I stole this article from another wb, and I didn't know if the link would work for me. It is an article from Foreign Policy Magazine. I'm going to hit this one and run as I am off to The Netherlands tomorrow so you guys enjoy (Caution very long)
The Eagle Has Crash Landed
Pax Americana is over. Challenges from Vietnam and the Balkans to the Middle East and September 11 have revealed the limits of American supremacy. Will the United States learn to fade quietly, or will U.S. conservatives resist and thereby transform a gradual decline into a rapid and dangerous fall?
By Immanuel Wallerstein
The United States in decline? Few people today would believe this assertion. The only ones who do are the U.S. hawks, who argue vociferously for policies to reverse the decline. This belief that the end of U.S. hegemony has already begun does not follow from the vulnerability that became apparent to all on September 11, 2001. In fact, the United States has been fading as a global power since the 1970s, and the U.S. response to the terrorist attacks has merely accelerated this decline. To understand why the so-called Pax Americana is on the wane requires examining the geopolitics of the 20th century, particularly of the century's final three decades. This exercise uncovers a simple and inescapable conclusion: The economic, political, and military factors that contributed to U.S. hegemony are the same factors that will inexorably produce the coming U.S. decline.
Intro to hegemony
The rise of the United States to global hegemony was a long process that began in earnest with the world recession of 1873. At that time, the United States and Germany began to acquire an increasing share of global markets, mainly at the expense of the steadily receding British economy. Both nations had recently acquired a stable political base�the United States by successfully terminating the Civil War and Germany by achieving unification and defeating France in the Franco-Prussian War. From 1873 to 1914, the United States and Germany became the principal producers in certain leading sectors: steel and later automobiles for the United States and industrial chemicals for Germany.
The history books record that World War I broke out in 1914 and ended in 1918 and that World War II lasted from 1939 to 1945. However, it makes more sense to consider the two as a single, continuous �30 years� war� between the United States and Germany, with truces and local conflicts scattered in between. The competition for hegemonic succession took an ideological turn in 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany and began their quest to transcend the global system altogether, seeking not hegemony within the current system but rather a form of global empire. Recall the Nazi slogan ein tausendj�hriges Reich (a thousand-year empire). In turn, the United States assumed the role of advocate of centrist world liberalism�recall former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt�s �four freedoms� (freedom of speech, of worship, from want, and from fear)�and entered into a strategic alliance with the Soviet Union, making possible the defeat of Germany and its allies.
World War II resulted in enormous destruction of infrastructure and populations throughout Eurasia, from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, with almost no country left unscathed. The only major industrial power in the world to emerge intact�and even greatly strengthened from an economic perspective�was the United States, which moved swiftly to consolidate its position.
But the aspiring hegemon faced some practical political obstacles. During the war, the Allied powers had agreed on the establishment of the United Nations, composed primarily of countries that had been in the coalition against the Axis powers. The organization�s critical feature was the Security Council, the only structure that could authorize the use of force. Since the U.N. Charter gave the right of veto to five powers�including the United States and the Soviet Union�the council was rendered largely toothless in practice. So it was not the founding of the United Nations in April 1945 that determined the geopolitical constraints of the second half of the 20th century but rather the Yalta meeting between Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin two months earlier.
The formal accords at Yalta were less important than the informal, unspoken agreements, which one can only assess by observing the behavior of the United States and the Soviet Union in the years that followed. When the war ended in Europe on May 8, 1945, Soviet and Western (that is, U.S., British, and French) troops were located in particular places�essentially, along a line in the center of Europe that came to be called the Oder-Neisse Line. Aside from a few minor adjustments, they stayed there. In hindsight, Yalta signified the agreement of both sides that they could stay there and that neither side would use force to push the other out. This tacit accord applied to Asia as well, as evinced by U.S. occupation of Japan and the division of Korea. Politically, therefore, Yalta was an agreement on the status quo in which the Soviet Union controlled about one third of the world and the United States the rest.
Washington also faced more serious military challenges. The Soviet Union had the world�s largest land forces, while the U.S. government was under domestic pressure to downsize its army, particularly by ending the draft. The United States therefore decided to assert its military strength not via land forces but through a monopoly of nuclear weapons (plus an air force capable of deploying them). This monopoly soon disappeared: By 1949, the Soviet Union had developed nuclear weapons as well. Ever since, the United States has been reduced to trying to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons (and chemical and biological weapons) by additional powers, an effort that, in the 21st century, does not seem terribly successful.
Until 1991, the United States and the Soviet Union coexisted in the �balance of terror� of the Cold War. This status quo was tested seriously only three times: the Berlin blockade of 1948�49, the Korean War in 1950�53, and the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The result in each case was restoration of the status quo. Moreover, note how each time the Soviet Union faced a political crisis among its satellite regimes�East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Poland in 1981�the United States engaged in little more than propaganda exercises, allowing the Soviet Union to proceed largely as it deemed fit.
Of course, this passivity did not extend to the economic arena. The United States capitalized on the Cold War ambiance to launch massive economic reconstruction efforts, first in Western Europe and then in Japan (as well as in South Korea and Taiwan). The rationale was obvious: What was the point of having such overwhelming productive superiority if the rest of the world could not muster effective demand? Furthermore, economic reconstruction helped create clientelistic obligations on the part of the nations receiving U.S. aid; this sense of obligation fostered willingness to enter into military alliances and, even more important, into political subservience.
