EEK<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Korean war had no political agenda with communism. It would be a stretch to say so, considering just 5 years before a bunch of red commies helped us kick in Hitler's ****.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But it wouldn't be a stretch when you consider the precepts of the Truman doctrine set out in 1947, three years before the Korean war. In 1950, the United States was concerned mainly with the 'proliferation' of communism so close to their Japanese sphere of influence when it lobbied for a UN security council mandate. Also consider that the UN coalition fought Koreans equipped with weapons supplied by the Soviets, the United States' 'beloved' WWII allies. The Korean war was all about the perception of a communist threat.
(e)kent<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hold on, in both cases a soverign nation (South Korea and South Vietnam) was defending itself from an agressive "foreign" power. Can you think of any case in the last century where America didn't intervene in a case like this?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There were about 30 non-WWII invasions in the 20th century. The United States only intervented in a handful of these.
For example: Israel, supported by France and Britain, invaded Egypt in 1956 - no American intervention. The Soviet Union, with its Warsaw allies, invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 - no American intervention. India invaded East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in 1971 - no American intervention.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Oct 6 2004, 05:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Oct 6 2004, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...considering just 5 years before a bunch of red commies helped us kick in Hitler's ****. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed, as a matter of fact the Cold War began simply because othe the USSR's insistnace of keeping the territorty it had "freed" from Nazi rule. (Berlin wall in particular)
Hitler was considered a lunatic by his best generals. I think if I remeber correctly Rommel (desert fox guy) had been asked to help analyze the effectiveness of the Atlantic Wall in the imminent time period before the Allies' Operation Overlord. He found the defense of such a large area to be woefully inadequate. (even though 4 million tons of concrete were poured, or roughly five Hover dams) He knew that American B-17s would pwn any supply lines because the Allies had air superiority in the region. (and they did, other planes carried the paratroopers like the 101st airborn (as seen on <i>Band of Brothers</i> miniseries) were vital to the success) But Hitler posed a more imminent threat than Stalin. Actually the Allies were delighted when Hitler attacked the USSR because now they had a enemy of their enemy. The lesser of two evils if you would.
But anyways... if Stalin hadn't come to power and the USSR hadn't keep the "freed" eastern European territories for itself, the cold war might have never existed.
FYI: Actually many of you may not know this but the term "iron curtain" in reference to comminism was coined by a Nazi who had predicted that a cold war would ensure after Germany lost the war. (forget the guy's name, I think he was a journalist or something, you can google it yourself)
~back on topic~
From the above we can see that a Europe which had conflict for more than a thousand years is now united.
I feel sorry for the UK because they feel caught between the US government wanting them to help in Iraq and the European goverments wanting them to throw out the NATO treaty. (because they argue that the US on has it's own self-interests in mind and wants the world to obey it's policing, exemplified by Iraq)
As a matter of fact Tony Blair has gotten a lot of bad rap because of his support for the North Atlantic Treaty.
Whether we think that we are being imperialistic doesn't really matter, it's what our neighbors on the planet are thinking of our actions. And just as the news here distorts the facts (by not showing somethings and emphasizing others) the other nations will also distort. Misunderstanding, generalizing people into groups, and us vs. them attitudes are important to generating more conflict and hate.
<!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Oct 4 2004, 05:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Oct 4 2004, 05:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just to clarify even further. The answer would be:
After the war is over, we would spend billions of dollars rebuilding their infrastructure, startup their industry, try and establish a democracy, feed their citizens and when they are all fine and dandy........we set up an embassy and leave <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> When did that happen?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmmm I dont see us controling any resources in the recent coutries we have invaded. Nor do I see us installing our own government. Rather we are working with the people to establish a new government and get elections going. I think rhetoric like imperialism is being thrown around at a whim now and its ridiculous. Im not going to argue the wars, its been done to death on the forums. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ignorance is bliss indeed. What the hell do you think happens when the OPEC agrees on lowering the Oil prizes to keep the stock markets stable, thoug naturally, prices should rise during times of shortage? Honoring our long lasting friendship? Beside, are you aware that the wealth of all industrial nations depends on the trade taxes the WTO implies on third world countries? To protect our markets from cheap labor and producs, we imply trade sanctions on them. Our wealth is their poverty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Germany and Russia were making money off arms deals to Sadam, hence their veto. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Germany was not dealing any arms of any kind with Iraq since the first Golf war. Not in any scale that would influence the nations policies, believe me on that. Before then, well America did too...so, don't be hippocritical. Saddam was <i>your ****</i>,remember that statement? Germanys reason for disaproving with the war was not of economical nature but purely PR-related. Elections were imminent, and the current sozial-democratic government was counting on the pacifistic feelings of most of Germanys population. In fact, they won the election because of their disaproval to Bushs Iraq policy. If you don't have deeper understandings of a foreign countrys political situation, do not make any accusations like that. (note, I do not deny that World Peace would be a hard blow for Germanys economy...) <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If we were true imperialists aka old british style we would have taken over the entire world by now <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The British did not maintain control over their colonies by military force. They installed puppet governments or supported "cooperative" plitical leaders to dictate the countries policy and recruited troops from the local population to ensure dominance. The actual occupation forces were rather small. Sounds familiar? <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How you ask?
End of ww2, take over europe, finish off russia, and make japan bend to your knees <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Finishing off Russia was not really possible, as Russias army, at the end of WW2 was a battlehardened, well equipped and supplied war machinery even superior to the one Germany had to their disposal during the initial years of the war. Russian tanks were the most advanced on all battlefields of WW2. Also, the troops were all ready and deployed right at the borders of Germany. No, Russia was not to be defeated at that point. besides, no one has ever managed to completely defeat the russians. Ever. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since when have we been dominating countries because they don't agree with us during the last three or four decades?
No one's being ignorant, but you sound suspiciously like you have NO CLUE as to what you're talking about. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lybia? Syria? Iraq? <i>hello?</i> have you been asleep over the last year? Never watching the news? You just invaded a country because of WMD that threatened the free world....oh wait... <a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html' target='_blank'>they never existed</a>....I forgot, sorry. So why did the US go to Iraq then? To free the Iraqi people? Sure, like last time, when the US let the revolting iraqis get sloughtered by Saddams troops after they ignited the uprising to support the Desert Storm from inside of Iraq.
