Will the US be lured into the trap where total disaster looms?

[sdw]

I remember a quote in a history class. The West doesn't have a monopoly on foolishness, nor the East have a monopoly on virtue. I believe it was Voltaire

This is my own personal view on China and its emerging role. China considered itself as one of the great civilization in the world. During the 19th and 20th century,it had lost much on its prestige, through WWII, civil war, failed communist experiments etc.(Many lives were lost). It wants to restore its glory. The Chinese are a practical people and I would content to be being a bit short sighted. (i.e environmental and foreign policies) Currently, it is in the interest of securing natural resources all over the world. Its companies are not hamper by moral legal statures against doing business with countries with dubious governments or poor human right records. When China was prevented from purchasing North American resource rights, it turned to Africa and South America.

In a way both China and US are acting as major international players. They are both looking to ensure their continual prosperity. It is not about equality and respect... but about dominance. But unlike the US, China does not care to feint a moral position (about spreading democracy or human rights) I think make its goals more tangible. There are of course native Chinese dissenters at home and abroad, but they are not in a position of power or will be acknowledged.

I do not think China will be sending troops to the Middle East etc... I do not believe it has the capacity or the williness to do so. It is not practical. It will possibly engage the Middle East through proxy players regardless of its political leaning. The US blunders in the Middle East will create opportunities for China, giving her new anti-US allies Of course China will have to learn international diplomacy parlance, but with its growing power it can and will reshape conventional international diplomatic rules as it see fits. (Much like the US "You are with us or against us.") Its political and military dominance will be focus on Asia(Japan, Taiwan, N and S Korea, and India)

But it will be quite interesting to see in hindsight (20 or 30 year from now) when bureaucrats/diplomats can speak freely...and documents are declassified.

I would suggest anyone to listen to a rebroadcast of CBC "Ideas" program on
"The Secret Files of the Cold War". Allies are not as close as you think, and enemies are friendlier than you would have belief. Fascinating stuff

I believe that it's Orson Scott Card who wrote a book on countries that are insular vs countries that are expanders.

China has always been an Insular nation. They are very good at remaining China even when invaded. Other than trying to hold their borders, they've never been willing to expand. China has always had the ability to expand. At one point, almost a 1000 years ago, they sent out huge ships. There is evidence that they landed on the West Coast of North America. However, they didn't colonize althrough they may have left some of their crew behind due to accidents.

The nations in the mid east have always been expanders. At various times they controlled much of Europe and Africa in addition to the mid east.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/...rs.ozemail.com.au/%7Eancientpersia/page1.html

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/...cience.co.il/Maps%2DNear%2DEast%2DEmpires.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

http://www.roman-empire.net/shop/empire-map-116.html

I don't think that we can ignore the history. It is much more likely that the nation that replaces the USA is an expander.

I believe that there is a real difference in how people in insular nations think vs the way people in expansive nations think.

While there might be someone in an insular nation that thinks that they should expand, they would be out of touch with the majority opinion and unable to get the needed support.

I've never heard a Chinese complain about lost empire or lay claim to lands they lost 800 years ago. Listening to people in the mid east claim "lost" lands is a daily event.

 

[Sonny]

An extreme scenario.

If the US wanted to be self-sufficient, it could reasonably be so, with a few strategic alliances - one being Canada and another being Mexico. It would entail a radical change within its economy and society, but it could be done. So technically the US could default on its debts outside North America. The US could give up its international coercion, er, influence, and survive as an isolatonist state combined with these alliances.

As for world powers.
In the next twenty years or so, more than half of the population in western Europe nations will be Muslim, with voting power. Muslims in Europe predominately consider themselves Muslim first and then a countryperson of whatever nation they inhabit. There are Muslim movements there in Europe, and also in many other parts of the world, some of them with arms. There could be a whole lot of political and social turmoil coming soon in the EU. A note is that the Islamic religion is not structured with a central leadership, although Iran is trying to position itself in that manner. If Muslims were to feel so connected to their faith, to follow direction of a central world leadership wherever geographically located, then the politics of nations could be in their hands through the ballot box and directed by a world Muslim council. Internal rivalries across several nation states may fracture a unified leadership but religion and politics are a potent mix - often for disaster.

China
China, although with a number of religions within it, is mainly without religion - other than the pursuit of wealth and influence, at every level of Chinese society. With its sheer numbers, resources and cohesiveness, China will remain nationalistic and a dominant economic power. It is unlikely to play the role of an aggressive military world power as it will find enough influence without, but it certainly will have the military might to protect itself and its interests.