Finally, one should not underestimate the ideological and cultural component of U.S. hegemony. The immediate post-1945 period may have been the historical high point for the popularity of communist ideology. We easily forget today the large votes for Communist parties in free elections in countries such as Belgium, France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Finland, not to mention the support Communist parties gathered in Asia�in Vietnam, India, and Japan�and throughout Latin America. And that still leaves out areas such as China, Greece, and Iran, where free elections remained absent or constrained but where Communist parties enjoyed widespread appeal. In response, the United States sustained a massive anticommunist ideological offensive. In retrospect, this initiative appears largely successful: Washington brandished its role as the leader of the �free world� at least as effectively as the Soviet Union brandished its position as the leader of the �progressive� and �anti-imperialist� camp.
One, Two, Many Vietnams
The United States� success as a hegemonic power in the postwar period created the conditions of the nation�s hegemonic demise. This process is captured in four symbols: the war in Vietnam, the revolutions of 1968, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the terrorist attacks of September 2001. Each symbol built upon the prior one, culminating in the situation in which the United States currently finds itself�a lone superpower that lacks true power, a world leader nobody follows and few respect, and a nation drifting dangerously amidst a global chaos it cannot control.
What was the Vietnam War? First and foremost, it was the effort of the Vietnamese people to end colonial rule and establish their own state. The Vietnamese fought the French, the Japanese, and the Americans, and in the end the Vietnamese won�quite an achievement, actually. Geopolitically, however, the war represented a rejection of the Yalta status quo by populations then labeled as Third World. Vietnam became such a powerful symbol because Washington was foolish enough to invest its full military might in the struggle, but the United States still lost. True, the United States didn�t deploy nuclear weapons (a decision certain myopic groups on the right have long reproached), but such use would have shattered the Yalta accords and might have produced a nuclear holocaust�an outcome the United States simply could not risk.
But Vietnam was not merely a military defeat or a blight on U.S. prestige. The war dealt a major blow to the United States� ability to remain the world�s dominant economic power. The conflict was extremely expensive and more or less used up the U.S. gold reserves that had been so plentiful since 1945. Moreover, the United States incurred these costs just as Western Europe and Japan experienced major economic upswings. These conditions ended U.S. preeminence in the global economy. Since the late 1960s, members of this triad have been nearly economic equals, each doing better than the others for certain periods but none moving far ahead.
When the revolutions of 1968 broke out around the world, support for the Vietnamese became a major rhetorical component. �One, two, many Vietnams� and �Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh� were chanted in many a street, not least in the United States. But the 1968ers did not merely condemn U.S. hegemony. They condemned Soviet collusion with the United States, they condemned Yalta, and they used or adapted the language of the Chinese cultural revolutionaries who divided the world into two camps�the two superpowers and the rest of the world.
The denunciation of Soviet collusion led logically to the denunciation of those national forces closely allied with the Soviet Union, which meant in most cases the traditional Communist parties. But the 1968 revolutionaries also lashed out against other components of the Old Left�national liberation movements in the Third World, social-democratic movements in Western Europe, and New Deal Democrats in the United States�accusing them, too, of collusion with what the revolutionaries generically termed �U.S. imperialism.�
The attack on Soviet collusion with Washington plus the attack on the Old Left further weakened the legitimacy of the Yalta arrangements on which the United States had fashioned the world order. It also undermined the position of centrist liberalism as the lone, legitimate global ideology. The direct political consequences of the world revolutions of 1968 were minimal, but the geopolitical and intellectual repercussions were enormous and irrevocable. Centrist liberalism tumbled from the throne it had occupied since the European revolutions of 1848 and that had enabled it to co-opt conservatives and radicals alike. These ideologies returned and once again represented a real gamut of choices. Conservatives would again become conservatives, and radicals, radicals. The centrist liberals did not disappear, but they were cut down to size. And in the process, the official U.S. ideological position�antifascist, anticommunist, anticolonialist�seemed thin and unconvincing to a growing portion of the world�s populations.
The Powerless Superpower
The onset of international economic stagnation in the 1970s had two important consequences for U.S. power. First, stagnation resulted in the collapse of �developmentalism��the notion that every nation could catch up economically if the state took appropriate action�which was the principal ideological claim of the Old Left movements then in power. One after another, these regimes faced internal disorder, declining standards of living, increasing debt dependency on international financial institutions, and eroding credibility. What had seemed in the 1960s to be the successful navigation of Third World decolonization by the United States�minimizing disruption and maximizing the smooth transfer of power to regimes that were developmentalist but scarcely revolutionary�gave way to disintegrating order, simmering discontents, and unchanneled radical temperaments. When the United States tried to intervene, it failed. In 1983, U.S. President Ronald Reagan sent troops to Lebanon to restore order. The troops were in effect forced out. He compensated by invading Grenada, a country without troops. President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama, another country without troops. But after he intervened in Somalia to restore order, the United States was in effect forced out, somewhat ignominiously. Since there was little the U.S. government could actually do to reverse the trend of declining hegemony, it chose simply to ignore this trend�a policy that prevailed from the withdrawal from Vietnam until September 11, 2001.