Or take Saudi arabia... It was guaranteed that US forces would leave Saudia Arabian territory after successfull liberation of Kuwait. Well they are still there ever since....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you really think going to war is a "casual decision"?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seeing the sheer amount of military interventions of US forces since WW2, well it kind of looks like it, yea.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After the war is over, we would spend billions of dollars rebuilding their infrastructure, startup their industry, try and establish a democracy, feed their citizens and when they are all fine and dandy........we set up an embassy and leave. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> To be more precisely, its the <i>UN</i> and the major contributors (like Germany, France, Britain.....) which provides the nessesary fundings to rebuild the country...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Finishing off Russia was not really possible, as Russias army, at the end of WW2 was a battlehardened, well equipped and supplied war machinery even superior to the one Germany had to their disposal during the initial years of the war. Russian tanks were the most advanced on all battlefields of WW2. Also, the troops were all ready and deployed right at the borders of Germany. No, Russia was not to be defeated at that point. besides, no one has ever managed to completely defeat the russians. Ever.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually this would have been possible as Japan would have been attacking russia at the same time America would have
America had way more military capability over Russia + the only one to have the atom bomb = america flatright out wastes the world
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Oct 7 2004, 10:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Oct 7 2004, 10:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What the hell do you think happens when the OPEC agrees on lowering the Oil-- <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> *raises hand* Wait. Excuse me sir? Sir? I need to interrupt you. Pardon me, but what the hell do we need with oil when we could easily invest in other energy production! Yet, because people are having tunnel vision ideaology the question/statement I just quoted are clearly thinking only of oil based solutions.
<span style='color:orange'>We could easily mine our landfills for all the oil we could ever need: read more @ thermal depolymerization.</span>
So why not?
Because getting oil from OPEC is marginally cheaper at present than thermal depolymerization, the US has pressured OPEC to keep gas price to half that of other place in the world, and the bell-curve of the US consumer demand wants gas guzzling vehicles (also bell-curve wants non-turbo economy vehicles which could inprove fuel efficency and power). Only recently has the non-gasoline industry been able to lobby soem hybrid or all electric vehicles. The main issue with electric vehicles is keeping the charge. Batteries won't cut it anymore. Cellphones are evidence enough of this. But research on new energy storage is painfully slow because of the economic strangle hold US car markets have on transportation. (Don't say it isn't true EEK becuase I'll prove that I can get anywhere in Europe via electric train.) The lack of mass transit has a major impact on why America has an addiction to foreign oil. Maybe is a cultural thing, maybe it because the US is large than Europe, maybe both; but whatever the case to argue that the US need foreign oil is totally wrong. It the US want foreign oil becauses that where the economy is situated at. The goverment could easily
Btw, did you know that when President Bush Jr. was elected on of the first bills presented included a tax decuction for large SUV's (over 6,000lbs)? This was a loophole which was supposed to help out farmers with their tractors. He we have an example of a guy who honest feels he's making the right decisions is being influenced but the beaurocrats around him who well knew what the effects would be. Instead of helping farmers, it has most and exponentially helped new large SUVs such as Hummer H2, Cadilac Escalades, and other such large vehicles meant for luxury and soccermoms rather than ultility work can now get a large tax deduction. That's call a market incentive. It has the negative effect of increasing oil demand, infrastucture damage (roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.), and hurting US domestic company car divisons (example: Ford Focus). The car market has futher shifted to foreign comanies like Honda (I drive a Honda for example). So now have some more cause-effect relay relationships. More need to press imperialistic-like foreign policies and more US jobs being exported. Stupid selfish people and their stupid sport "ulility" vehicles. Utility = M1 Abrams tank. Utility = GalaxyX cargo plane Utility = Nuculear powered submarine And all of these get much better efficency and power than a dumb V6 or V8 engine. (m1 runs off of a turbine engine which charges the electic motors fyi)
So how do we solve the problem at their lowest cause?
Find a better means of transit and better energy technology that doesn't rely on importing. Easier said than done but being lazy is no excuse for indirect killing human life. Technology is the key here, and it could really use some federal and state government help in push incentives and disincentives to draw us away from.
PS: Electric motors are better than combustion engines for many reasons. One of the less known ones is performance. Combustion engines like the one in your car have to rev up to get torque, electric motor start with lots of torque. For those of you people who aren't into engines this means electric will accelerate faster and futhermore it won't require a diamo and can red line at higher RPM with less heat generated. Energy efficency in combustion engines are mostly lost to heat. The only heat electric motor produce is from the electrical resistance and friction, both of which are minimal and the friction in a cumbustion engine is much more. Many prominent dragster teams have considered designing their future cars to be electric. If I had a good means of energy prduction for the electricity then I could pwn all of those ricers on the streets with their internal combustion engines with NOx and turbos. I'll out accelerate you when blitzing out of every turn and as long as I can break and drift as good as you I'll be beating you in manuverability even though we match in speed which will result you eating lots of my dust. (which clogs up your filter too and I don't have a filter to clog.) Replace the battery with something lighter and can store or process something into electricity better and you'll begin to see combustion engines become a thing of the past.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Oct 7 2004, 10:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Oct 7 2004, 10:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If we were true imperialists aka old british style we would have taken over the entire world by now <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The British did not maintain control over their colonies by military force. They installed puppet governments or supported "cooperative" plitical leaders to dictate the countries policy and recruited troops from the local population to ensure dominance. The actual occupation forces were rather small. Sounds familiar? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That was I was proposing in my thread. It's not just a whim I'm tossing you around. <span style='color:yellow'>History loves to repeat itself. </span>That's why they make you study it in school. Obviously some of you were sleeping in class or the teacher did a lame job:
<span style='font-family:Times'>The entire past history of the United States of America has been imperialistic. As I said at the beginning: Manifest Destiny ring a bell? Our role only began to change at the beginning of the 20th century. President Woodrow Wilson tried to keep the US out of wars. FDR did too. It was a golden era in American government. FDR created jobs and turned a dwindling American economy around. He did this NOT by focusing on policing the world, but rather by working on domestic issues. The US never went it alone into major wars, we were always united with Allies. WWII ended, enter Cold War with the lesser of the two evils. The was a catch that neither of the two could actually attack one another because both sides would loose (tech effect, for better and worse) but there were still some puppet wars centered around communism vs. democracy. Even at this early stage we had begun to see a slight beginning of sliding back into a more imperialistic America. This reach a climax with Vietnam when a generation of young adults began to see the horrors or war televised and protested. Like it or not the Hippies and their peace and love and making love (while doing drugs) had swayed the government back into a neutral world role. The mighty USSR crumbled due to the imbalanced economics and bureaucracy of the oligarchy and the human failing for greed or laziness. Humans were not perfect so a perfect government wouldn't work. (no kidding) Anyways after that we became much more of a growing nation working together with allies and friends around the globe to effect change and maintain peace. But then at the turn of the millennium that began to change. We had another Pearl Harbor. Revenge was difficult this time because the enemy was not a nation but rather a high-crime. Terrorism is much more a crime than a politics. Revenge was justified in Afghanistan against the terrorist cells. Sure, it was just a hey remember that you just reduced taxes and spend a lot of money ok. That's enough picking fights for one presidency kthx. But no. Due to <i><b>personal family reasons and beliefs</b></i> (yes you heard me, son had to prove himself a man and destroy the villain of his father) and kill or capture Saddam. Not that the SoB didn't deserve it but actually invading another nation without out allies is taking our foreign policy back more than 100 years into history. Whether we believe it or not is irrelevant. It's the opinion of the other people on this planet that are of consequence. No human wants to trade when you resent have some foreign military occupation indirectly forcing their culture and rules upon you. The rest of the world is going ahead of us. Imperialism has been dropped. Europe which has been at war for most of recorded history is finally uniting. And we are getting out conflict in an area of deep religiousness and cultural conflict and think we can "<i>straighten them out</i>" by "<i>putting the squeeze</i>" on them. Come on. People will just snap and go bezerk when you keep them under pressure. We are helping to generate terrorism and hate towards the US, not reduce it. And throwing out an existing sovereign government (no matter how bad) and putting one in that will suit you interests is selfish action and one that is clearly defined as part of imperialism.</span>
