| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Change of war
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Change of war

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2010 at 22:07
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

The "world" might not, but Chile does!..


Don't be silly. Chile is not a superpower, but only a poor country that tries to do the best for its people.

It is the U.S. which has those dreams of glory and global supremacy.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 01:52
Pinguino said:  "It is the U.S. which has those dreams of glory and global supremacy."

Which came first, Penguin. Those dreams of glory, or global hegemony?
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 07:06
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

The "world" might not, but Chile does!..


Don't be silly. Chile is not a superpower, but only a poor country that tries to do the best for its people.

It is the U.S. which has those dreams of glory and global supremacy.


Then you wouldn't mind handing back to Bolivia what your country stole from them in the 19th century. Stop being so hypocritical.

Besides, i believe you are flat out wrong. The US needs glory and global supremacy like it needs a hole in it's head. Anyways, i hear no sounds of glory, nor seen any signs of us being desirous in nailing down global domination and what we speak is enjoyably misinterpreted by a grossly perverted world media!
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 07:58
Speaking of dreams of glory and hegemony should I mention Chilean imperialism and the seizure of the Tarapaca?
Seems those Chileans really get "gloriously crazed" in still celebrating this bit of 19th century imperialism,  to wit:
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 847
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 10:10
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
1.) Why? Because God gave America this duty? Confused
 
 
2.) America is growing weaker as time pass simply because it doesn't produce what the world requires.
Building aircraft carriers and nukes is not what that country needs to prosper.
 
 
 
3.) Yes, the Soviet Union is the perfect example of a superpower blind enough to build the best guns and bombs, but leading its people to the ruin.
 
The U.S. is heading the same way, thanks to the CIA's propaganda about national interests. What is the idea? Menacing everyone with nukes and aircrafts, but buying every good from China,and every engineering service from India?
 
It is time the U.S. wake up to the illusion it has a duty. The fact is, the world doesn't need the U.S., but the U.S. need the world to live.
 
 
 
 
x
 
1.) No one gave America this duty, but it is within the country's interests to do so. After World War II, the United States came out as the clear victor. No country lost as little as the United States and gained so much. After the war the United States had the largest navy in the world, and it was prepared to use it.
 
2.) Well this has been what America has been doing since World War II, and it has been working. Weapons alone do little, but when they are in control of trade routes, they do.
 
3.) The Union had little choice. The American led coalition encroached upon it's borders on all sides, Central Europe, the Middle East, and later China. However, a Russian-led union will rise again, as the political issues were not resolved during the Cold War. A loose union is already present and will strengthin within the next 15 years. Buying Chinese goods will not hurt the United States long term. I see China falling in the near future as a result of the Capitalist ventures on the coast. India has its own set of issues, including unfriendly neighbors. India is also America's ally in the region, at least until the fall of China, as I see it sometime around 2040-2050.
 
 
"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 10:36
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

x
 
1.) No one gave America this duty, but it is within the country's interests to do so. After World War II, the United States came out as the clear victor. No country lost as little as the United States and gained so much. After the war the United States had the largest navy in the world, and it was prepared to use it.


Yes. All things are justified in function of that country's interest.

The problem is that the interests of that country aren't the same that the interest of the world.

 
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

x
2.) Well this has been what America has been doing since World War II, and it has been working. Weapons alone do little, but when they are in control of trade routes, they do.


First, let's start to call that country the U.S., because America is the name of the Western Hemisphere, and not only of a country that had enjoy some success and luck for a little while.

Now, for controlling trade routes you first has to produce goods that go along those routes; otherwise it is piracy. Today, U.S. manufacturing is in ruins, so why is the need to protect anything?
 
 
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

x
3.) The Union had little choice. The American led coalition encroached upon it's borders on all sides, Central Europe, the Middle East, and later China. However, a Russian-led union will rise again, as the political issues were not resolved during the Cold War.


I hope Russians aren't dumb enough to play the game of Uncle Sam once again.

