Empire At Dusk.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:19 pm

A good article, no doubt it will touch a few nerves.

The Empire at Dusk - By Stephen Glain | Foreign Policy

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:45 pm

Scrat;1365859 wrote: A good article, no doubt it will touch a few nerves.

The Empire at Dusk - By Stephen Glain | Foreign Policy

An excellent article that lays it on the line. Now all we need is for America to take notice and act on it.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 am

Good article, but who is there that is really pushing for a change in Foreign Policy?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:10 am

Lon;1365925 wrote: Good article, but who is there that is really pushing for a change in Foreign Policy?

Every other country in the world (bar one)

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:44 am

Bryn Mawr;1365949 wrote: Every other country in the world (bar one)

Who within the U.S. is what I meant to say.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:33 pm

The idea that the U.S. is looking for war with China is crazy, IMV.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:48 pm

Ahso!;1365964 wrote: The idea that the U.S. is looking for war with China is crazy, IMV.

If somebody has said to you america is looking for an excuse to go to war in vietnam would you have thought them crazy as well?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:53 pm

gmc;1365967 wrote: If somebody has said to you america is looking for an excuse to go to war in vietnam would you have thought them crazy as well?Relevant comparison?

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:51 pm

I'd say it was relevant. It seems to me that America doesn't need much in the way of an excuse to go to war with anyone. In this arena no one ever has, you can find many a war throughout history. What excuse did Germany use to attack the USSR? The biggest excuse they had was the rising threat of communism and its spread. The reason they did it is because THE GENERALS AND POLITICIANS thought they could win.

If the US has a need, and the means the political establishment WILL NOT NEED an excuse. They will try something.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:11 pm

Vietnam was cold war politics to stop the spread of communism, or so we thought. Explain to me how we would benefit by going to war with China.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:34 pm

Posted by ahso

Relevant comparison?

It's a simple enough question. If someone had suggested america was looking for an excuse to go to war in vietnam would you have believed them?

Ahso!;1366055 wrote: Vietnam was cold war politics to stop the spread of communism, or so we thought. Explain to me how we would benefit by going to war with China.

How did you benefit by going to war with Vietnam? If you expect war and see everything someone does as aggressive them sooner or later you do actually go to war.

I'm not suggesting you would benefit by going to war with china - you wouldn't but you're assuming common sense will prevail in the affairs of man, I rather hope it does as well.

Dwight D. Eisenhower farewell Address

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

It's not just the military you need to worry about.

Gasland | Watch Free Documentary Online

Take a good look around, the america you know is on it's way out, bend over here come the gas and oil companies.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:39 pm

We're too tied to China economically. China is our number one lender and we import a lot from China. Seeking a war with China is not going to happen. One of the benefits of world trade is that it usurps the idea of war with trading partners. Now all we need to do is find a reason to prevent ourselves from going to war with non-trading partners.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:40 pm

Ahso!;1366123 wrote: We're too tied to China economically. China is our number one lender and we import a lot from China. Seeking a war with China is not going to happen. One of the benefits of world trade is that it usurps the idea of war with trading partners. Now all we need to do is find a reason to prevent ourselves from going to war with non-trading partners.

WW1 germany - who was their biggest trading partner before they invaded. WW2 who was germany's biggest trading partner. Give you a clue it wasn't the UK or russia. which country did Japan have major trade links with? In the Pacific which country did the US have major trading links with? If you think world trade helps prevent war with trading partners I think you are kidding yourself.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:43 pm

gmc;1366142 wrote: WW1 germany - who was their biggest trading partner before they invaded. WW2 who was germany's biggest trading partner. Give you a clue it wasn't the UK or russia. which country did Japan have major trade links with? In the Pacific which country did the US have major trading links with? If you think world trade helps prevent war with trading partners I think you are kidding yourself.I'm certainly not challenging your knowledge of history, I'm only saying things have changed drastically in the past 70 years.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:16 pm

Vietnam was cold war politics to stop the spread of communism, or so we thought. Explain to me how we would benefit by going to war with China.