So as part of making you all (hopefully) more aware, know that what we think of your foreign policy is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is the reaction for those foreigners.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That was I was proposing in my thread. It's not just a whim I'm tossing you around. History loves to repeat itself. That's why they make you study it in school. Obviously some of you were sleeping in class or the teacher did a lame job:
Oh class I'm going to summarize some American History so stay awake or I'll beat you with a random bludgeon (as they did in my high school, and it worked):
The entire past history of the United States of America has been imperialistic. As I said at the beginning: Manifest Destiny ring a bell? Our role only began to change at the beginning of the 20th century. President Woodrow Wilson tried to keep the US out of wars. FDR did too. It was a golden era in American government. FDR created jobs and turned a dwindling American economy around. He did this NOT by focusing on policing the world, but rather by working on domestic issues. The US never went it alone into major wars, we were always united with Allies. WWII ended, enter Cold War with the lesser of the two evils. The was a catch that neither of the two could actually attack one another because both sides would loose (tech effect, for better and worse) but there were still some puppet wars centered around communism vs. democracy. Even at this early stage we had begun to see a slight beginning of sliding back into a more imperialistic America. This reach a climax with Vietnam when a generation of young adults began to see the horrors or war televised and protested. Like it or not the Hippies and their peace and love and making love (while doing drugs) had swayed the government back into a neutral world role. The mighty USSR crumbled due to the imbalanced economics and bureaucracy of the oligarchy and the human failing for greed or laziness. Humans were not perfect so a perfect government wouldn't work. (no kidding) Anyways after that we became much more of a growing nation working together with allies and friends around the globe to effect change and maintain peace. But then at the turn of the millennium that began to change. We had another Pearl Harbor. Revenge was difficult this time because the enemy was not a nation but rather a high-crime. Terrorism is much more a crime than a politics. Revenge was justified in Afghanistan against the terrorist cells. Sure, it was just a hey remember that you just reduced taxes and spend a lot of money ok. That's enough picking fights for one presidency kthx. But no. Due to personal family reasons and beliefs (yes you heard me, son had to prove himself a man and destroy the villain of his father) and kill or capture Saddam. Not that the SoB didn't deserve it but actually invading another nation without out allies is taking our foreign policy back more than 100 years into history. Whether we believe it or not is irrelevant. It's the opinion of the other people on this planet that are of consequence. No human wants to trade when you resent have some foreign military occupation indirectly forcing their culture and rules upon you. The rest of the world is going ahead of us. Imperialism has been dropped. Europe which has been at war for most of recorded history is finally uniting. And we are getting out conflict in an area of deep religiousness and cultural conflict and think we can "straighten them out" by "putting the squeeze" on them. Come on. People will just snap and go bezerk when you keep them under pressure. We are helping to generate terrorism and hate towards the US, not reduce it. And throwing out an existing sovereign government (no matter how bad) and putting one in that will suit you interests is selfish action and one that is clearly defined as part of imperialism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whatever highschool you went to, I'll remember <span style='color:orange'>and what was once here, my friends, was an example of the "laugh-off" or "shrug-off" type of argument. It uses a general statement to make something seem worthy of disregard without actually refuting any one aspect of it. Forlorn, this is the discussion forums. I didn't even read all of x5's quotation; even out of context your rebuttal was a bit lacking for this section of the forums.</span>
I'm not much into WW2 history but I can't imagine the USSR would've been in much condition to effectively fight off the United States. As I understood it, by the end of the war, their supplies were woefully inadequet, and they were running painfully short on bodies to put behind guns.
Plus, you're also forgetting that if they needed to, the US could deliver a few kilotons of own right on St. Basils if they needed to.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Oct 7 2004, 03:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Oct 7 2004, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Plus, you're also forgetting that if they needed to, the US could deliver a few kilotons of own right on St. Basils if they needed to. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The US could easily kill all life on the planet if they wanted to...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Germany and Russia were making money off arms deals to Sadam, hence their veto. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Germany was not dealing any arms of any kind with Iraq since the first Golf war. Not in any scale that would influence the nations policies, believe me on that. Before then, well America did too...so, don't be hippocritical. Saddam was <i>your ****</i>,remember that statement? Germanys reason for disaproving with the war was not of economical nature but purely PR-related. Elections were imminent, and the current sozial-democratic government was counting on the pacifistic feelings of most of Germanys population. In fact, they won the election because of their disaproval to Bushs Iraq policy. If you don't have deeper understandings of a foreign countrys political situation, do not make any accusations like that. (note, I do not deny that World Peace would be a hard blow for Germanys economy...) the country... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I have plenty of understanding on how the world works. And yes looking back I was wrong, it was the russians alone dealing arms. They asked the US to delay the invasion so they could pull military personel out that were training iraqis(for some reason I remembered them as German). While politics had some play in Germany's stance, I think the over billions of dollars in direct and indirect trade with Iraq had something to say. That said my point was not to slander any country, but rather point out how the UN has become inadequate.
I must file a motion in regards to your statement "has become" and amend it to read "has always been." The free world demands that the truth must be heard.
there is no alternative to oil without massive, debilitating research in other directions. oil is THE cheapest in terms of energy provided vs. weight. it's easily transportable, it's relatively stable (does not combust without a catalyst), and CURRENTLY POWERS EVERYTHING.
oil goes FAR beyond just running cars. every plastic that we use, for instance, is an oil derivate. the polycarbons in plastics can't be efficiently produced without oils. nitrogen-based fertilizers - oil. without oil-aided production, we would lose a LOT. while some estimates put food production at -85% without the use of fertilizers, a truer estimate might be -40%. but you are still losing a TON of food production to an ever increasing human population.
giving up oil is not a one step solution to free-topia.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Oct 7 2004, 03:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Oct 7 2004, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not much into WW2 history but I can't imagine the USSR would've been in much condition to effectively fight off the United States. As I understood it, by the end of the war, their supplies were woefully inadequet, and they were running painfully short on bodies to put behind guns.
Plus, you're also forgetting that if they needed to, the US could deliver a few kilotons of own right on St. Basils if they needed to. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We are talking about the years after ww2 rigth?