Meanwhile, true conservatives began to assume control of key states and interstate institutions. The neoliberal offensive of the 1980s was marked by the Thatcher and Reagan regimes and the emergence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as a key actor on the world scene. Where once (for more than a century) conservative forces had attempted to portray themselves as wiser liberals, now centrist liberals were compelled to argue that they were more effective conservatives. The conservative programs were clear. Domestically, conservatives tried to enact policies that would reduce the cost of labor, minimize environmental constraints on producers, and cut back on state welfare benefits. Actual successes were modest, so conservatives then moved vigorously into the international arena. The gatherings of the World Economic Forum in Davos provided a meeting ground for elites and the media. The IMF provided a club for finance ministers and central bankers. And the United States pushed for the creation of the World Trade Organization to enforce free commercial flows across the world�s frontiers.
While the United States wasn�t watching, the Soviet Union was collapsing. Yes, Ronald Reagan had dubbed the Soviet Union an �evil empire� and had used the rhetorical bombast of calling for the destruction of the Berlin Wall, but the United States didn�t really mean it and certainly was not responsible for the Soviet Union�s downfall. In truth, the Soviet Union and its East European imperial zone collapsed because of popular disillusionment with the Old Left in combination with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev�s efforts to save his regime by liquidating Yalta and instituting internal liberalization (perestroika plus glasnost). Gorbachev succeeded in liquidating Yalta but not in saving the Soviet Union (although he almost did, be it said).
The United States was stunned and puzzled by the sudden collapse, uncertain how to handle the consequences. The collapse of communism in effect signified the collapse of liberalism, removing the only ideological justification behind U.S. hegemony, a justification tacitly supported by liberalism�s ostensible ideological opponent. This loss of legitimacy led directly to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would never have dared had the Yalta arrangements remained in place. In retrospect, U.S. efforts in the Gulf War accomplished a truce at basically the same line of departure. But can a hegemonic power be satisfied with a tie in a war with a middling regional power? Saddam demonstrated that one could pick a fight with the United States and get away with it. Even more than the defeat in Vietnam, Saddam�s brash challenge has eaten at the innards of the U.S. right, in particular those known as the hawks, which explains the fervor of their current desire to invade Iraq and destroy its regime.
Between the Gulf War and September 11, 2001, the two major arenas of world conflict were the Balkans and the Middle East. The United States has played a major diplomatic role in both regions. Looking back, how different would the results have been had the United States assumed a completely isolationist position? In the Balkans, an economically successful multinational state (Yugoslavia) broke down, essentially into its component parts. Over 10 years, most of the resulting states have engaged in a process of ethnification, experiencing fairly brutal violence, widespread human rights violations, and outright wars. Outside intervention�in which the United States figured most prominently�brought about a truce and ended the most egregious violence, but this intervention in no way reversed the ethnification, which is now consolidated and somewhat legitimated. Would these conflicts have ended differently without U.S. involvement? The violence might have continued longer, but the basic results would probably not have been too different. The picture is even grimmer in the Middle East, where, if anything, U.S. engagement has been deeper and its failures more spectacular. In the Balkans and the Middle East alike, the United States has failed to exert its hegemonic clout effectively, not for want of will or effort but for want of real power.
The Hawks Undone
Then came September 11�the shock and the reaction. Under fire from U.S. legislators, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) now claims it had warned the Bush administration of possible threats. But despite the CIA�s focus on al Qaeda and the agency�s intelligence expertise, it could not foresee (and therefore, prevent) the execution of the terrorist strikes. Or so would argue CIA Director George Tenet. This testimony can hardly comfort the U.S. government or the American people. Whatever else historians may decide, the attacks of September 11, 2001, posed a major challenge to U.S. power. The persons responsible did not represent a major military power. They were members of a nonstate force, with a high degree of determination, some money, a band of dedicated followers, and a strong base in one weak state. In short, militarily, they were nothing. Yet they succeeded in a bold attack on U.S. soil.
George W. Bush came to power very critical of the Clinton administration�s handling of world affairs. Bush and his advisors did not admit�but were undoubtedly aware�that Clinton�s path had been the path of every U.S. president since Gerald Ford, including that of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. It had even been the path of the current Bush administration before September 11. One only needs to look at how Bush handled the downing of the U.S. plane off China in April 2001 to see that prudence had been the name of the game.
Following the terrorist attacks, Bush changed course, declaring war on terrorism, assuring the American people that �the outcome is certain� and informing the world that �you are either with us or against us.� Long frustrated by even the most conservative U.S. administrations, the hawks finally came to dominate American policy. Their position is clear: The United States wields overwhelming military power, and even though countless foreign leaders consider it unwise for Washington to flex its military muscles, these same leaders cannot and will not do anything if the United States simply imposes its will on the rest. The hawks believe the United States should act as an imperial power for two reasons: First, the United States can get away with it. And second, if Washington doesn�t exert its force, the United States will become increasingly marginalized.
Today, this hawkish position has three expressions: the military assault in Afghanistan, the de facto support for the Israeli attempt to liquidate the Palestinian Authority, and the invasion of Iraq, which is reportedly in the military preparation stage. Less than one year after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, it is perhaps too early to assess what such strategies will accomplish. Thus far, these schemes have led to the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan (without the complete dismantling of al Qaeda or the capture of its top leadership); enormous destruction in Palestine (without rendering Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat �irrelevant,� as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he is); and heavy opposition from U.S. allies in Europe and the Middle East to plans for an invasion of Iraq.