So, sometime this century both shoes will drop and folks are in for a wild ride no matter what happens. There's just too much instability for peace to break out.

 

[JustAGuy]

China has always been an Insular nation. They are very good at remaining China even when invaded. Other than trying to hold their borders, they've never been willing to expand. China has always had the ability to expand. At one point, almost a 1000 years ago, they sent out huge ships. There is evidence that they landed on the West Coast of North America. However, they didn't colonize althrough they may have left some of their crew behind due to accidents.

I've never heard a Chinese complain about lost empire or lay claim to lands they lost 800 years ago. Listening to people in the mid east claim "lost" lands is a daily event.

I'm fairly sure a Tibetan would regard China in a very different light.

 

[georgebushmoron]

This thread isn't about China becoming a world superpower. It's fanciful to even consider it. It's not going to happen, just use your common sense.

This thread is about the USA taking the bait and attacking Iran, and in turn the dreadful consequence of what would happen - which would have a big negative effect on the rest of the world whether you like the US or not.

On the major American news channels, such as CNN, they are already framing the possible Iranian actions in a prelude to war. Commentators on Fox and CNN can't understand why the Europeans, including Britain, are talking diplomacy only. Not that media networks set American foreign policy, but these parrots merely echo the sentiments of Washington. It's showing bad signs already.

 

[sdw]

This thread isn't about China becoming a world superpower. It's fanciful to even consider it. It's not going to happen, just use your common sense.

This thread is about the USA taking the bait and attacking Iran, and in turn the dreadful consequence of what would happen - which would have a big negative effect on the rest of the world whether you like the US or not.

On the major American news channels, such as CNN, they are already framing the possible Iranian actions in a prelude to war. Commentators on Fox and CNN can't understand why the Europeans, including Britain, are talking diplomacy only. Not that media networks set American foreign policy, but these parrots merely echo the sentiments of Washington. It's showing bad signs already.

If you look at the buildup to invading Iraq in 2002, the script is unmistakeable. Of course the USA is going to attack Iran.

What follows is what the Americans won't understand until it happens.

The Americans were convinced that if they destroyed Iraq's military, the Iraqis would roll over and play dead. That worked about as well as it did in Vietnam. The Americans had learned nothing in the interm.

The problem with the Americans is that they are a racist society. Everything is translated into race. They have no respect for anyone who isn't an American and don't feel that there are any lessons to be learned from history.

When they attack Iran, they will still be bleeding from the fight in Iraq. The Americans feel there are no parallels between the two fights. Once they have destroyed Iran's military, the people won't rise up. After all, Iran isn't Iraq. All of the opponents are from other countries in Iraq. With Iran being a shite nation, the rest won't help out.

The Americans are the greatest unifier of moslems since Salladin. How far did the moslems get that time?

I don't think there will be any "partnership of the willing" this time. Militarily or Financially.

 

[dirtydan]

I don't disagree that the current and past US policies are causing rifts in the Mid-East.

But the comments by you are certainly ANTI-AMERICAN.
Hey do you even know any americans?
Have you lived there?
You seem to have a hard-on against Americans.

Such an idiotic accusation especially when it based on nothing. All to often these days there are people very quick to throw out the ignorant accusation of "you're anti-American" whenever they see a very legitimate criticism of the US. Tell me, what exactly is anti-American? What I have seen over the last few years from other people is the term being thrown around without any care or concern for the truth.

I have lived there, I have worked there several years & I can say from personal experience that they are much like Canadians except for they are very patriotic about thier Country & freedom.
MANY good people down there!!!!!!!!!!!!

And to that I say yah so what? There are many good people in a many good countries. What makes Americans more special than say a Canadian, a Belgian, a Kenyan, etc?

That does not make the US policy correct, hell 99% percent of the people really DON"T understand the real reasons for US policy, we at best take educated guesses. (you're no different)

The reason for why US is there can be found by doing some research into Paul Wolfowitz.
If other counties judged Canada by it's Prime Min. & Gov. (as so often I see here on this very board toward the US & it's Admin.) they would laugh out loud!
The Canadian PEOPLE make the difference!

I have good friends down there who are just as concerned with the current situation & don't bash Canadians about thier world views, culture or Gov.
Maybe that's because they are a little more mature?

Grow up!

That's pretty shallow. I get the impression from what you posted that no one should dare criticize the US. If one does then it's ok to throw around the dumbass term of "anti-American" without any regard. Which leads to wonder who is the one that really should grow up.

 

[luckydog71]

The problem with the Americans is that they are a racist society. Everything is translated into race. They have no respect for anyone who isn't an American and don't feel that there are any lessons to be learned from history.