The USSRs Army at the end of WW2 was a extremely well equipped, and technically up to date military machinery. The times when the russian soldiers ran against mashinegun emplacements with just one rifle for every fourth man were long gone.
Also, they were more than enough soldiers to man their guns, as young man from all over Russia were recruited.
Supplies were adequate, as the whole industrial production was focussed on military needs, and the nessesary food was simply taken from civilians.
Also, the US was not able to reproduce a nuclear weapon in just a week you know? it took month of hard work and a captured german submarine transporting uranium to japan, to aquire enough material for the 2 bombs that were deployed on japan. Uranium was hard to aquire.
It si true the Russian economy was relatively weak and the people were poor and starving, however, The they had the same advantage that allowed them to defeat the Nazis. The vastness of their country.
As for Japan attacking russia...no. Japan was crippled, besides, they hardly would have aprooved to this shortly after the war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> After the war is over, we would spend billions of dollars rebuilding their infrastructure, startup their industry, try and establish a democracy, feed their citizens and when they are all fine and dandy........we set up an embassy and leave. To be more precisely, its the UN and the major contributors (like Germany, France, Britain.....) which provides the nessesary fundings to rebuild the country... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was mainly referring to post ww2 (marshal plan) and the Korean war. While the UN does assist the United states via funding and other matters, they do not provide the bulk of the investment (this includes security, infrastructure, direct investment etc) in Afghanistan (I’m assuming Afghanistan is what your referring to).
Kosovo and Afgannistan are the 2 major hotspots where major contributors and the UN have played a major role in reconstruction. If I’m not mistaken, between 1945 to 1990, the US was major country that could provide the necessary funding to rebuild countries. It is important to note that the United States provides 25 to 30% of the UN's budget
Currently the United States funds about 38% of <b>non security</b>projects in Afghanistan(humanitarian). I can’t find the figures that include both non security/security.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have plenty of understanding on how the world works. And yes looking back I was wrong, it was the russians alone dealing arms. They asked the US to delay the invasion so they could pull military personel out that were training iraqis(for some reason I remembered them as German). While politics had some play in Germany's stance, I think the over billions of dollars in direct and indirect trade with Iraq had something to say. That said my point was not to slander any country, but rather point out how the UN has become inadequate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excuse me Handman, I did not intend to sound agressive in case you had that impresion. Also, the term accusation was not the optimal choice, it rather should have been conclusions.
You are definately right that Germany had trade issues with Iraq, as well as in eralier times sold military equipment. However, I asure you, the reasons for their anti war position were definately not economical. It was pure selfishness of the current government that needed to make a popular decision in oder to remain in charge. Believe me, if they would have acted accoding to national interest, they would not have insulted the US. Germany actually was deemed politically stable and reliant, our forein policy was predictable. that made us a good partner for everybody in the world. The current government risked this reputation for the sake of their reelection. Our economy is in a bad shape anyway, the last thing we needed was US investors leaving the country. Believe me, this descision was not based on economical thoughts. It was based on elections.
As for Russia....well, they sell arms to everybody, but that would not justify messing up the relationship with the US. It is definatle the interest in Oil that made Putins mind. Why do you think they insit on keeping Thechenien under their control? To build their pipelines.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was mainly referring to post ww2 (marshal plan) and the Korean war. While the UN does assist the United states via funding and other matters, they do not provide the bulk of the investment (this includes security, infrastructure, direct investment etc) in Afghanistan (I’m assuming Afghanistan is what your referring to). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I thought so. However, the Marshall plan was not made up out of generosity. Shortly beforehand, Germany (which virtually had been leveled by bombing raids) was to be completely de-industrialised. However, with the new conflict against the USSR, Germany was to be fortified as westernmost defense of the NATO. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Kosovo and Afgannistan are the 2 major hotspots where major contributors and the UN have played a major role in reconstruction. If I’m not mistaken, between 1945 to 1990, the US was major country that could provide the necessary funding to rebuild countries. It is important to note that the United States provides 25 to 30% of the UN's budget <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. But in return, the US is refunded for their active role in the military operations by UN fundings. Also, the rebuilding of foreing Industries and infrastructure means investions and jobs. Nobody rebuilds countries out of courtesy. The contracts for rebuilding Iraqs oil industry were given to US companies even before the war started. While now, as the situation escalated and is not working out as planned, Bush requests fundings from the UN after giving a big sh*t for it. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Currently the United States funds about 38% of non securityprojects in Afghanistan(humanitarian). I can’t find the figures that include both non security/security. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well thats good to know, as in 2002 (if I don't mess up the date...) The US Government almost forgot to calculate the nesseary funds for Afghanistan in the national budget <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-hawthorne+Oct 8 2004, 01:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (hawthorne @ Oct 8 2004, 01:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> there is no alternative to oil without massive, debilitating research in other directions. oil is THE cheapest in terms of energy provided vs. weight. it's easily transportable, it's relatively stable <s>(does not combust without a catalyst)</s> [<span style='color:red'>No, it depends on the grade (size of the hydrocarbon chain), octane burns rather easily in natural conditions. diesel will not burn @ natural conditions (<a href='http://auto.howstuffworks.com/diesel1.htm' target='_blank'>link</a>), so you see it depends]</span> and <s>CURRENTLY POWERS EVERYTHING.</s> <span style='color:red'>[you just hurt your arguement, it certainly does <i>not</i> power <i>everything</i>. you just destroyed your logic. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ]</span>
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Apparently you didn't read post #39 at all. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=82089&st=39' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...pic=82089&st=39</a> We <i>have</i> the technology
US doesn't <i><b>need</b></i> oil, the US <i><b>wants </b></i>oil. There's a difference. Again, read the <i>whole</i> thing before reacting, because you apparently are one of those who posts without reading. We should have be able to expect better from someone with the title of playtester. Rather disappointing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->oil goes FAR beyond just running cars. every plastic that we use, for instance, is an oil derivate. the polycarbons in plastics can't be efficiently produced without oils. nitrogen-based fertilizers - oil. without oil-aided production, we would lose a LOT. while some estimates put food production at -85% without the use of fertilizers, a truer estimate might be -40%. but you are still losing a TON of food production to an ever increasing human population.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You would loose if you siddenly removed all oil yes, but switching to something powered by something other than gasoline, deisel, or kerosene wouldn't mean decreased production. Why do people assume incorrectly that switching an equivalent power source will affect production. It simply isn't true.
