Just another political arguing thread

[Ryazania]

So........having military bases in allied countries (see NATO, SK, Japan, and a few other places) is considered arrogant? I know U.S. military installations are problematic in peacetime (which is why I do not condone soldiers/airmen/sailors/Marines going out of base), but they would be invaluable in a true global crisis. Say, for instance, a repeat blitzkrieg happened (this is all hypothetical) in one of the NATO countries, or if Kim Jong-il decided to cross the 38th parallel.

[The Empire]

In that case I believe the EU would be able to fend for itself. And so would probably Russia, India and China too. Can't speak for Japan or south east Asia though.

If North Korea's dictator feels like crossing the 38th I don't see how it would be any of the US's buisness. Japan's and South Korea's, yes. The US's, no.

[Romanar]

In that case I believe the EU would be able to fend for itself. And so would probably Russia, India and China too. Can't speak for Japan or south east Asia though.

If North Korea's dictator feels like crossing the 38th I don't see how it would be any of the US's buisness. Japan's and South Korea's, yes. The US's, no.

Frankly, that would be okay with me.  And it probably wouldn't make much difference in Europe.  But I could see big problems in Asia.  Without us, Japan might decide they need to build their own military to protect themselves.  I don't think anyone in Asia wants to see a Japanese military buildup.

[Delfos]

is this about the installation of american anti-missile launchers across EU? I'm totally against it. As empire said we'r able to defend ourselves, lets not forget USA didn't help in WWI, wouldn't help in WWII if it wasnt Pearl Harbor, and a fight against emerging different political or economical systems.

plus it's proved that the american anti-missile system isn't 100% effective, as a scientist said it's as effective as throwing a rock towards an enemy missile in hope of that rock would hit it. Plus the russian report about this anti-missile system says it's worthless, the reason they are being installed is worhtless too since north Korea's missiles dont travel that much, not enough radius. my guess this is an excuse for installing missile bases around the world.

you know one of the american government idea against a cold war russian nuke towards america was to blow a nuke bomb in the skies of USA so that would detonate the other nuke, so the idea was to blow 2 nukes on the US skies. isnt that cheerful? nuke tests caused alot of diseases around the world, one for instance was some nuke material that traveled through the sky to Australia wich got embebed in the vegetation, the real problem is that the cows that ate the grass were making milk that caused alot of calcium disease. so whats nukes for? destroy a bit faster our planet? look at the mess in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Anti-missile system is worthless and we'r ok in EU as long americans keep EU out of USA trouble.

[The Empire]

And why would a Japanese defense force worth it's name be so bad? And as far as I can tell, that's not the US's business either. Besides, the Japanese have changed immensely since WW2, they are far better at dominating through economy now than before and no matter how much they mobilized they wouldn't be able to match their mainland neighbours enough to stage offensives but more than enough to protect themselves.

EDIT: By the way, it would save the US taxpayers billions of dollars to withdraw and probably an increase in international good-will

[Romanar]

And why would a Japanese defense force worth it's name be so bad? And as far as I can tell, that's not the US's business either. Besides, the Japanese have changed immensely since WW2, they are far better at dominating through economy now than before and no matter how much they mobilized they wouldn't be able to match their mainland neighbours enough to stage offensives but more than enough to protect themselves.

EDIT: By the way, it would save the US taxpayers billions of dollars to withdraw and probably an increase in international good-will

The biggest problem with a Japanese defense force is that some of its neighbors have long memories.  They've probably heard horror stories about what the Japanese did to them in WW2.  A Japanese buildup could start an arms race in Asia.

I have very mixed feelings on whether such things are our business.  It would certainly affect us, since we are as dependent on Asian imports as we are on Mideast oil.  OTOH, we've made an unholy mess of things in the Mideast, and a misstep in Asia, with its population and tech, could be even worse!

Personally, I'd like to see the USA in a position where it didn't NEED foriegn oil, or tech, or the Chinese buying our frigging debt so we wouldn't have to worry about global instability.

[Ryazania]

Delfos: We are not talking about missile silos or anti-missile installations across NATO countries. We were speaking of U.S. military bases in the UK, Germany, Italy, etc.,

1000th post!

[Simple]

i can tell you now gentlemen, if there was an arms race in Asia, the Americans would most definitely intervene. we cant help it. its in our blood or something.

as for the outcome?
china, North Korea, and Japan would race to become the top three, N Korea with its shoddy facilities in Pyongyang would most likely fall behind (but their crazy enough to make the first move, triggering global war)
if its a land based war-china wins hands down. 
Sea based- Japan wins but stands the risk of massive casualties/firebombing of Tokyo.

it would come down to production levels, could Japan keep up with the Chinese war machine?-i think so. indeed it would be a bloody battle.