SDW - generalizations about 300 million people are usually inaccurate, and it is fair to say yours is inaccurate.

There are racists in America and they get a lot of press. But the large majority of Americans are not racists.

Actually, we do learn from history. Lets

Lesson # 1 : in 1992 we were attacked and we did nothing. We were attacked again.

Lesson# 2 - in the late 1930s and early 1940s we took a pacifist approach to Hitler. He only invade Poland, the US is not threatened. We were wrong he invade France, and formed alliances with other European nations

Lesson # 3 - in 1941 we were attacked by Japan. We decided that this was a global problem and attacked more than just Japan. We also attacked Germany. The strategy was not supported by the majority of Americans, but the President did it anyway, and it was the right decision.

If Iran continues to threaten Israel, continues invade Iraq and continues to build a nuke, then the US will attack them. I think it will be an aerial attack aimed at the nuke installations. I also think it is time to set up a DMZ on the Iraq / Iran border.

If Syria continues to provide a safe haven for terrorist to attacked Iraq, they too will find a response from US military.

I do not believe we will repeat the mistakes we made in 1992 or prior to Dec/ 1941.

And you say we don't learn.

 

[sdw]

SDW - generalizations about 300 million people are usually inaccurate, and it is fair to say yours is inaccurate.

There are racists in America and they get a lot of press. But the large majority of Americans are not racists.

Actually, we do learn from history. Lets

Lesson # 1 : in 1992 we were attacked and we did nothing. We were attacked again.

Lesson# 2 - in the late 1930s and early 1940s we took a pacifist approach to Hitler. He only invade Poland, the US is not threatened. We were wrong he invade France, and formed alliances with other European nations

Lesson # 3 - in 1941 we were attacked by Japan. We decided that this was a global problem and attacked more than just Japan. We also attacked Germany. The strategy was not supported by the majority of Americans, but the President did it anyway, and it was the right decision.

If Iran continues to threaten Israel, continues invade Iraq and continues to build a nuke, then the US will attack them. I think it will be an aerial attack aimed at the nuke installations. I also think it is time to set up a DMZ on the Iraq / Iran border.

If Syria continues to provide a safe haven for terrorist to attacked Iraq, they too will find a response from US military.

I do not believe we will repeat the mistakes we made in 1992 or prior to Dec/ 1941.

And you say we don't learn.

Oh, and the current conversation about Tasars isn't racist? A weapon that was created to give an alternative to simply shooting the dumbass. But now it seems that the Tasar doesn't target people committing crimes. No, the Tasar is biased towards being used on darker skin.

It's the same as No Child Left Behind. Nobody learns because the child listening to music in the class MUST be there, their exclusion would be called racist.

Saying something doesn't exist is NOT the same as something not existing.

The reality is that Clinton did do something about the first attacks on the World Trade Center. The Republicans thought that trying to kill Bin Laden with cruise missiles was excessive.

The reality is that the USA was trading with Germany and Japan right until the morning of December 8, 1941. Yes I am aware that the Japanese attack was on December 7th.

The Administration announced it's intention to ask Congress for the resources to wage war with JAPAN on the morning of the 8th. It wasn't until Germany declared war on the 11th that the administration included Germany in the bill.

One of the things that the anti-bomb revisionists don't want to admit is that Truman wouldn't have had to drop the bombs if Congress had been fully willing to continue funding the war after the European portion had been won. Congress wasn't in favor of funding the Pacific War and Truman had no choice but to win while he still had the money.

The reality is that companies like Intel know what is going to happen. Today, Intel has entered the process to sell their Israeli fabs.

Why would Intel do that? Couldn't have anything to do with insurance, could it?

 

[wilde]

SDW - generalizations about 300 million people are usually inaccurate, and it is fair to say yours is inaccurate.

Then it's safe to say that generalizations about 1.3 billion people are even more likely to be inaccurate (to all you Chinese experts in this thread).

Back to Gerogie boy's scenario, not going to happen overnight. But as China opens up more markets and become less dependant on the US markets, it may well happen over a long period of time. Besides, Japan won't let it happen (they are the biggest foreign holder of US debt instruments followed by China in a distant 2nd).


.

 

[Ray]

If Iran continues to threaten Israel, continues invade Iraq and continues to build a nuke

It's the US that has invaded Iraq, not Iran.

 

[Mr.O]

Duh!

It's the US that has invaded Iraq, not Iran.

Iraq & Iran have been fighting for centuries.

 

[nube]

Is the end of the US as a democratic world power coming to an end?