Here's an example: nuclear fusion. Currently there is a factory just outside of Atlanta which works on fusing atoms consistently and stabely by using one laser and amplifying. Net energy production if the beam was constant (instead of pulse) could power an entire city. We are finally getting to a point where we might have solved the heat factor that makes fusion so difficult to harness. If fusion powerplants are made then you can expect energy prices to drop enormously and coal fired plant to gradually become a thing of the past. With decreaed energy prices you will find electic power more widespread and used in power intenisve operations. Not to mention that if a better electric energy storage device can be made you can finally see some very large machinery be going to electric. It is already a popular thing for vehicles needing good torque and power to use a combustion turbine to run an electric generator.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->giving up oil is not a one step solution to free-topia.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I <i>never</i> said that. Only idiots would think that. My point is the technology is changing by the US is about to get left in the dust technology wise when conservative ideals about technology are upheld. (PS: this isn't not consrevative as in the polical thought, many liberals have a conservative attitude towards technology and many conservatives have progressive attitudes towards technology; it's not related) Not to menation undue suffering and destruction and evil middle eastern dictators are empowered by America's addiction to oil, the reluctance of the US market to want to increase the cost of oil. It's a self-damaging cycle we are stuck in; one we are only going to get out of with the aide of technology and investment, <i>not</i> war.
I was listenign to the BBC last night and I just realized something that answers someone's question in this thread.
It's a trust thing. Terrorism is more like crime than a enemy nation. Declaring war on crime is as silly as declaring war on drugs or war on cheaters. It's a policing action. And despite the best laid plans of mice&men, nobody likes an occupation force. It's a mental things in humans, we don't like having people tell us what to do and putting rules and constraints on us. So the obvious solution is to gain international trust so we can actually route those evil criminals. But by comming off as an imperialist nation and lying (yes, even if we don't think it is, what matters is how we appear to other people) is the same as when a friend keeps lying to you. You stop trusting them as much. And as I'm sure as you all know, destroying trust is easy, growing it is hard earned.
Comments
China had become red only the year before, in 1949
it would not bode well for the future
of course then China **** around in the years after, but at that time they would not know of it
But it wouldn't be a stretch when you consider the precepts of the Truman doctrine set out in 1947, three years before the Korean war. In 1950, the United States was concerned mainly with the 'proliferation' of communism so close to their Japanese sphere of influence when it lobbied for a UN security council mandate. Also consider that the UN coalition fought Koreans equipped with weapons supplied by the Soviets, the United States' 'beloved' WWII allies. The Korean war was all about the perception of a communist threat.
(e)kent<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hold on, in both cases a soverign nation (South Korea and South Vietnam) was defending itself from an agressive "foreign" power. Can you think of any case in the last century where America didn't intervene in a case like this?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There were about 30 non-WWII invasions in the 20th century. The United States only intervented in a handful of these.
For example:
Israel, supported by France and Britain, invaded Egypt in 1956 - no American intervention.
The Soviet Union, with its Warsaw allies, invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 - no American intervention.
India invaded East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in 1971 - no American intervention.
Indeed, as a matter of fact the Cold War began simply because othe the USSR's insistnace of keeping the territorty it had "freed" from Nazi rule. (Berlin wall in particular)
Hitler was considered a lunatic by his best generals. I think if I remeber correctly Rommel (desert fox guy) had been asked to help analyze the effectiveness of the Atlantic Wall in the imminent time period before the Allies' Operation Overlord. He found the defense of such a large area to be woefully inadequate. (even though 4 million tons of concrete were poured, or roughly five Hover dams) He knew that American B-17s would pwn any supply lines because the Allies had air superiority in the region. (and they did, other planes carried the paratroopers like the 101st airborn (as seen on <i>Band of Brothers</i> miniseries) were vital to the success)
But Hitler posed a more imminent threat than Stalin. Actually the Allies were delighted when Hitler attacked the USSR because now they had a enemy of their enemy. The lesser of two evils if you would.
But anyways... if Stalin hadn't come to power and the USSR hadn't keep the "freed" eastern European territories for itself, the cold war might have never existed.
FYI: Actually many of you may not know this but the term "iron curtain" in reference to comminism was coined by a Nazi who had predicted that a cold war would ensure after Germany lost the war. (forget the guy's name, I think he was a journalist or something, you can google it yourself)
~back on topic~
From the above we can see that a Europe which had conflict for more than a thousand years is now united.
I feel sorry for the UK because they feel caught between the US government wanting them to help in Iraq and the European goverments wanting them to throw out the NATO treaty. (because they argue that the US on has it's own self-interests in mind and wants the world to obey it's policing, exemplified by Iraq)
As a matter of fact Tony Blair has gotten a lot of bad rap because of his support for the North Atlantic Treaty.
Whether we think that we are being imperialistic doesn't really matter, it's what our neighbors on the planet are thinking of our actions. And just as the news here distorts the facts (by not showing somethings and emphasizing others) the other nations will also distort. Misunderstanding, generalizing people into groups, and us vs. them attitudes are important to generating more conflict and hate.
After the war is over, we would spend billions of dollars rebuilding their infrastructure, startup their industry, try and establish a democracy, feed their citizens and when they are all fine and dandy........we set up an embassy and leave <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
When did that happen?
notice he used the word "would". If you honestly think we are going to stay in Iraw and run their government, than I got a bridge to sell you.
Open a history book and it will tell you.
Hmmm I dont see us controling any resources in the recent coutries we have invaded. Nor do I see us installing our own government. Rather we are working with the people to establish a new government and get elections going. I think rhetoric like imperialism is being thrown around at a whim now and its ridiculous. Im not going to argue the wars, its been done to death on the forums.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ignorance is bliss indeed.
What the hell do you think happens when the OPEC agrees on lowering the Oil prizes to keep the stock markets stable, thoug naturally, prices should rise during times of shortage? Honoring our long lasting friendship?
Beside, are you aware that the wealth of all industrial nations depends on the trade taxes the WTO implies on third world countries? To protect our markets from cheap labor and producs, we imply trade sanctions on them. Our wealth is their poverty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Germany and Russia were making money off arms deals to Sadam, hence their veto.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Germany was not dealing any arms of any kind with Iraq since the first Golf war. Not in any scale that would influence the nations policies, believe me on that. Before then, well America did too...so, don't be hippocritical. Saddam was <i>your ****</i>,remember that statement?
Germanys reason for disaproving with the war was not of economical nature but purely PR-related. Elections were imminent, and the current sozial-democratic government was counting on the pacifistic feelings of most of Germanys population. In fact, they won the election because of their disaproval to Bushs Iraq policy.
If you don't have deeper understandings of a foreign countrys political situation, do not make any accusations like that. (note, I do not deny that World Peace would be a hard blow for Germanys economy...)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
If we were true imperialists aka old british style we would have taken over the entire world by now
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The British did not maintain control over their colonies by military force. They installed puppet governments or supported "cooperative" plitical leaders to dictate the countries policy and recruited troops from the local population to ensure dominance. The actual occupation forces were rather small.
Sounds familiar?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How you ask?
End of ww2, take over europe, finish off russia, and make japan bend to your knees
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Finishing off Russia was not really possible, as Russias army, at the end of WW2 was a battlehardened, well equipped and supplied war machinery even superior to the one Germany had to their disposal during the initial years of the war. Russian tanks were the most advanced on all battlefields of WW2.