The hawks� reading of recent events emphasizes that opposition to U.S. actions, while serious, has remained largely verbal. Neither Western Europe nor Russia nor China nor Saudi Arabia has seemed ready to break ties in serious ways with the United States. In other words, hawks believe, Washington has indeed gotten away with it. The hawks assume a similar outcome will occur when the U.S. military actually invades Iraq and after that, when the United States exercises its authority elsewhere in the world, be it in Iran, North Korea, Colombia, or perhaps Indonesia. Ironically, the hawk reading has largely become the reading of the international left, which has been screaming about U.S. policies�mainly because they fear that the chances of U.S. success are high.
But hawk interpretations are wrong and will only contribute to the United States� decline, transforming a gradual descent into a much more rapid and turbulent fall. Specifically, hawk approaches will fail for military, economic, and ideological reasons.
Undoubtedly, the military remains the United States� strongest card; in fact, it is the only card. Today, the United States wields the most formidable military apparatus in the world. And if claims of new, unmatched military technologies are to be believed, the U.S. military edge over the rest of the world is considerably greater today than it was just a decade ago. But does that mean, then, that the United States can invade Iraq, conquer it rapidly, and install a friendly and stable regime? Unlikely. Bear in mind that of the three serious wars the U.S. military has fought since 1945 (Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War), one ended in defeat and two in draws�not exactly a glorious record.
Saddam Hussein�s army is not that of the Taliban, and his internal military control is far more coherent. A U.S. invasion would necessarily involve a serious land force, one that would have to fight its way to Baghdad and would likely suffer significant casualties. Such a force would also need staging grounds, and Saudi Arabia has made clear that it will not serve in this capacity. Would Kuwait or Turkey help out? Perhaps, if Washington calls in all its chips. Meanwhile, Saddam can be expected to deploy all weapons at his disposal, and it is precisely the U.S. government that keeps fretting over how nasty those weapons might be. The United States may twist the arms of regimes in the region, but popular sentiment clearly views the whole affair as reflecting a deep anti-Arab bias in the United States. Can such a conflict be won? The British General Staff has apparently already informed Prime Minister Tony Blair that it does not believe so.
And there is always the matter of �second fronts.� Following the Gulf War, U.S. armed forces sought to prepare for the possibility of two simultaneous regional wars. After a while, the Pentagon quietly abandoned the idea as impractical and costly. But who can be sure that no potential U.S. enemies would strike when the United States appears bogged down in Iraq?
Consider, too, the question of U.S. popular tolerance of nonvictories. Americans hover between a patriotic fervor that lends support to all wartime presidents and a deep isolationist urge. Since 1945, patriotism has hit a wall whenever the death toll has risen. Why should today�s reaction differ? And even if the hawks (who are almost all civilians) feel impervious to public opinion, U.S. Army generals, burnt by Vietnam, do not.
And what about the economic front? In the 1980s, countless American analysts became hysterical over the Japanese economic miracle. They calmed down in the 1990s, given Japan�s well-publicized financial difficulties. Yet after overstating how quickly Japan was moving forward, U.S. authorities now seem to be complacent, confident that Japan lags far behind. These days, Washington seems more inclined to lecture Japanese policymakers about what they are doing wrong.
Such triumphalism hardly appears warranted. Consider the following April 20, 2002, New York Times report: �A Japanese laboratory has built the world�s fastest computer, a machine so powerful that it matches the raw processing power of the 20 fastest American computers combined and far outstrips the previous leader, an I.B.M.-built machine. The achievement ... is evidence that a technology race that most American engineers thought they were winning handily is far from over.� The analysis goes on to note that there are �contrasting scientific and technological priorities� in the two countries. The Japanese machine is built to analyze climatic change, but U.S. machines are designed to simulate weapons. This contrast embodies the oldest story in the history of hegemonic powers. The dominant power concentrates (to its detriment) on the military; the candidate for successor concentrates on the economy. The latter has always paid off, handsomely. It did for the United States. Why should it not pay off for Japan as well, perhaps in alliance with China?
Finally, there is the ideological sphere. Right now, the U.S. economy seems relatively weak, even more so considering the exorbitant military expenses associated with hawk strategies. Moreover, Washington remains politically isolated; virtually no one (save Israel) thinks the hawk position makes sense or is worth encouraging. Other nations are afraid or unwilling to stand up to Washington directly, but even their foot-dragging is hurting the United States.
Yet the U.S. response amounts to little more than arrogant arm-twisting. Arrogance has its own negatives. Calling in chips means leaving fewer chips for next time, and surly acquiescence breeds increasing resentment. Over the last 200 years, the United States acquired a considerable amount of ideological credit. But these days, the United States is running through this credit even faster than it ran through its gold surplus in the 1960s.
The United States faces two possibilities during the next 10 years: It can follow the hawks� path, with negative consequences for all but especially for itself. Or it can realize that the negatives are too great. Simon Tisdall of the Guardian recently argued that even disregarding international public opinion, �the U.S. is not able to fight a successful Iraqi war by itself without incurring immense damage, not least in terms of its economic interests and its energy supply. Mr. Bush is reduced to talking tough and looking ineffectual.� And if the United States still invades Iraq and is then forced to withdraw, it will look even more ineffectual.
President Bush�s options appear extremely limited, and there is little doubt that the United States will continue to decline as a decisive force in world affairs over the next decade. The real question is not whether U.S. hegemony is waning but whether the United States can devise a way to descend gracefully, with minimum damage to the world, and to itself.