[Solnath]

In that case I believe the EU would be able to fend for itself. And so would probably Russia, India and China too. Can't speak for Japan or south east Asia though.

If North Korea's dictator feels like crossing the 38th I don't see how it would be any of the US's buisness. Japan's and South Korea's, yes. The US's, no.

Frankly, that would be okay with me.  And it probably wouldn't make much difference in Europe.  But I could see big problems in Asia.  Without us, Japan might decide they need to build their own military to protect themselves.  I don't think anyone in Asia wants to see a Japanese military buildup.

What on earth are you talking about? If Japan were to get out of hand, WHAM, Godzilla strikes. Study some Japanese history, will ya. It's because of Godzilla they lost WW II.

[Marsos]

In that case I believe the EU would be able to fend for itself. And so would probably Russia, India and China too. Can't speak for Japan or south east Asia though.

If North Korea's dictator feels like crossing the 38th I don't see how it would be any of the US's buisness. Japan's and South Korea's, yes. The US's, no.

I feel that if the host country's government has no problem with a U.S. military presence, there is no problem. You could say in a hypothetical situation that the EU could fend for itself. This is true. However, this hypothetical war would be a lot quicker if America helped, and if it had strategically located military bases to help it do so.

[Barceleroth]

In another thread, Alger said:

Damn this is the rant thread of the century. Barc, i completly agree with your statement apart from what you say in your middle paragraph about America is like a world police and they how the "US had to fight your wars for you, and win them for you". How more freaking uneducated and right wing can you get? In all the real wars, WWI and II, America was provoked into them. We didn't fight them for anyone but ourselves and to shut-down Germany. Before that we were provoked by the Spanish, the Mexican, the South, the British, and the British again. After the War, we were provoked by communism, and communism again, oil, a plane and a tower, and now invisible WMDs.  But apart from I agree with your entire statement.


Hahaha, yeah, I might have sounded a little harsh there, but still, please don't label me as "right wing" or "uneducated."  Please note, in no way did I intend to belittle the heroic efforts of the Allied Nations during the world wars.  If this is how you took my statement, I apologize for the confusioin.  However, I don't think you see my point.  Why did the US have to be "provoked" into the world wars?  Because we didn't want to be world police.  But we were provoked.  We mobilized, and reacted.  Turned out, we became the Superpower of the world.  Many thought it was our responsibility to protect the little countries who were being oppressed by the USSR after the war.  And we get labelled "world police."  You could say 'the Cold War's over, go home.'  But do you really think the USSR was the only bad guy on the block?  No.  And we're still top dog, so, some still think it's our responsibility to protect the little people all around the world.  Strangely enough, no one seems to be appreciating our efforts.    Like I said, damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

Oh, and I'll have to beg to differ with Alger, on the point that "we only fought for ourselves and to shut down Germany."  I don't see how we were provoked into WWI...  I think we actually did fight for an ideal there.  Granted, Germany was really begging to have us as an enemy, but we were so stuck in the rut of isolationism, it wouldn't have made a difference if Wilson hadn't strove to "make the world safe for democracy."  And I already expressed my beliefs of the Lend-Lease Act.  But I'm glad we agree on everything else, Alger. 


EDIT:  Delfos was trying to compare the Red Army to the USMC.      Dude, we kicked China's ass in Korea, outnumbered though we were.  And yes, along with the USMC.  Read about it in a history book.  Of course, Chinese tactics, as someone also said, were basically "throw a million men at them, there's plenty more where those came from."  And I take it you're Portuguese?  I'm 50% myself.  And I admire your pride in your country.  But, please, don't try to compare the Portuguese peace-keeping force to the USMC.  I'm fiercely proud of the USMC, having had a cousin in Iraq with that outfit.  And thank God he came back alright.

[The Empire]

An offencive force is nothing to be proud of, period.

[Solnath]

Had America not intervened in WW II, chances are that the Cold War would have been between Germany and the US. They were as such provoked by the need to save themselves as well as European money.

[Daimiaen]

The thing to remember about this is that the Europeans have been playing at war and politics for a little bit longer than the Americans......and maybe we have learnt a few things about how inconvenient and unpleasant Imperialism is......

Though to be fair most of the older nations in the world have had their Imperial fun and maybe it's just the Americans turn to have their moment......

I just hope America learns quicker than the rest did what the inevitable result is......

And if anyone doesn't know what I mean by the inevitable result is.....check out the Roman empire....the Egyptian empire.....the Nubian empire....the Austro Hungarian empire....the British empire.....the Greek empire...the Japanese empire....the Tsarist Russian empire.....the Belgain empire....the Holy Roman empire.....the Persian empire....the Frankish empire....the Dutch empire....

Any of those still around???
Any of those still successful???


Dai.....

[The Empire]

^Word!

Also, another common denominator is that the fall has always come from within combined with the opressed provinces rising.