Also, the troops were all ready and deployed right at the borders of Germany. No, Russia was not to be defeated at that point. besides, no one has ever managed to completely defeat the russians. Ever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Since when have we been dominating countries because they don't agree with us during the last three or four decades?
No one's being ignorant, but you sound suspiciously like you have NO CLUE as to what you're talking about.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lybia? Syria? Iraq? <i>hello?</i> have you been asleep over the last year? Never watching the news? You just invaded a country because of WMD that threatened the free world....oh wait... <a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html' target='_blank'>they never existed</a>....I forgot, sorry.
So why did the US go to Iraq then? To free the Iraqi people? Sure, like last time, when the US let the revolting iraqis get sloughtered by Saddams troops after they ignited the uprising to support the Desert Storm from inside of Iraq.
Or take Saudi arabia... It was guaranteed that US forces would leave Saudia Arabian territory after successfull liberation of Kuwait. Well they are still there ever since....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you really think going to war is a "casual decision"?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seeing the sheer amount of military interventions of US forces since WW2, well it kind of looks like it, yea.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After the war is over, we would spend billions of dollars rebuilding their infrastructure, startup their industry, try and establish a democracy, feed their citizens and when they are all fine and dandy........we set up an embassy and leave.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be more precisely, its the <i>UN</i> and the major contributors (like Germany, France, Britain.....) which provides the nessesary fundings to rebuild the country...
Also, the troops were all ready and deployed right at the borders of Germany. No, Russia was not to be defeated at that point. besides, no one has ever managed to completely defeat the russians. Ever.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually this would have been possible as Japan would have been attacking russia at the same time America would have
America had way more military capability over Russia + the only one to have the atom bomb = america flatright out wastes the world
*raises hand*
Wait.
Excuse me sir?
Sir?
I need to interrupt you.
Pardon me, but what the hell do we need with oil when we could easily invest in other energy production! Yet, because people are having tunnel vision ideaology the question/statement I just quoted are clearly thinking only of oil based solutions.
<span style='color:orange'>We could easily mine our landfills for all the oil we could ever need: read more @ thermal depolymerization.</span>
So why not?
Because getting oil from OPEC is marginally cheaper at present than thermal depolymerization, the US has pressured OPEC to keep gas price to half that of other place in the world, and the bell-curve of the US consumer demand wants gas guzzling vehicles (also bell-curve wants non-turbo economy vehicles which could inprove fuel efficency and power). Only recently has the non-gasoline industry been able to lobby soem hybrid or all electric vehicles. The main issue with electric vehicles is keeping the charge. Batteries won't cut it anymore. Cellphones are evidence enough of this. But research on new energy storage is painfully slow because of the economic strangle hold US car markets have on transportation. (Don't say it isn't true EEK becuase I'll prove that I can get anywhere in Europe via electric train.) The lack of mass transit has a major impact on why America has an addiction to foreign oil. Maybe is a cultural thing, maybe it because the US is large than Europe, maybe both; but whatever the case to argue that the US need foreign oil is totally wrong. It the US want foreign oil becauses that where the economy is situated at. The goverment could easily
Btw, did you know that when President Bush Jr. was elected on of the first bills presented included a tax decuction for large SUV's (over 6,000lbs)? This was a loophole which was supposed to help out farmers with their tractors. He we have an example of a guy who honest feels he's making the right decisions is being influenced but the beaurocrats around him who well knew what the effects would be. Instead of helping farmers, it has most and exponentially helped new large SUVs such as Hummer H2, Cadilac Escalades, and other such large vehicles meant for luxury and soccermoms rather than ultility work can now get a large tax deduction. That's call a market incentive. It has the negative effect of increasing oil demand, infrastucture damage (roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.), and hurting US domestic company car divisons (example: Ford Focus). The car market has futher shifted to foreign comanies like Honda (I drive a Honda for example). So now have some more cause-effect relay relationships. More need to press imperialistic-like foreign policies and more US jobs being exported. Stupid selfish people and their stupid sport "ulility" vehicles.
Utility = M1 Abrams tank.
Utility = GalaxyX cargo plane
Utility = Nuculear powered submarine
And all of these get much better efficency and power than a dumb V6 or V8 engine.
(m1 runs off of a turbine engine which charges the electic motors fyi)
So how do we solve the problem at their lowest cause?
Find a better means of transit and better energy technology that doesn't rely on importing. Easier said than done but being lazy is no excuse for indirect killing human life. Technology is the key here, and it could really use some federal and state government help in push incentives and disincentives to draw us away from.
PS: Electric motors are better than combustion engines for many reasons. One of the less known ones is performance. Combustion engines like the one in your car have to rev up to get torque, electric motor start with lots of torque. For those of you people who aren't into engines this means electric will accelerate faster and futhermore it won't require a diamo and can red line at higher RPM with less heat generated. Energy efficency in combustion engines are mostly lost to heat. The only heat electric motor produce is from the electrical resistance and friction, both of which are minimal and the friction in a cumbustion engine is much more. Many prominent dragster teams have considered designing their future cars to be electric. If I had a good means of energy prduction for the electricity then I could pwn all of those ricers on the streets with their internal combustion engines with NOx and turbos. I'll out accelerate you when blitzing out of every turn and as long as I can break and drift as good as you I'll be beating you in manuverability even though we match in speed which will result you eating lots of my dust. (which clogs up your filter too and I don't have a filter to clog.) Replace the battery with something lighter and can store or process something into electricity better and you'll begin to see combustion engines become a thing of the past.
If we were true imperialists aka old british style we would have taken over the entire world by now
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The British did not maintain control over their colonies by military force. They installed puppet governments or supported "cooperative" plitical leaders to dictate the countries policy and recruited troops from the local population to ensure dominance. The actual occupation forces were rather small.