Immanuel Wallerstein is a senior research scholar at Yale University and author of, most recently, The End of the World As We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999).
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The clinical definition of a Social Scientist is "A man with a Phd. in 'maybe,' and 20/20 hindsight."
This article is hard to decipher, as it seems to be attempting to say very little with a whole lot of words.
It almost seems, through much of the author's thesis, that the US's decline came about largely as a by-product of not acting in its own self-interest, and not attempting to hold on to its hegemony.
But then the author attempts to convince us that any attempt to re-establish that hegemony would and must be futile.
I daresay that the characterization of Grenada and Panama as places "without troops" is historical revisionism at best, outright falsehood at worst. As is saying that the Vietnamese beat the United States all by their lonesome. (Both Chinese and USSR resources were heavily involved).
quote:Washington was foolish enough to invest its full military might in the struggle .
Not even close. It's pretty clear now that the folks in charge weren't really trying to 'win' the war, in much the same way that they are not now (nore have they been) trying to 'win' the drug war.
It could be said that most of the US's 'failures' in this regard (Including and especially the failure to end the threat of Iraq) have been due to the US's bowing to "international pressures."
I also take issue with the professor's claim that we would become 'bogged down in Iraq' he apparently forgets that the last Gulf War's ground assault lasted a staggering 100 hours, and that was because we pulled our punch. We could have taken Baghdad in short order, but didn't.
Now, of course, it will be harder. But that's just as much the 'world's' fault as it was ours.
quote:Why should it not pay off for Japan as well, perhaps in alliance with China?
Er, I think I learned the answer to that in my History of East Asia course. The two don't get along. We're talking centuries of enmity.
quote:In short, militarily, they were nothing. Yet they succeeded in a bold attack on U.S. soil.
This says nothing about the US. Show me a free country in which they would NOT have succeeded.
I don't know out of what part of his fevered brain he pulls the assertion that the Gulf War was a "Draw." That's ludicrous. All goals were accomplished, with the exception of the removal of Hussein, which we would have accomplished, had we not listened to people like this man.
quote:Right now, the U.S. economy seems relatively weak
Relative to what? The Dow may be slumping, but last I heard, we grew at 5.6 during the last quarter.
quote:From Ananova:
The Bureau of Economic Statistics said that US GDP rose in Q1 2002 by an astounding 5.6% annual rate, the highest growth rate in two years
That's not weak. That's robust, although lower than hoped for.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Um, the argument didn't make much sense to me. Hegemony doesn't mean that everyone has to listen to you. Heck, those country that really matters listen to the US. Who really cares about the Balkans, Afganistan, or Vietnam? How do they alter the Balance of Power or Patterns of Relations? Do they play any real role on the international stage? Can people even point these places out on a map before they caught US attention? Does the author of this article have more sense than say, a 2nd year Political Science student like me?
[ July 11, 2002, 14:20: Message edited by: David Templar ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Who really cares about the Balkans, Afganistan, or Vietnam?"
The residents of the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Vietnam, no doubt...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
The argument is about the United States trying and generally not doing so well in the attempts to expand hegemonic influence since the mid-1960's as evidenced by America's unexamined triumphalism, as Richard Reeves described it, and as hinted at in the article, the failure of the United States come to grips with the concept of limited warfare.
Lebanon, Somalia and The Balkans matter because they represent the failure of the United States to meet the needs of the changing post cold-war times. The whole concept of "balance of power" has been thrown out the window in that, as Wallerstein indicates, there is no post-Yalta balance of power anymore. Or as Peter Novick wrote, the center does not hold. There may be many centers.
However, Wallerstein misses an important moment in the decline in American hegemony with the hostages taken by Iran. The ability of the United States to prop up puppet governments has spiraled downward since the fall of Batista in Cuba.
With regards to the military might of the United States, the United States beating the pants off of Grenada is like Tiger Woods beating a 2-year-old at Agusta. Not much doubt in the outcome. However, Wallerstein does make the point that in today's world simple military might does not a superpower make. It never has, but since WWII, the economy of the U.S. had either been challenged or so intertwined to the world economy. Now, more than ever, if the world economy goes south, so does the economy of the United States to some degree. This is an interconnectedness that does not reconcile with hegemony.
[ July 13, 2002, 18:10: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Edipissed Wrecks (Member # 510) on :
if the United States had been able to exert it's full might in the Balkans, or Iraq, or Somalia they would not have been "failures". international pressure (as was mentioned by First of Two) kept us from doing such. the article is crap. anyone who has any idea about history or global socioeconomics would realize that in one reading. i could go point by point with it, but i don't feel like wasting my time.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:if the world economy goes south, so does the economy of the United States to some degree. This is an interconnectedness that does not reconcile with hegemony
It does when you realize that the converse is also true.
If the US economy goes south, it's pretty much guaranteed so will the global market. And probably to a greater reciprocal degree.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Hence, interconnected.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Hey everyone, look, it's the honest freethinking librarian versus the Big Bad Yale Academic!
quote:if the United States had been able to exert it's full might in the Balkans, or Iraq, or Somalia they would not have been "failures". international pressure (as was mentioned by First of Two) kept us from doing such. the article is crap. anyone who has any idea about history or global socioeconomics would realize that in one reading. i could go point by point with it, but i don't feel like wasting my time.