You're kidding right? We'd be the biggest dog on the block again. Hell kill half a billion Chinese and destroy their infrastructure we could even waltz in and claim we are bringing the wretches that survive democracy. It's called destruction capitalism. You used the word "benefit" Ahso, it's not about us or we or America benefiting from conflict, its the powerful people in the MIC that would benefit.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:49 pm

Ahso's right. Attacking China goes against our traditional MO. We demonize small, weak governments, then attack them, invade, and get mired in nation-building. Even if China was militarily weak, it has far too much acreage for that to work. We'd have to adjust our tactics, something else we tend not to do.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Aug 20, 2011 9:56 am

Ahso!;1366145 wrote: I'm certainly not challenging your knowledge of history, I'm only saying things have changed drastically in the past 70 years.

The more things change the more they remain the same. On the other hand I suppose one thing that is different now is the Internet makes it harder for governments, and companies as well for that matter, to keep hidden what they are up to. But that doesn't seem to make much difference.

Oil companies in south america and Nigeria have destroyed the environment wholesale and gotten away with it, they have done it with mountain top removal in Kentucky and Virginia and are about to do even worse things with fracking and there is nothing you can do to stop them. You're going to wake up one day and reaklise once fertile land is now a wasteland and no one can live there. The real reason you went to war in Iraq was to get at the oil, it's the same in Libya, in Bahrain saudi arabian troops gun use tanks against protesters and there is not a peep about it. The rich and powerful are doing whatever they like and convincing everybody they have no right to object any more than peasants did in medieval times. All is for the best in the bast of all possible countries. At least you all have the vote now that has also changed from seventy years ago.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:15 am

The way the financial system has evolved, I don't see any country who is a part of it wanting to absorb other countries as in the past. The world, as it's visioned is one of each feeding one another financially, provided, of course, there are natural resources worth buying and selling.

China, in the view of the U.S., is better served caring for its own economy and people itself, and visa-versa. Take Afghanistan and Iraq for example, we don't want those countries, what the U.S. prefers is that they remain trading partners. The cash flow for all these countries is what we use to sustain civilization.

If the U.S. was to invade China and somehow win such a war, who would lend us enough enough money for us to remain viable? We're experiencing a difficult time doing that as it is now.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:19 am

Accountable;1366216 wrote: Ahso's right. Attacking China goes against our traditional MO. We demonize small, weak governments, then attack them, invade, and get mired in nation-building. Even if China was militarily weak, it has far too much acreage for that to work. We'd have to adjust our tactics, something else we tend not to do.We're beginning to learn, hopefully.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:28 am

gmc;1366326 wrote: The more things change the more they remain the same. On the other hand I suppose one thing that is different now is the Internet makes it harder for governments, and companies as well for that matter, to keep hidden what they are up to. But that doesn't seem to make much difference.

Oil companies in south america and Nigeria have destroyed the environment wholesale and gotten away with it, they have done it with mountain top removal in Kentucky and Virginia and are about to do even worse things with fracking and there is nothing you can do to stop them. You're going to wake up one day and reaklise once fertile land is now a wasteland and no one can live there.I like to believe they have some science to back up their claims that we will indeed be able to sustain life. gmc;1366326 wrote: The real reason you went to war in Iraq was to get at the oil, it's the same in Libya, in Bahrain saudi arabian troops gun use tanks against protesters and there is not a peep about it. The rich and powerful are doing whatever they like and convincing everybody they have no right to object any more than peasants did in medieval times. All is for the best in the bast of all possible countries. At least you all have the vote now that has also changed from seventy years ago.I doubt you'd get many Americans disagreeing with you as to why we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, though I would say that the idea is for the oil producing countries to remain willing trading partners world wide instead of being exclusive with it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:56 am

Ahso!;1366327 wrote: The way the financial system has evolved, I don't see any country who is a part of it wanting to absorb other countries as in the past. The world, as it's visioned is one of each feeding one another financially, provided, of course, there are natural resources worth buying and selling.

China, in the view of the U.S., is better served caring for its own economy and people itself, and visa-versa. Take Afghanistan and Iraq for example, we don't want those countries, what the U.S. prefers is that they remain trading partners. The cash flow for all these countries is what we use to sustain civilization.

If the U.S. was to invade China and somehow win such a war, who would lend us enough enough money for us to remain viable? We're experiencing a difficult time doing that as it is now.