...........QM'r

QM these are some pretty powerful words...They make me wonder if in fact democray as we know it, maybe coming to an end. If you even look at Canada, it is very unlikely that we will ever elect a majority gov't again. We seem to be voting ever 2 years instead of 4. More time is spent wooing voters then running the country. How many minority gov't will we have before we agree its not working anymore.

And when you look at what is going on in all other democratic countries there is unrest just about everywhere. And a general reduction of personal freedoms in just about every area. Funny I didn't wake this pestimistic this morning, but when you start to collectively look at what's happening.... the future sure doesn't look as promising as it did 10 years ago.

 

[nube]

Once one big player dumps, the others will follow because trade for oil must be facilitated quickly by a currency that is backed by real assets.

Well GBM what do you think of the canadian loonie? Could it be a player? Interestingly enough, the reserves of oil in the tar sands supposedly equals that of Saudi. China has a large interest in Canada's oil.

What you said has got me thinking...is there a connection between the recent Calif. policy to not buy oil from the Tar sands since it is enviromentally expensive to produce and the potentil for Canada to move up on the world stage? I wonder if its a piece the US plan to gain more control oil in the world.

If so, its also pretty coincidental that in just the last 6 -7 months there has been a huge uplift in the 'enviromentalist movement' which may surpress our ability to become a larger player sooner.

Hmmmm lots of good stuff on this thread to think about. On the other hand, why the fuck are we sitting here pondering this shit??? If the end of the world is coming we should getting all the pooning we can with some of the best women Canada has to offer right here on this board - and we can have the last laugh---they may have all our money but what can they do with it??? Now let's see...I have this much $$$$, and I have this much time...and there is Isabelle, Jenn, Tianna, Miss Bijoe and ___ and ___ FUCK I better get going......

 

[Old Lover]

Of course

The board handle of the thread starter is exactly right. George Bush is a moron. The british after world war one did the same thing america is doing now with the same results. they did it again after world war 2. You would think they would eventually learn something. America went from a rhodes scholar to a grade c student.
The situation now is very grim. Here are some undisputable facts;
1) It is very hard to get people to like you by dropping thousand pound bombs on them.
2) They dont like you if you shoot their families.
3) They dont like you if you kick their doors down
4)They dont like you if torture them. By the way we have always tortured prisoners.
5) If you invade a foreign country they will shoot back if you dont like it do not invade.

I am an american but there are some basic reallities out there that seem to be overlooked. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We were lied to. Iraq had no navy and no air force. They were surrounded by more powerful coutries than them. How were they a threat? They were an impoverished third world country. But then again we invaded Panama for gods sakes.
The Iraqis are doing the same thing Americans would do if a foreign country invaded America. That group of draft dodgers in the white house have no idea what they have started. There is only one way out. George will have to get out that mission accomplished banner he had made up and hang it up at the Bagdad airport when the last plane leaves. The future will be up to the Iraqis just as it has always been. Just as it always should be. Huge armies have marched back and forth across Mesopotamia for thousands of years and the results have always been the same. George bushs father was right.

 

[Sonny]

But then again we invaded Panama for gods sakes.

Don't forget Grenada!

George bushs father was right.

Yep, goes like this.....
________________________________________________

Bush Sr. to Bush Jr.

Son, you're making the same mistake with Iraq as I made with your mother.
I didn't pull out in time!
_________________________________________________

So funny if it wasn't so true, eh?

 

[westwoody]

SDW - generalizations about 300 million people are usually inaccurate, and it is fair to say yours is inaccurate.

Here's a generalisation for you:Iraqis and all them other guys over there all want to be just like Americans because America is the bestest country in the world. So you get rid of their government and then put one in place that is just like America's and then all them Iraq folks will realise how wrong they were to be different from you and they will love America forever. And all them Iraqi folks will see their countrymen who join the American puppet government as true Iraqi patriots.
And if some Iraqi kid whose house has been bombed and whose parents or siblings arrested or raped by American security contractors doesn't like Americans it must be because he is a tool of Al-Quaeda.
"Your arrogance blinds you".

 

[Amerix]

Lesson # 3 - in 1941 we were attacked by Japan. We decided that this was a global problem and attacked more than just Japan. We also attacked Germany. The strategy was not supported by the majority of Americans, but the President did it anyway, and it was the right decision.

Hitler declared war on the US right after the Japanese attack. The US probably would have gotten involved anyway, you were already providing everything except troops to the allies.

Oh, and it wasn't then, and still isn't, the President's job to declare war. It's the job of Congress to do that.