 
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

x
A loose union is already present and will strengthin within the next 15 years. Buying Chinese goods will not hurt the United States long term. I see China falling in the near future as a result of the Capitalist ventures on the coast. India has its own set of issues, including unfriendly neighbors. India is also America's ally in the region, at least until the fall of China, as I see it sometime around 2040-2050.
 


Actually, what I see falling is the United States. From a country that had more than half the worldwide GDP, to just a secondary power living in the rememberance of past glories and ruled by muslim Africans. Confused
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 10:38
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Speaking of dreams of glory and hegemony should I mention Chilean imperialism and the seizure of the Tarapaca?
Seems those Chileans really get "gloriously crazed" in still celebrating this bit of 19th century imperialism,  to wit:


Again with your silly comparisons?

What we had was a war with countries that had more than 3 times our population. Countries that were plotting to restablish the Inca empire, complot that ended in the murder of one of our ministers.
Chile is a peaceful nation that fight only when it is treated to its integrity. We aren't a superpower with dreams of glory. And the only reason we defeat them is because we are more fanatic soldiers. We won, they lost. End of the story.




Edited by pinguin - 08 Dec 2010 at 10:40
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 10:45
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


What we had was a war with countries that had more than 3 times our population. Countries that were plotting to restablish the Inca empire, complot that ended in the murder of one of our ministers.
Chile is a peaceful nation that fight only when it is treated to its integrity. We aren't a superpower with dreams of glory. And the only reason we defeat them is because we are more fanatic soldiers. We won, they lost. End of the story.




Chilean exceptionalism? Nah....bull-sh.... cough-cough

Perhaps your a little closer in understanding us than you or we realize? Now if only we could do something about your indigenous chauvinism?Big smile
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 847
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 10:57
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

x
 
1.) No one gave America this duty, but it is within the country's interests to do so. After World War II, the United States came out as the clear victor. No country lost as little as the United States and gained so much. After the war the United States had the largest navy in the world, and it was prepared to use it.


.) Yes. All things are justified in function of that country's interest.

The problem is that the interests of that country aren't the same that the interest of the world.


2.) First, let's start to call that country the U.S., because America is the name of the Western Hemisphere, and not only of a country that had enjoy some success and luck for a little while.

Now, for controlling trade routes you first has to produce goods that go along those routes; otherwise it is piracy. Today, U.S. manufacturing is in ruins, so why is the need to protect anything?
 

3.) I hope Russians aren't dumb enough to play the game of Uncle Sam once again.

 
Actually, what I see falling is the United States. From a country that had more than half the worldwide GDP, to just a secondary power living in the rememberance of past glories and ruled by muslim Africans. Confused
 
 
1.) That is true for any country. However, the tackling of the United States is far fetched. The countries that intend to obstruct the United States need a sizeable navy, which the Americans will not allow as it is the 3rd most important goal of the United States to keep any nation from gaining a comparable navy. Secondly, the United States has a friendly nation to the north. The southern border is the weak point in the American defence. An obstruction to the southern border however would be fruitless, as the U.S controls two coastlines and therefore can play it's cards while the other must respond. 
 
2.) Very well, I'll agree to your request, though it is in my nature to call that specific country America. America needs to protect the routes for the sole reason that it does not want other nations to control them. The first strategic goal of the U.S is to have complete control over world maritime trade, which has done successfully thus far. If other nations controlled the routes the power scale would tip towards a country, affecting the United States second strategic goal, keeping any Eurasian power from becoming too powerful.
 
3.) The Russians have no choice. NATO is encroaching on their borders and they need to repel them. The buffer zone once possessed by Russia has been removed or weakened. Russia also has the obligatory role as the protector of it's allies in the region. Armenia being one of them, which puts the Russians in natural conflict with the Turks, leading to the building of both a Western and Southern front. Russia needs to protect them both.


