Is it not also time to celebrate Herr Bush? This resolute lover of freedom; this new Caesar of Democracy! Let us recollect on his glorious time in office, and thank him. His munificence, is so great, it has led two great civilizations out of anarchy and fascism into the supernal light of captalism and democracy, and taken our own civilization to the very roots of democracy. With his gentle but unwavering hand, this great decider has decided America will be a gentle beacon of light for years to come. Pax Bush!
Herr Bush
- Thread starter speed
- Start date
Iranians hate our freedom, dude. We'd better get ready to kill lots of them for Jesus errr justice.
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
Έρεβος;6047600 said:
I agree that conflict between the West and China is inevitable.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Yes, the neocon's Project for the New American Century stipulates that only the US is allowed to be a global superpower. That also has implications for Europe. It is not out of the question that a European Union (metamorphosed out of the one in existence at the moment) would be attacked by the US. At the moment the US has a large amount of control over the EU. It's the US that is putting pressure on for Turkey to be admitted. But I wonder how much of a threat the Euro is to the dollar?
No, that is out of the question (the EU attacking the US, or vice versa), barring some very, very bizarre developments. Its just ridiculous to contemplate. Relations continue to get icier and icier however between the US and Europe; and we'll see who Britain selects as Prime Minister. Surely, the new PM will wish (or will have to) to distance him/herself from America.
However, with the Euro replacing the dollar, well you're on to something. You know, America propped up Asia since the cold war through very favorable trade policies and down right military occupation or support (S. Korea, Indonesia, Japan). In return, Asia financed our spending, and agreed to hold american dollars in reserve (Asians are the big savers, and the major holders of all american currency), and to support our cold war aims (which have turned into terrorism and obviously imperialistic aims). When a few asian central banks hinted they wished to switch to the Euro (a far more viable and valuable currency) as their reserve currency, the US did all it could to squash such a development. I think only Burma and Vietnam did.
I think US policy is subtler than that. If Europe doesn't obey, our tariffs go up and our aid goes away, AND the US stops protecting Europe from its ancient enemy... Eurasia.
And don't think Putin would stop the tanks in Berlin for a minute.
Don't kid yourself about Russian military capability either. Without resorting to it's nuclear arms, there's very little prospect that Russia could even defeat Germany given the current state of the Red Army, much less all of Western Europe.
MetalBooger delenda est.
MetalBooger delenda est.
We have a long degenerative trend in presidents. The 18th century gave us decent characters with combined aristocratic and down-to-earth life on the farm types. By the 19th century, industry and transnational money was shaping the America and presidents to come. By the 20th century we had presidents that resemble Treebeard's description of a corrupted Saruman: "No longer care for growing things" and "Mind of metal and wheels". Bush might be the final president of the aristocrat farmer breed. He will be the last because he is bad example of this lineage, so the lineage itself rather than bad example has become unpopular. The remaining presidents to come will be a modern consmopolitan breed who serve and manipulate mass sentiment, an effect that changes to no end and without reason.
The Red Army has never been great shakes, but they're willing to take massive casualties and keep going... that's why they helped win WWII.
The willingness to endure casualties has largely been made irrelevant by military technology. Engagement ranges with modern conventional weaponry are so great that overwhelming an enemy with bodies really isn't a viable strategy.
That's why the only time technologically inferior forces have beaten the militaries of the advanced Western powers in recent decades is through asymmetrical warfare, not exactly the Red Army's forte.
Well, actually, I've been reading up on Viet Nam this week and was amazed what I'd forgotten. Certain American generals are fond of saying "we were never defeated on the battlefield," and the scary thing is, they're right.
However, I'm not sure technology makes up that much of a gap. Vietnam is a small country, and despite amazing losses, it won mainly through persistence. Russia would take amazing losses and win by opening a huge front that would require manpower to cover, even if they were using Predator drones and singing hand grenades or whatever silly shit they have now.
I think every European general fears the Russian onslaught, because as the Germans found out, you can win the battles but you can't deal with the constant pressure of a desperate enemy that outnumbers you 10-to-1 and has machine guns.
However, I think a good war against desperate odds is about what the West needs now... I don't want it to be with Russia. Russia should be mopped up and genocided after the Chinese are vanquished. Otherwise, a weakened West faces its greatest foe... and could lose.
It also won through massive numerical superiority on the ground. US and RoV forces numbered less than a million all told, while the NVA and VC together put several million troops in the field.
Russia doesn't have the capacity to take grossly disproportionate casualties: their population base is much smaller than that of Western Europe (Germany and France alone have a larger population). People tend to think of Russia as just being a slightly kinder, gentler Soviet Union, but it isn't, actually. The population base of Russia is less than half that of the old Soviet Union, and it possesses only a tiny fraction of the combat power the combined forces of the old Warsaw Pact could muster.
Moreover, the great advantage that Russia has always enjoyed - strategic depth - would be in the hands of the West. Keep in mind that during Cold War, the NATO frontier began just a few miles east of Hamburg - now NATO's frontier abuts directly against Russia. That's a long, long way to go against technologically and (once the full weight of American power is brought to bear) and numerically superior forces. Plus, it's not as if Russia could throw the full weight of its military against the West anyway. Their relations with China have never been truly friendly, and the Chinks share the world's longest defended border with Russia.
Yes, by 2.5m, in countries with older populations. I think you would see the troops in the field situation is different.
Your arguments are well-stated, but think of it this way. If a desperate force of millions hit a pampered Europe, it benefits from having its borders up against NATO's boots. A breakthrough means not too far to drive before the major countries of Europe are conquered. And Russia and China? Their diplomacy could become friendly again in instants.
So I am still wary.