Why are you then setting up permanent bases and talking about remaining indefinitely? More than likely there will be civil war in Iraq between shia and sunni which side will you back and what if the Kurds - in whose lands much of the oil is decide they want to break away what will the US do, stand uo for a people's right for self determination or protect the oil supply? Interfering in the internal affairs of nation just never ends once you start unless you have the nerve to just back off completely and let them get on with it. Trouble is the immediate post ww2 idealism of the US went out the window thrown out by a perceived necessity that became it's own justification regardless of the reality of the situation.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:46 pm

Ahso!;1366123 wrote: We're too tied to China economically. China is our number one lender and we import a lot from China. Seeking a war with China is not going to happen. One of the benefits of world trade is that it usurps the idea of war with trading partners. Now all we need to do is find a reason to prevent ourselves from going to war with non-trading partners.

Look up the history of Knights Templar or the Jews in Spain during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella - highly indebted leaders have found war against their number one lenders to be an effective way of cancelling their debts.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:29 pm

Bryn Mawr;1366524 wrote: Look up the history of Knights Templar or the Jews in Spain during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella - highly indebted leaders have found war against their number one lenders to be an effective way of cancelling their debts.I figured someone would bring that up eventually. Can't argue with history, but this is the 21st century. If we were to war against China who would be foolish enough to lend to us in the furure? And, it would serve us nothing to take over advanced countries because it's the global economic system that keeps us all viable, so erasing the system makes no sense whatsoever.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:44 pm

Ahso!;1366552 wrote: I figured someone would bring that up eventually. Can't argue with history, but this is the 21st century. If we were to war against China who would be foolish enough to lend to us in the furure? And, it would serve us nothing to take over advanced countries because it's the global economic system that keeps us all viable, so erasing the system makes no sense whatsoever.

The same arguments applied then too - you kill the people that you owe money to and others get chary about lending to you.

Didn't stop the Pope of F&I and they both survived the experience.

The only trouble this time is that the US cannot invade and beat China and they know it. They also know that, should they come up with an excuse, a pre-emptive nuclear strike could knock them out. Is the US government MAD enough? Not this one but the way some congressmen/senators/candidates are talking a future government might just be that dumb.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:22 pm

All the reason we need to go to war is a threat, of ANY KIND. The fact that China may stop financing our idiotic spending is reason enough to go after them, to break them to our will. Conflict is after all about inflicting one entities will on another by force.

Pentagon prepares for economic warfare | The Australian

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:13 am

Be interesting to see what would happen to nato if America elects another militaristic, aggressive right wing president and starts rattling sabres at all and sundry. Governments are one thing but if you look at public opinion in Europe while it's not actually anti-american it is very much against pointless wars and would not be happy about being sucked in to a conflict with china. Anti east European sentiment is quite strong, especially in germany but I can't see conflict with russia, if for instance they decided to cut the gas supplies and soon oil supplies as well. A more militant russian government might change that but you probably have a more accurate sense of how the russian people will feel if that happens. no one wants the cold war again.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:49 am

gmc;1366640 wrote: Be interesting to see what would happen to nato if America elects another militaristic, aggressive right wing president and starts rattling sabres at all and sundry. Governments are one thing but if you look at public opinion in Europe while it's not actually anti-american it is very much against pointless wars and would not be happy about being sucked in to a conflict with china. Anti east European sentiment is quite strong, especially in germany but I can't see conflict with russia, if for instance they decided to cut the gas supplies and soon oil supplies as well. A more militant russian government might change that but you probably have a more accurate sense of how the russian people will feel if that happens. no one wants the cold war again.
War is our biggest jobs program, so until we can kick The Party out of Washington you can expect another. But again, we don't go up against anybody that can seriously fight back. We're never going to attack China or Russia. Look for the next war in Africa or S. America unless we can find another excuse in the ME.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:27 am

Accountable;1366642 wrote: War is our biggest jobs program, so until we can kick The Party out of Washington you can expect another. But again, we don't go up against anybody that can seriously fight back. We're never going to attack China or Russia. Look for the next war in Africa or S. America unless we can find another excuse in the ME.I doubt we'll attack Maine.

. Texas? Perhaps.

But seriously, I can't see us attacking any African countries because those are area's without much in the way of natural resources to go with the human abuses. You gotta say one thing, we're selective.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:50 am

Maybe you could attack those states that want to secede

Gov. Rick Perry: Texas Could Secede, Leave Union

Isn't he the one that wants to be president?

Clearly a place full of dangerous radicals

Houston Communist Party

Don't know how many members they have but it must be like being a mouse at a cat convention.