Edited by Darius of Parsa - 08 Dec 2010 at 10:57
"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 11:53
Silly? No sillier than all the rants littering the thread as so much penguin droppings. Save all the guano packing for the Chinese export market given Chile's notoriety as one of the most nationalistic and self-centered states in the Americas. The parallel was very apropos. No one in the United States celebrates the battle of Buena Vista as a national event...but as the visual evidence underscores the Chileans are still raving over their adventurism north of the Santiago valley.
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 08 Dec 2010 at 11:53
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 11:56
It is interesting to me that a thread on the change in the nature of war gravitates, as so many here do, to US bashing.

Oh, that's right...pinguin is back.






Edited by pikeshot1600 - 08 Dec 2010 at 11:57
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 11:58
Darius:  in re your "which the Americans will not allow as it is the 3rd most important goal of the United States to keep any nation from gaining a comparable navy."

Well,who has the largest navy in the world now? And let's look at submarine fleets. The last I saw, The U.S. was number 2 in pure numbers of submarines, India was number 3, and North Korea was number 4.

You fail to understand a key point: The United States, due to its geography, is a maritime power, though its merchant marine is a pale ghost of what it was in the WWII years (Asia's merchant fleets are much larger). But, China and India are land powers. They may pay attention to maritime affairs, and China certainly has a sizable merchant fleet, but traditionally their emphasis is upon their land forces for both internal stability and repelling outside aggression. North Korea, of course, isn't even a regional power. Its only importance is that it borders the Republic of Korea, a U.S. Ally. How has the United States ever kept any of these nations from 'gaining a comparable Navy."  The simple answer is that we haven't. You and Pinguino are well matched.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 12:01
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Silly? No sillier than all the rants littering the thread as so much penguin droppings. Save all the guano packing for the Chinese export market given Chile's notoriety as one of the most nationalistic and self-centered states in the Americas. The parallel was very apropos. No one in the United States celebrates the battle of Buena Vista as a national event...but as the visual evidence underscores the Chileans are still raving over their adventurism north of the Santiago valley.
 


Who are you among the three here, playing in the band?


Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 12:05
Pinguin, make a point, or add something of value to the discussion, or just STFU.  Unhappy






Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 12:06
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

 
1.) That is true for any country. However, the tackling of the United States is far fetched. The countries that intend to obstruct the United States need a sizeable navy, which the Americans will not allow as it is the 3rd most important goal of the United States to keep any nation from gaining a comparable navy. Secondly, the United States has a friendly nation to the north. The southern border is the weak point in the American defence. An obstruction to the southern border however would be fruitless, as the U.S controls two coastlines and therefore can play it's cards while the other must respond. 


The worst enemy of the U.S. is its own imagination. If that country were an human, it would be diagnosed squizophrenia... Confused


Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:


2.) Very well, I'll agree to your request, though it is in my nature to call that specific country America. America needs to protect the routes for the sole reason that it does not want other nations to control them. The first strategic goal of the U.S is to have complete control over world maritime trade, which has done successfully thus far. If other nations controlled the routes the power scale would tip towards a country, affecting the United States second strategic goal, keeping any Eurasian power from becoming too powerful.


If the U.S. were a smart country, it would let Japanese, Koreans and Germans to pay theirs own deffense. And they will save a lot of money.
 
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:


3.) The Russians have no choice. NATO is encroaching on their borders and they need to repel them. The buffer zone once possessed by Russia has been removed or weakened. Russia also has the obligatory role as the protector of it's allies in the region. Armenia being one of them, which puts the Russians in natural conflict with the Turks, leading to the building of both a Western and Southern front. Russia needs to protect them both.


Fellow. We are in peace now.
Fact: the U.S. will never defeat Russia, because at the time that happened, both countries and the world will be wiped out.
So, the gun manufacturers of the U.S. has programmed theirs people to believe it is worth to waste so much money in fighting ghosts.

And, meanwhile, the U.S. economy keeps spiraling down.





Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 12:09
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Pinguin, make a point, or add something of value to the discussion, or just STFU.  Unhappy


I make my point. The U.S. is fighting ghosts. It is the single country that hasn't understand the world has changed. And I will make a prediction. The U.S. won't change up to the time it will has to ask third parties to finance theirs ghost hunting.

But reality made superpowers wake up. It happened once to Portugal, and to Spain, and to France, and Britain, and the Soviet Union too. Only the U.S. hasn't wake up as yet of its dreams of glory.


Edited by pinguin - 08 Dec 2010 at 12:10
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 12:20
Oh, now you are Nostradamus making predictions.

Is there a reason this thread (that could have been interesting) should not be locked because you have hijacked it with your anti-gringo fetish?




Edited by pikeshot1600 - 08 Dec 2010 at 12:21
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 12:53
Only one thing I will say and I will quite the thread.
There will never be peace on planet earth while the U.S.A. doesn't understand that many wars were it has been involved, it has been its own fault.

Yes, everybody agree the U.S.A. fought a just war during WW II. Some may argue the Cold War was peaceful after all, but how to forget the millions that died in the third world fighting in the name of remote superpowers? But how to forget the endless cycle of invasions that same country has commited against smaller countries all over the world?

Isn't is time for that country to take conscience of what has done?




Edited by pinguin - 08 Dec 2010 at 12:54
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 13:49
Enough garbage! What has the US done since achieving primacy on the international arena except guarantee that no major war has taken place on the surface of this planet since the surrender of the German armies in August of 1945. It has been this primacy that has ensured that whatever significant conflict has arisen has taken on the character of a formal United Nations action under international consent. Further, it has been this primacy that has ensured that whatever conflicts arise, no matter how provincial, such has been undertaken by others in violation of the normal understanding set forth in International Law. No amount of blather can obscure such a reality and the underlying reason as to why this thread began is just that fact: conflict is being pursued by extra-legal entities with scant international standing much less the capacity to actually wage a war in the nuclear age save on the terms signalled by the understandings formulated by the United Nations under the influence of the United States. Are we to talk of rogue states such as North Korea or Iran? The millions that died in the 3rd World? What rubbish! Talk about your supposedly intelligent idiots! 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 14:16
Rubbish! Enough uncle sam propaganda!!

What has done the U.S.?

What about bombing Vietnam with the orange agent?

What about attacking Iraq. A country that got nothing to do with 9/11 and that didn't have weapons of mass destruction either. (Why the U.S. didn't attack Pakistan where Bin Laden lives?)

Just to mention two examples.

The effects of the Orange Agent in Vietnam. The pictures are too shocking to include in this forum.

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




Edited by pinguin - 08 Dec 2010 at 14:23
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 14:52
Ok gents, we are now at the stage where the discussion is very much off topic. We are now discussing atrocities and imperial morality rather than changes in the way combat is conducted.

For this thread, let's go back to the original topic. If any of you has something you wish to explore regarding atrocities and imperial powers - please do everyone a favour and open a new thread on that topic. Thanks Smile
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 19:17

To this discussion about wether or not one or a few large powers (Now The U.S., and not so long ago the U.S. and U.S.S.R.) are largely responsible for later wars we may ask: What part of Europe, or rather what country were known for being outside the general system of alliances? I woul say: Yugoslavia, though some countries like Sweden, switzerland, Austria and Finland were formally neutral too. And it was this country, standing outside the "general order", that had an unhappy ending in a series of cruel wars. any idea of an "innocence" of "small countries" got into some problems here. True, some people, probably admirers of "socialist Yugoslavia" blamed outside socalled "imperialist powers", especially Germany ("the old big bad woolf!"), but their explanations seemed unconvincing, and not so far from conspiration theories.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 21:11
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
But then let us see where the gold hoards are:
 
US                      8,965.65 tons
Germany            3,754.29 tons
The IMF              3,311.84 tons (gee isn't this the organization usually called a tool of the US?)
Italy                   2,701.90 tons
France                2,683.81 tons
China                 1,161.60 tons
Switzerland        1,146.00 tons
 
