Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, Mar 27, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Interesting to see that most of us agree that the world would be much better off without the septics
For those of you who voted for the Septics to retreat into a cave a la 1918-1941, who would you have in their place?
Not us, as thanks to the traitor B.Lair we no longer have an army, just a couple of divisions. We are soon to have no aircraft carriers, we have no cruisers, no battleships and few destroyers.
So who would step up to the mark? Russia? With the oil money and their resources they could within a few years if Putin wanted to. China? It wants to and has just given their 3million strong army a double digit budget increase. France? The frogs dream of it, but the world hates them, their language and their smell. How about the Germans? They have slightly over 4million unemployed, the highest level since '33, and the level of racism is increasing (not as much as the frogs though). India? They are a nuclear power and have a fair few people and a good economy.
So if not the Yanks, who else? And would you prefer them to the Septics?
I don't think the risk is so much the rise of a new global hegemon as that of all the regional hegemons trying their luck in the absence of a USA to put a break on their pretensions. For example, how would the Balkans have turned out if Uncle Sam had simply decided to inspect his navel during the 1990s instead of intervening?
Gemany isnt a nuclear power, nor does it seem has the political will to become a major global power. China will take a few decades to build up their technology and more importantly experience and expertise in building modern weapon systems (it's telling that originally the deal with russia to acquire SU 30's was for the russians to supply the first batch and for the rest to be produced in China, the Chinese are now buying the lot from the Russians).
TBH the only other nation I'd trust to replace the US would be the UK, which is not going to happen for too many reasons.
As the economy of the state of California on its own is about the same size as the UK's, I think we have some way to go before supplanting the US as the global hegemon, NYA.
Taking the US out of the world scene would be like removing Saddam from Iraq or Tito from Yugoslavia. All the different powers whose ambitions were kept in check by the US would start acting up.
Mr.Primakov is well-know Russian intellectual. Maybe you disagree with him but his article is worth to be read.
Intellectual or not, he obviously isn't above a bout of 'I told you so' politics...
Mr.Primakov is above all an Arabist, knows Arab language. He met with literally all Arab and Moslem leaders. He negotiated with American presidents and other politicians. He predicted this situation long ago and warned our American friends.
His 'I told to so' was based on his knowledge of ME. By contrast we don't hear 'I told you so' about 45 min. claim.
The 'up' side about not having the US around; is that we could happily go around doing our thing, without worrying about whether an A10 was about to bomb or strafe us because we drive Warriors!
No-one enjoys taking the piss out of Americans more than me, but because this is a serious forum, if such a thing exists on Arrse, I cannot see how anyone could have voted 'Much better off'.
From an economic stand point - America is the richest nation in the world. I don't have the figures to hand, but a significant portion of our trade is with the States. How would those pro-isolationists feel if half the country was suddenly out of work.
From a military point of view - America's non-isolationism was a very big part of the reason as to why the Soviets did not decide to conquer Western Europe. In addition it has kept the peace elsewhere in the world - before anyone asks me where, it is much harder to describe a war that didn't happen but I would propose Taiwan-China, and North-South Korea for starters.
From a political point of view - The United States is one of the few countries that can thumb its nose at the international community, and thank God for it.
From a historical point of view - America has been isolationist before, in the 30s, and look what happened then.
From a linguistic point of view - the fact that America speaks English is the principal reason why most of the rest of the world does.
From an entertainment point of view - they keep us all amused for hours, and a country that invented Disneyland can't be all bad.
Of course they are not perfect, but which of us has taken the log from our own eye?
I think that I'll get back in my pram now.
I thought this whole issue was resolved in "the Mouse that Roared"?
Guns r us. We could equally solve that problem by stopping being such pathetic hangers-on and inviting ourselves to every party Uncle Sam decides to throw. We really don't impress anyone but ourselves, you know.
In his book âThe Utility Of Forceâ General Sir Rupert Smith makes the point that the era of âindustrial warâ has passed, and that most conflicts in the modern world are what he describes as âwar amongst the peopleâ.
By industrial war, he means the use of massed military force, backed up by all the resources of the state, to impose a governments will on the enemyâs government, by destroying his military force and thus removing his ability to resist the imposition of our will on him.
The classic period of industrial war was from the Napoleonic Wars up to the Second World War. Some conflicts since then have had some of the characteristics of industrial war, such as the Falklands and Iraq in 1991 and 2003, but they were carried out by professional armed forces without all the resources of the state being mobilised to support them. Life for civilians in the UK went on as normal during those wars.
War amongst the people, on the other hand, is a situation where the outcome is not achieved purely by military force. The aim is not to impose our will on an enemy government, but to influence the will of his people to the point where they see it as being to their advantage to do what our government wants. Military force has a part to play in that, but the General makes the point that it canât provide the solution in itself, it can only produce the circumstances where the will of the people can be changed by other means.
General Smith was the commander of UNPROFOR, and he uses the Balkans as an example to illustrate his point. The use of force by NATO stopped the fighting there, and so provided an environment where a political solution could have been found, but the politicians failed to do so.
To take the current situation in Iraq as another example, military force removed the old regime, but it didnât produce a stable, peaceful democracy there. It provided an opportunity to create a political solution, but again the political process has failed.
So whatâs all that got to do with the question of the USA becoming isolationist? Well, I would say that American military power is still based on the paradigm of industrial war. Their government thinks that they can solve problems by force alone. They have neither the political will nor the understanding to grasp the concept of war amongst the people, where military power plays an important role but not the finally decisive one.
Under their current government, it would make little difference whether the USA was isolationist or not, because they donât understand how to effectively deal with the threats that they perceive in the world. The only tool they have is a hammer, so they think every problem is a nail.
Sadly for the UK, BLiar has no better understanding than Bush. As for his comment about âanti-Americanismâ, he is falsely equating criticism of the American nation with criticism of the current American government. The question is, is he in error or is he doing it deliberately to try to discredit legitimate criticism of the current US government? Iâm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Separate names with a comma.