That's good enough for an award of merit for livening up my boring evening-at-work with a smirk.
How many more airplanes will they have to fly through towers before you start listening to the smart people in your country, even if what they say isn't particulary cheery or in-keeping with the narrow, cozy little view that your myopic nationalistic right loves and cherishes?
Posted by Edipissed Wrecks (Member # 510) on :
look everybody! it's the stereotypical idiot canadian who hides behind the US but likes to bad mouth it when nobody is looking! i'm about the least nationalistic american you will ever meet, The_Tom. i'm a jeffersonian constitutionalist, and if you've ever read the US Constitution then you would know that right now is not a good time for people who follow the constitution. i'm sorry you live in a country with no political or milirary might, but i live in a country that has both of these. this might could have solved all of the military "failures" that happened. for instance, if the US military had been given free regin in the Iraqi campaign, instead of succumbing from pressure from middle eastern "allies", Sadam would no be in the news right now. if you can't see that, well, you have problems.
500,00 troops on the ground would have solved the problems of the Balkans and Somalia. it was simply a question of applying force in required amounts. unfortunately, american politicians also do as much as foriegn interested to neuter the United States' political and military might, and this did much to prevent victory.
the United States is the most powerful it has ever been. it is right now the most powerful any nation has ever been on Earth. all you have to do is look at the Europeans increased complaining to understand the place that the US has. whole cultures are being bred simply to try to destroy us. this kind of thing hasn't happened since the Roman Empire still existed. and unlike the Romans, we ain't going anywhere.
[edit: i didn't catch this part the first time "How many more airplanes will they have to fly through towers before you start listening to the smart people in your country". i have a question: what is it like being so naive? if you seriously think that terrorist attacks are going to change anything, then you are seriously mistaken. at some point there are going to be enough attacks that the government will grow some balls. at this point the problem will end. the attacks on the US aren't a sign of our downfall. they are a sign of our increasing strength. and they will do nothing more than increase resolve, and eventually destroy our enemies. you should be glad. if Islam ever destroyed the US, well, lets just say that they wouldn't be turning a blind eye on Canada much longer. Canadian culture is even more permissive than US culture on things that your average Muslim in Syria finds abhorrent.]
[ July 11, 2002, 19:37: Message edited by: Edipissed Wrecks ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:if Islam ever destroyed the US
Or if Christianity ever destroys the US. Or do you associate one terrorist attack with a specific religion and not another?
Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :
quote:i have a question: what is it like being so naive? if you seriously think that terrorist attacks are going to change anything,
I guess your used to National Guard Troops patroling your airports and missing an entire chunk of the New York Skyline.
Reks, the attacks have changed everything dont buy into this "DONT LET THEM CHANGE OUR WAY OF LIFE OR THEY WIN" bullcrap. They already have changed our way of life.
quote: if Islam ever destroyed the US, well, lets just say that they wouldn't be turning a blind eye on Canada much longer.
And Loose lips sink ships and if you ride alone your ride with Hitler. Jesus Reks the entire Muslim world is not out to destroy the United States, its a case of the vocal minority of extremists who alter their religon to serve their thirst for "vengence"
They don't target us for our culture nearly as much as they do for our policy towards them.
Not only do we favor their mortal enemy Isreal, in every aspect of foreign policy but we hold the oil under their deserts higher than the lives of their people.
On the subject of your bashing of Canada. I find it pretty funny that you claim that Canada has no military or political might when in fact they have the highest percentage of troops deployed on foreign aid and peace keeping missions throughout the world.
quote: 500,00 troops on the ground would have solved the problems of the Balkans and Somalia.
I suppose your a military stratgist now also. Just pile bodies onto the problem and it will go away right? Why not? I mean we have all these gadgets. I'd hate to break it to you but all the Daisy Cutter bombs, Kevlar and helicopter gunships wont help a soldier when he gets shot in the head by a 7 year old sniper on the second floor of a mosque. They also wont help the family of a 19 year old Army Ranger when they see video of his body being dragged through the streets running 24/7 on CNN.
Not every problem can be solved by commiting the youth of a nation to war. Fighting a prolonged engagement in the Middle East would only give birth to another generation of Islamic youth convinced that the United States is indeed Satan. But this time they will have actual experiances to back that up rather then extremist dogma.
[ July 11, 2002, 20:40: Message edited by: Obese Penguin ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think I posted this before, but it provides both an interesting counterpoint and is fun to read.
quote: The Pentagon's role in world affairs has gone through an epochal transformation: from the Fulda Gap to the Highway of Death, from Agent Orange to GPS, from arsenal of democracy to global cop. When you're a cop, sometimes you kick doors in. Most of the time you stay on patrol. Outer space is where a global cop patrols. America's eyes, ears, and nerves are up there, all day, every day, circling the blue yonder. Space vehicles are the ultimate asymmetrical asset. They can't be reached with a hijacked jet. They laugh at anthrax.
quote: The alternative to destroying Washington is clear: world peace, Washington-style. No Machiavellian power player (and few ordinary citizens) would ever believe in such a thing, so peace will be sold as war: New Improved War. At the low end, there will be subversion, spying, detention camps, surveillance, terror, Jersey barriers, truck bombs, and purges. At the high end, quite possibly some nuclear explosions, plagues, and gas attacks. But no war as war is usually understood. No Sommes, Verduns, or Iwo Jimas, probably not even any Vietnams or Afghanistans. Just Space War IV, V, VI, until everyone gets it, the last stiff-necked mountain tribe, the last hermit kingdom.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Also, no one needs or cares to set up a friendly regime in Iraq. That's not really the issue. The U.S. will consider that particular war won when Iraq can no longer blow up Washington D.C.