The amount of gold being held by anyone is about as relevant to relative prosperity as the number of bricks in government buildings. But in any case the gold held by the EU is far greater than that held by the US: Germany, France and Italy alone are comparable to the US, let alone the rest of the EU and the central bank.
(Some listings give Germany, France and Italy more than the US. For instance http://seekingalpha.com/article/166323-largest-gold-reserves-by-country
Note that Germany, France and Italy
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 21:48
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

From a strictly U.S. perspective, the U.S. engages in Wars, which require a declaration by the Congress, and in which, presumably, the very existence of the United States or some of its territory is threatened. Then there are contingency operations short of war, which arise from the Presidents duty to defend the nation. Within the latter category, the waters muddy. They include everything from the myriad exercises of naval power in the 19th Century, to the Peking relief expedition, the  1916 Punitive Mexican Invasion, the 'Banana Wars', post-WWI intervention in Russia, the Korean War (fought as a police action under rubric of U.N. authorization), the Vietnam War, and all actions large and small since, now fought under color of the War Powers Act. The frank truth is that the United States is not waging a War.
You could fool me. All you are doing is repeating the legalistic claptrap which allows the President to carry on a war without the suthority of Congress while still denying he can.
 
Be simpler just to take the UK model under which the Crown can declare war without Parliamentary approval. 
Quote
They are waging punitive expeditions under cover of 'Campaigns' in the 'Global War on Terror'. 
Not in Iraq they're not. Doesn't compare with Korea, Afghanistan and the first Gulf war where there was UN approval.
Quote
But they are running themselves further into debt to do so, not only in bringing the war to the enemy, but in maintaining 'comfort' levels for commanders and staffs in air-conditioned buildings that were not even insulated. Proof in itself that neither Harvard, nor Yale, nor a War College diploma, can keep idiots out of government. The simple fact is that nations will take whatever measures are necessary to protect what they perceive as their vital interests. But what is far from simple is determining which interests are truly vital, and when they have been sufficiently protected. Neither War, nor military operations short of war, have truly changed. Only the methods by which they are waged have.
The criticisms of current US practice are:
(a) their perception of their vital interests is mistaken
(b) they knowingly do not pursue the vital interests of the country but the interests of the ruling elite.
(c) they ignore any concept of the US being bound by a superior law, or by treaty
(d) they assume US law has jurisdiction everywhere over everybody.
 
The problem the US faces now is that it is no longer strong or rich enough to do those things successfully and is reliant on outside resources even to keep its own economy going. Once upon a time that was not true: the US was self-sufficient in pretty well everything. Now it depends on being able to borrow to pay for the resources it needs to keep itself afloat.
 
This was written in 2006, before the major collapse, but was fairly percipient. The last paragraph is especially relevant to this thread.
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 21:54
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
But then let us see where the gold hoards are:
 
US                      8,965.65 tons
Germany            3,754.29 tons
The IMF              3,311.84 tons (gee isn't this the organization usually called a tool of the US?)
Italy                   2,701.90 tons
France                2,683.81 tons
China                 1,161.60 tons
Switzerland        1,146.00 tons
 
The amount of gold being held by anyone is about as relevant to relative prosperity as the number of bricks in government buildings. But in any case the gold held by the EU is far greater than that held by the US: Germany, France and Italy alone are comparable to the US, let alone the rest of the EU and the central bank.
(Some listings give Germany, France and Italy more than the US. For instance http://seekingalpha.com/article/166323-largest-gold-reserves-by-country
 
Anyway, the biggest share of the world's gold is apparently owned by India (20%), though in private citizens' hands.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 21:59
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Oh, now you are Nostradamus making predictions.

Is there a reason this thread (that could have been interesting) should not be locked because you have hijacked it with your anti-gringo fetish?
 
I don't see how anyone can discuss the new shape wars are taking without discussing the US role in them. In particular it's necessary to discuss the role of international bodies and the need for countries to pay attention to other things than their own interests.
 