Sounds familiar? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was I was proposing in my thread. It's not just a whim I'm tossing you around. <span style='color:yellow'>History loves to repeat itself. </span>That's why they make you study it in school. Obviously some of you were sleeping in class or the teacher did a lame job:
<span style='font-family:Times'>The entire past history of the United States of America has been imperialistic. As I said at the beginning: Manifest Destiny ring a bell? Our role only began to change at the beginning of the 20th century. President Woodrow Wilson tried to keep the US out of wars. FDR did too. It was a golden era in American government. FDR created jobs and turned a dwindling American economy around. He did this NOT by focusing on policing the world, but rather by working on domestic issues. The US never went it alone into major wars, we were always united with Allies. WWII ended, enter Cold War with the lesser of the two evils. The was a catch that neither of the two could actually attack one another because both sides would loose (tech effect, for better and worse) but there were still some puppet wars centered around communism vs. democracy. Even at this early stage we had begun to see a slight beginning of sliding back into a more imperialistic America. This reach a climax with Vietnam when a generation of young adults began to see the horrors or war televised and protested. Like it or not the Hippies and their peace and love and making love (while doing drugs) had swayed the government back into a neutral world role. The mighty USSR crumbled due to the imbalanced economics and bureaucracy of the oligarchy and the human failing for greed or laziness. Humans were not perfect so a perfect government wouldn't work. (no kidding) Anyways after that we became much more of a growing nation working together with allies and friends around the globe to effect change and maintain peace. But then at the turn of the millennium that began to change. We had another Pearl Harbor. Revenge was difficult this time because the enemy was not a nation but rather a high-crime. Terrorism is much more a crime than a politics. Revenge was justified in Afghanistan against the terrorist cells. Sure, it was just a hey remember that you just reduced taxes and spend a lot of money ok. That's enough picking fights for one presidency kthx. But no. Due to <i><b>personal family reasons and beliefs</b></i> (yes you heard me, son had to prove himself a man and destroy the villain of his father) and kill or capture Saddam. Not that the SoB didn't deserve it but actually invading another nation without out allies is taking our foreign policy back more than 100 years into history. Whether we believe it or not is irrelevant. It's the opinion of the other people on this planet that are of consequence. No human wants to trade when you resent have some foreign military occupation indirectly forcing their culture and rules upon you. The rest of the world is going ahead of us. Imperialism has been dropped. Europe which has been at war for most of recorded history is finally uniting. And we are getting out conflict in an area of deep religiousness and cultural conflict and think we can "<i>straighten them out</i>" by "<i>putting the squeeze</i>" on them. Come on. People will just snap and go bezerk when you keep them under pressure. We are helping to generate terrorism and hate towards the US, not reduce it. And throwing out an existing sovereign government (no matter how bad) and putting one in that will suit you interests is selfish action and one that is clearly defined as part of imperialism.</span>
So as part of making you all (hopefully) more aware, know that what we think of your foreign policy is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is the reaction for those foreigners.
~edit~
Removed Forlorn's flamebait
Oh class I'm going to summarize some American History so stay awake or I'll beat you with a random bludgeon (as they did in my high school, and it worked):
The entire past history of the United States of America has been imperialistic. As I said at the beginning: Manifest Destiny ring a bell? Our role only began to change at the beginning of the 20th century. President Woodrow Wilson tried to keep the US out of wars. FDR did too. It was a golden era in American government. FDR created jobs and turned a dwindling American economy around. He did this NOT by focusing on policing the world, but rather by working on domestic issues. The US never went it alone into major wars, we were always united with Allies. WWII ended, enter Cold War with the lesser of the two evils. The was a catch that neither of the two could actually attack one another because both sides would loose (tech effect, for better and worse) but there were still some puppet wars centered around communism vs. democracy. Even at this early stage we had begun to see a slight beginning of sliding back into a more imperialistic America. This reach a climax with Vietnam when a generation of young adults began to see the horrors or war televised and protested. Like it or not the Hippies and their peace and love and making love (while doing drugs) had swayed the government back into a neutral world role. The mighty USSR crumbled due to the imbalanced economics and bureaucracy of the oligarchy and the human failing for greed or laziness. Humans were not perfect so a perfect government wouldn't work. (no kidding) Anyways after that we became much more of a growing nation working together with allies and friends around the globe to effect change and maintain peace. But then at the turn of the millennium that began to change. We had another Pearl Harbor. Revenge was difficult this time because the enemy was not a nation but rather a high-crime. Terrorism is much more a crime than a politics. Revenge was justified in Afghanistan against the terrorist cells. Sure, it was just a hey remember that you just reduced taxes and spend a lot of money ok. That's enough picking fights for one presidency kthx. But no. Due to personal family reasons and beliefs (yes you heard me, son had to prove himself a man and destroy the villain of his father) and kill or capture Saddam. Not that the SoB didn't deserve it but actually invading another nation without out allies is taking our foreign policy back more than 100 years into history. Whether we believe it or not is irrelevant. It's the opinion of the other people on this planet that are of consequence. No human wants to trade when you resent have some foreign military occupation indirectly forcing their culture and rules upon you. The rest of the world is going ahead of us. Imperialism has been dropped. Europe which has been at war for most of recorded history is finally uniting. And we are getting out conflict in an area of deep religiousness and cultural conflict and think we can "straighten them out" by "putting the squeeze" on them. Come on. People will just snap and go bezerk when you keep them under pressure. We are helping to generate terrorism and hate towards the US, not reduce it. And throwing out an existing sovereign government (no matter how bad) and putting one in that will suit you interests is selfish action and one that is clearly defined as part of imperialism.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whatever highschool you went to, I'll remember <span style='color:orange'>and what was once here, my friends, was an example of the "laugh-off" or "shrug-off" type of argument. It uses a general statement to make something seem worthy of disregard without actually refuting any one aspect of it.
Forlorn, this is the discussion forums. I didn't even read all of x5's quotation; even out of context your rebuttal was a bit lacking for this section of the forums.</span>
Plus, you're also forgetting that if they needed to, the US could deliver a few kilotons of own right on St. Basils if they needed to.
The US could easily kill all life on the planet if they wanted to...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Germany and Russia were making money off arms deals to Sadam, hence their veto.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Germany was not dealing any arms of any kind with Iraq since the first Golf war. Not in any scale that would influence the nations policies, believe me on that. Before then, well America did too...so, don't be hippocritical. Saddam was <i>your ****</i>,remember that statement?
Germanys reason for disaproving with the war was not of economical nature but purely PR-related. Elections were imminent, and the current sozial-democratic government was counting on the pacifistic feelings of most of Germanys population. In fact, they won the election because of their disaproval to Bushs Iraq policy.
If you don't have deeper understandings of a foreign countrys political situation, do not make any accusations like that. (note, I do not deny that World Peace would be a hard blow for Germanys economy...)
the country... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have plenty of understanding on how the world works. And yes looking back I was wrong, it was the russians alone dealing arms. They asked the US to delay the invasion so they could pull military personel out that were training iraqis(for some reason I remembered them as German). While politics had some play in Germany's stance, I think the over billions of dollars in direct and indirect trade with Iraq had something to say. That said my point was not to slander any country, but rather point out how the UN has become inadequate.
oil goes FAR beyond just running cars. every plastic that we use, for instance, is an oil derivate. the polycarbons in plastics can't be efficiently produced without oils.
nitrogen-based fertilizers - oil. without oil-aided production, we would lose a LOT. while some estimates put food production at -85% without the use of fertilizers, a truer estimate might be -40%. but you are still losing a TON of food production to an ever increasing human population.
giving up oil is not a one step solution to free-topia.
Plus, you're also forgetting that if they needed to, the US could deliver a few kilotons of own right on St. Basils if they needed to. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are talking about the years after ww2 rigth?