The problem with our Glorious American Future, as I see it, are twofold. One, it seems to be increasingly unilateral. Well, why is this a bad thing? From a purely American point of view, does it make a difference? The thing is, I know some people in that far-off state of Foriegn. They're nice people. I don't particular care for the idea of a future when I'm essentially cut off from them. Two, and this is a more abstract fear, and not something I'm going to be writing crazy letters to the editor about anytime soon, but anyway: It seems possible that by the time we've wrapped the globe in our warm blanket, the United States might have lost those elements that made it a nice place to live in the first place.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well put, Simon.
Reks: You're most certainly entitled to your opinion. But I think anyone reading your followup post could see I'm hardly misrepresenting your points of view. And, for the record, I live in a country that is proud to avoid making enemies in the world, proud to try to deal humanely with the common citizens of nations regardless of how crackpot their leaders are, proud to embrace the idea that an ounce of prevention is far preferable to a pound of cure. It isn't perfect by any means. But I find the foreign policy espoused by my leaders and by those in most other Western democracies to be far more enlightened and reasonable than the equivalent found either in the halls of the Heritage Foundation or in the White House, or, I suspect, beside the water coolers of the American heartland.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I cant believe this silly article has a thread to which i am starting the second page of!
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Care to tell us why you think the article is silly? Or did you simply post for the heck of it, to express your amazement at this remarkable fact?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I basically agree with Templar and First of Two about this one, reading their first two posts.
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
RE: the article's contention that Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War are all signs of American weakness (or, as the author put it "one loss and two draws).
B*LLSH*T!
We won all three on the battlefield. Our military did all we asked of it and more. Our "loss" in Vietnam was purely a diplomatic/morale one. Our national leadership simply wimped out. There would have been a price to pay, but we could have taken the war to the NVA and cleaned it's clock. Our "draws" were not due to our inablility to win victory through arms, but our short-sided decision to allow pressure from our so-called "allies" to stop us from finishing the job. We could have taken Korea, and we d*mn sure could have taken Iraq, and we should have.
If we'd fought WW II under the political environment we have today, we'd've stopped as soon as the Germans retreated back behind their borders. God knows WHAT kind of horror might've ensued if THAT had happened.
As for the contention that we are just "training" a new generation of Moslems to hate the west, I have a clue for you all: they don't need training to do that. It is ingrained in their religion and culture. I've seen too many expose shows and read too many articles from experts on Islam to believe any differently. Remember what happened over there on 9/11...they were dancing in the streets! Our liberal media only showed us a FRACTION of the jubilation that was going on.
We should stand full strength behind Israel, our only REAL ally in the Middle East, and prepare ourselves for the greatest challenge of our age: ending Arab/Islamic agression once and for all time. They (the Arabs) have sown the wind, now let them reap the whirlwind...!
Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :
quote:As for the contention that we are just "training" a new generation of Moslems to hate the west, I have a clue for you all: they don't need training to do that. It is ingrained in their religion and culture. I've seen too many expose shows and read too many articles from experts on Islam to believe any differently. Remember what happened over there on 9/11...they were dancing in the streets! Our liberal media only showed us a FRACTION of the jubilation that was going on.
We should stand full strength behind Israel, our only REAL ally in the Middle East, and prepare ourselves for the greatest challenge of our age: ending Arab/Islamic agression once and for all time. They (the Arabs) have sown the wind, now let them reap the whirlwind...!
Oh yes its in THEIR religion, since we all know Christians respect everyones beliefs and would never go on any crusades to impose their will on Islam. Christianity isnt the type of religion that would inspire such hatred towards another religion
Oh brother.
quote: Arab/Islamic agression
Oh yes since we all know the United States Military doesnt have any units deployed in their holy land like Saudi Arabia or anything.
The situation in the Middle East is WAY to complicated to solve by this pig headed attitude of "give them hell" Unfortunatly people seem to think that since the US is at the " top " they can afford to make enemies. I'm pretty sure you wont be thinking the same way when your paying $5.50 a gallon at the pump.
The days of a war like World War 2 are over unfortunatly it took Vietnam to learn that.
Vietnam was a blunder at the higher echelons of command. We went in there with such a broad brush that by the time our grunts were fighting the NVA we still didn't have a clear plan or steps towards victory. The game plan seemed to be concentrated around the poker game that was being played at the peace table.
We had the leadership at the top yelling down the line towards Nam that they were hitting to hard. You can only pull a punch so much.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Oh yes its in THEIR religion, since we all know Christians respect everyones beliefs and would never go on any crusades to impose their will on Islam. Christianity isnt the type of religion that would inspire such hatred towards another religion
The point is, Penguin, that after 500+ Plus years, we [Western Civilization] have FORGOTTEN about the Crusades. They don't MATTER anymore. The muslims seem to think they're STILL GOING ON.