Law evolved within countries to stop the bullies from taking over. For the same reason law is needed internationally, and while the US - and too many US citizens - hold out for an antiquated view of 'vital national interests' humanity isn't going anywhere and war isn't going to change in any meaningful manner.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 22:01
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Ok gents, we are now at the stage where the discussion is very much off topic. We are now discussing atrocities and imperial morality rather than changes in the way combat is conducted.

For this thread, let's go back to the original topic. If any of you has something you wish to explore regarding atrocities and imperial powers - please do everyone a favour and open a new thread on that topic. Thanks Smile


In the original topic, war is changing in the following way:

(1) It is getting highly mechanized and expensive.

(2) It is getting very asymetrical. Large superpowers against midget countries. I bet the last engagement with a relative parity in forces was the Falkland War, and there Britain had 10 times more resources than Argentina.

(3) Frotal wars are getting transformed into guerrilla wars, where the gear and tactics of massive wars are not very well suited.

(4) There are wars without causes or heroism, but just operations leading to control populations.

(5) War is seen as a business by the dominant powers, and privatization of certain functions is going on.

(6) Who control the air win the war, but winning it doesn't mean success. Guerrilla attacks and resistence can't be stopped at all.






Edited by pinguin - 08 Dec 2010 at 22:02
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 22:05
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

[
The criticisms of current US practice are:
(a) their perception of their vital interests is mistaken
(b) they knowingly do not pursue the vital interests of the country but the interests of the ruling elite.
(c) they ignore any concept of the US being bound by a superior law, or by treaty
(d) they assume US law has jurisdiction everywhere over everybody.
 
The problem the US faces now is that it is no longer strong or rich enough to do those things successfully and is reliant on outside resources even to keep its own economy going. Once upon a time that was not true: the US was self-sufficient in pretty well everything. Now it depends on being able to borrow to pay for the resources it needs to keep itself afloat.
 
This was written in 2006, before the major collapse, but was fairly percipient. The last paragraph is especially relevant to this thread.
 
 


Absolutely agreed.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 23:09
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:



In the original topic, war is changing in the following way:

(1) It is getting highly mechanized and expensive.

(2) It is getting very asymetrical. Large superpowers against midget countries. I bet the last engagement with a relative parity in forces was the Falkland War, and there Britain had 10 times more resources than Argentina.

(3) Frotal wars are getting transformed into guerrilla wars, where the gear and tactics of massive wars are not very well suited.

(4) There are wars without causes or heroism, but just operations leading to control populations.

(5) War is seen as a business by the dominant powers, and privatization of certain functions is going on.

(6) Who control the air win the war, but winning it doesn't mean success. Guerrilla attacks and resistence can't be stopped at all.


Yes, I confess You can say so from a certain point of view, looking mainly at the original headline.
I think some of the contemporary bloodshed is not best defined as "war" at all, at least not in the narrow sense of the word, but could better be described as "violent chaos", and often hard to separate from "fighting criminals" or sometimes "opression". The later examples are not necessarily more "benign"  than the wars that used to be.
Still I think there has for some time been a decrease of violence in large regions, probably including even Central and South America. That is not to give guarantees for the future, at least not at the moment or "everything is rosy".
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2010 at 23:17
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

...
Still I think there has for some time been a decrease of violence in large regions, probably including even Central and South America. That is not to give guarantees for the future, at least not at the moment or "everything is rosy".


Indeed. The places more affected by violence in the Americas are Mexico, some countries of Central America, Venezuela and Brazil. It is interesting that, even after half a century of chaos, violence in Columbia has decreased a bit.

But Mexico is lossing the control. Drug lords are attacking directly that country and population, and I am afraid violence will continue there for a while. In the case of Brazil, the chronicle violence has exploded once again. These are hard problems to solve giving the fact those countries are actually two nations in one, and in war. Relatively prosperous societies right beside a sea of poor people hopeless and with only the very rudiments of civilization. A recipee for social unrest and violence.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.