That would be like the US shouting, “Come on, try to hit us with your ICBMs”…


  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    well, 'cept for in America where they do not even know what goes on in the world

    A’hem… :evil: I hardly doubt that anyone else in the world really understands us either. Most of the world’s opinion about us is formed out of jealously. :-?

    AAAAAhm…… so, you first agree that the ordinary USy doesn’t know much of the outside world… and then state that the outside world is just jealous.
    Only conclusion that i can come to is: You must be one of the rare excemptions, and be an USy who knows a lot about the outside world.

    Unfortunately, i don’t think that this is so. Therefore one of the above statements must be wrong.
    Maybe it’s the arrogance of the average USy to think he/she knows about the rest of the world, including why they might dislike the US… ?

    I think if it escalated to that proportion, then we’d have to make some serious alliances. That above scenario would be grounds for a world-class war, not simply an American war.

    Why should the world follow you into the grave?


  • @Deviant:Scripter:


    Iran was our enemy because when the Iranians rose up and overthrew the Shah to install a democracy, we helped the Shah overthrow the fledgling democracy and remain a tyrant. Ironic that America would overthrow a democracy, but I guess cheap oil for U.S. citizens comes before freedom for non-Americans…

    …These alliances, however, HAVE BEEN NECESSARY to defeat a bigger evil. It’s all part of the game.

    Democracy is a bigger evil ?

    And i still say: It’s not jealousy, why i dislike the behavior shown my most USies….

    What should i be jealous of?
    Crappy public transportation system? Lousy legal system? Footwalks ending in nothing? Over-individualistic health system without a spark of community spirt or solidarity? Gang fights? Massive suburbias? School massacres and a gun lobby that behaves like they want to promote more?
    Bad beer, bad whisky, pan pizzas???

    Naaaaa… Jealousy surely is not the reason!


  • I have to whole-heartedly agree with F_alk and Zero here. I have not been to another 1st world country where the people seem at all jealous of America, or even wish to be more like them. Certainly they enjoy certain tv shows and pop stars, but they have their own worlds, lives, culture etc.
    Certainly as well there are 3rd world countries with jealous tendencies aimed towards the US - but why the US??? Canada, Japan, Sweden, and several other countries have a higher standard of living. European and Asian culture is more diverse and beautiful (relative to N.A. culture).
    Also please stop throwing around the concepts of Nuclear war as tho’ someone could actually win one. Everyone would lose. Everyone. The environment would be crap irrespective of some nation standing. around 90% of Canada’s population would be destroyed. Stop being so crazy.


  • @cystic:

    …Stop being so crazy.

    clap clap clap


  • I think that you guys might be trying to dispute a claim that was fallacious to begin with.

    Who ever said that 1st world nations envied the US? They seem to be happy where they are, for if they weren’t, we would have INS problems with Canada, not Mexico, Cuba, etc. It’s the 3rd world nations that envy America.

Suggested Topics

  • 33
  • 11
  • 30
  • 18
  • 41
  • 63
  • 8
  • 8
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

33
Online

16.2k
Users

37.9k
Topics

1.6m
Posts