The USSRs Army at the end of WW2 was a extremely well equipped, and technically up to date military machinery.
The times when the russian soldiers ran against mashinegun emplacements with just one rifle for every fourth man were long gone.
Also, they were more than enough soldiers to man their guns, as young man from all over Russia were recruited.
Supplies were adequate, as the whole industrial production was focussed on military needs, and the nessesary food was simply taken from civilians.
Also, the US was not able to reproduce a nuclear weapon in just a week you know? it took month of hard work and a captured german submarine transporting uranium to japan, to aquire enough material for the 2 bombs that were deployed on japan. Uranium was hard to aquire.
It si true the Russian economy was relatively weak and the people were poor and starving, however, The they had the same advantage that allowed them to defeat the Nazis. The vastness of their country.
As for Japan attacking russia...no. Japan was crippled, besides, they hardly would have aprooved to this shortly after the war.
After the war is over, we would spend billions of dollars rebuilding their infrastructure, startup their industry, try and establish a democracy, feed their citizens and when they are all fine and dandy........we set up an embassy and leave.
To be more precisely, its the UN and the major contributors (like Germany, France, Britain.....) which provides the nessesary fundings to rebuild the country...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was mainly referring to post ww2 (marshal plan) and the Korean war. While the UN does assist the United states via funding and other matters, they do not provide the bulk of the investment (this includes security, infrastructure, direct investment etc) in Afghanistan (I’m assuming Afghanistan is what your referring to).
Kosovo and Afgannistan are the 2 major hotspots where major contributors and the UN have played a major role in reconstruction. If I’m not mistaken, between 1945 to 1990, the US was major country that could provide the necessary funding to rebuild countries. It is important to note that the United States provides 25 to 30% of the UN's budget
Currently the United States funds about 38% of <b>non security</b>projects in Afghanistan(humanitarian). I can’t find the figures that include both non security/security.
Excuse me Handman, I did not intend to sound agressive in case you had that impresion. Also, the term accusation was not the optimal choice, it rather should have been conclusions.
You are definately right that Germany had trade issues with Iraq, as well as in eralier times sold military equipment. However, I asure you, the reasons for their anti war position were definately not economical. It was pure selfishness of the current government that needed to make a popular decision in oder to remain in charge. Believe me, if they would have acted accoding to national interest, they would not have insulted the US.
Germany actually was deemed politically stable and reliant, our forein policy was predictable. that made us a good partner for everybody in the world. The current government risked this reputation for the sake of their reelection. Our economy is in a bad shape anyway, the last thing we needed was US investors leaving the country. Believe me, this descision was not based on economical thoughts. It was based on elections.
As for Russia....well, they sell arms to everybody, but that would not justify messing up the relationship with the US. It is definatle the interest in Oil that made Putins mind. Why do you think they insit on keeping Thechenien under their control? To build their pipelines.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought so. However, the Marshall plan was not made up out of generosity. Shortly beforehand, Germany (which virtually had been leveled by bombing raids)
was to be completely de-industrialised. However, with the new conflict against the USSR, Germany was to be fortified as westernmost defense of the NATO.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Kosovo and Afgannistan are the 2 major hotspots where major contributors and the UN have played a major role in reconstruction. If I’m not mistaken, between 1945 to 1990, the US was major country that could provide the necessary funding to rebuild countries. It is important to note that the United States provides 25 to 30% of the UN's budget
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. But in return, the US is refunded for their active role in the military operations by UN fundings. Also, the rebuilding of foreing Industries and infrastructure means investions and jobs. Nobody rebuilds countries out of courtesy.
The contracts for rebuilding Iraqs oil industry were given to US companies even before the war started. While now, as the situation escalated and is not working out as planned, Bush requests fundings from the UN after giving a big sh*t for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Currently the United States funds about 38% of non securityprojects in Afghanistan(humanitarian). I can’t find the figures that include both non security/security.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well thats good to know, as in 2002 (if I don't mess up the date...) The US Government almost forgot to calculate the nesseary funds for Afghanistan in the national budget <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently you didn't read post #39 at all. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=82089&st=39' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...pic=82089&st=39</a>
We <i>have</i> the technology
US doesn't <i><b>need</b></i> oil, the US <i><b>wants </b></i>oil. There's a difference. Again, read the <i>whole</i> thing before reacting, because you apparently are one of those who posts without reading. We should have be able to expect better from someone with the title of playtester. Rather disappointing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->oil goes FAR beyond just running cars. every plastic that we use, for instance, is an oil derivate. the polycarbons in plastics can't be efficiently produced without oils.
nitrogen-based fertilizers - oil. without oil-aided production, we would lose a LOT. while some estimates put food production at -85% without the use of fertilizers, a truer estimate might be -40%. but you are still losing a TON of food production to an ever increasing human population.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You would loose if you siddenly removed all oil yes, but switching to something powered by something other than gasoline, deisel, or kerosene wouldn't mean decreased production. Why do people assume incorrectly that switching an equivalent power source will affect production. It simply isn't true.
Here's an example: nuclear fusion. Currently there is a factory just outside of Atlanta which works on fusing atoms consistently and stabely by using one laser and amplifying. Net energy production if the beam was constant (instead of pulse) could power an entire city. We are finally getting to a point where we might have solved the heat factor that makes fusion so difficult to harness. If fusion powerplants are made then you can expect energy prices to drop enormously and coal fired plant to gradually become a thing of the past. With decreaed energy prices you will find electic power more widespread and used in power intenisve operations. Not to mention that if a better electric energy storage device can be made you can finally see some very large machinery be going to electric. It is already a popular thing for vehicles needing good torque and power to use a combustion turbine to run an electric generator.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->giving up oil is not a one step solution to free-topia.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I <i>never</i> said that. Only idiots would think that. My point is the technology is changing by the US is about to get left in the dust technology wise when conservative ideals about technology are upheld. (PS: this isn't not consrevative as in the polical thought, many liberals have a conservative attitude towards technology and many conservatives have progressive attitudes towards technology; it's not related) Not to menation undue suffering and destruction and evil middle eastern dictators are empowered by America's addiction to oil, the reluctance of the US market to want to increase the cost of oil. It's a self-damaging cycle we are stuck in; one we are only going to get out of with the aide of technology and investment, <i>not</i> war.
It's a trust thing. Terrorism is more like crime than a enemy nation. Declaring war on crime is as silly as declaring war on drugs or war on cheaters. It's a policing action. And despite the best laid plans of mice&men, nobody likes an occupation force. It's a mental things in humans, we don't like having people tell us what to do and putting rules and constraints on us. So the obvious solution is to gain international trust so we can actually route those evil criminals. But by comming off as an imperialist nation and lying (yes, even if we don't think it is, what matters is how we appear to other people) is the same as when a friend keeps lying to you. You stop trusting them as much. And as I'm sure as you all know, destroying trust is easy, growing it is hard earned.
Comments? Opinions?