And it should be noted... Islam wasn't exactly spread at flowerpoint now, was it? They invaded Europe by at least two routes (Up through the Balkans and across the Straits of Gibraltar)
We were INVITED to Saudi Arabia by the government. If some fundie muslim has a problem with that, their fight should be with the Saudis, not us.
quote:I'm pretty sure you wont be thinking the same way when your paying $5.50 a gallon at the pump.
Oh, please. This threat predates ME. Besides, the Brits are paying nearly that much already, and they're still using gas.
But no, we probably won't think that way. The general attitude, should that happen, will more likely be that it would be in our interest to secure the Arabian oilfields for ourselves, and to hell with what a bunch of arrogant thugs thinks. Or in the parlance of the last energy crisis: "Nuke their ass and TAKE the gas!"
Either that, or we'll finally get off our butts and develop solar, thus reducing the middle east to a much-deserved irrelevancy.
Either way's fine, although I personally prefer the latter option by a smidge.
[ July 13, 2002, 10:49: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Which reminds me--anyone have any idea how much a kit to convert your car from gas to hydrogen costs, & how much work is entailed? I'd love to tank up with water if I could.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Look at all the empires that have come and gone in recorded history... Just last century watched several fall apart, the U.K. and the U.S.S.R being two of them....
A time will come when the U.S. is either a shrunken image of itself, or non-existant... But I don't see it anytime soon. Look at how many nations were split apart by ethnic, religious, or political ideology, or in the U.K.s circumstance, being trimmed down by World War II.
Terrorist attacks won't make the U.S. split into several countries, after 9-11 there wasn't a lot of anti-Arab activity, like there could have been, so even the ethnic/religious divider isn't suited to the U.S. This leave a world war, which is nukes are tossed about, will make several countries split into smaller kingdoms....
The American way of life did change after 9-11, in some cases it was a severe change, in others not much... Hell, my life changed very little, before and after I am still scratching out on a mere survival level.... The points of view, on how the average American citizen is looking at life from beside the watercooler, from the people of other nations is blinded.... As has been pointed out by these same people on how Americans view their condidtions and place words in their mouths... The foot is on the other shoe I see.... (intentional reversal)
The Charlei daniels band has a good song for people to listen to... I con't remember the name right off hand... But it is something allong the lines that we may fight amongst ourselves, but you outsiders best leave us alone, 'cause we will forego our fight to kick your ass....
The eagle may be flying low/slow... is also from the song....
oh well....
keep the population down, make war, not love.... Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: or in the U.K.s circumstance, being trimmed down by World War II.
Apparently we're finally going to pay back to US for WWII in 2006.
On the subject of Vietnam the US won on the battlefields, destroyed the Viet Cong and smashed the NVA. Unfortuneately they were constrained by the lack of political will and of an overall plan. The US military and politicians cocked up. But you must remember that at the time, the US was virtually falling apart and there were very real fears of a revolution.
On the subject of Islam/Christianity; both religions have fought in the past. Both have fought expansionist wars. The main difference is that Muslims are a minority in most Western countries and so it is politically incorrect to mention the Islamic wars of agression. Violence is not, however, ingrained in either of the religions. Many Islamic fundementalists believe that their way of life and religion is under threat from western culture. The US is the leading western state and so the most obvious target.
On the other hand, look at the fall of the USSR; no one could have predicted it even one or two years before. The United States will decline. But not yet. Probably.
Having the best equipped military in the world is no guarenteeor of survival either.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Which reminds me--anyone have any idea how much a kit to convert your car from gas to hydrogen costs, & how much work is entailed? I'd love to tank up with water if I could.
Dunno, but it sounds expensive. Maybe you should consider buying an entirely new enviro-car instead.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by twathead_fuck1: RE: the article's contention that Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War are all signs of American weakness (or, as the author put it "one loss and two draws).
B*LLSH*T!
Here we go, the "dog ate my homework" version of history. . .
quote:We won all three on the battlefield. Our military did all we asked of it and more. Our "loss" in Vietnam was purely a diplomatic/morale one. Our national leadership simply wimped out. There would have been a price to pay, but we could have taken the war to the NVA and cleaned it's clock. Our "draws" were not due to our inablility to win victory through arms, but our short-sided decision to allow pressure from our so-called "allies" to stop us from finishing the job. We could have taken Korea, and we d*mn sure could have taken Iraq, and we should have.
Oh, please. D*mn? Well, g*sh. Cr*k*y. I'm sure you won Vietnam "on the battlefield," but that might have something to do with them thar little yellow sunsabitches not turning up to said battlefield, but instead waging a guerilla war, curse them. And. . . "short-sided decision?" There's a joke about long-haired draft-dodgin' hippies in there somewhere. And all us "so-called allies," well ever since you let us apparently tell you what to do, you've so been our bitch.
quote:If we'd fought WW II under the political environment we have today, we'd've stopped as soon as the Germans retreated back behind their borders. God knows WHAT kind of horror might've ensued if THAT had happened.
I often worry that I bring up the Nazis too often in my posts, and now I see why. It's really annoying. Oh, no! The war might have stopped too soon! That might have made it, given your late entry, all of about 18 months long. Disastrous!
quote:As for the contention that we are just "training" a new generation of Moslems to hate the west, I have a clue for you all: they don't need training to do that. It is ingrained in their religion and culture. I've seen too many expose shows and read too many articles from experts on Islam to believe any differently. Remember what happened over there on 9/11...they were dancing in the streets! Our liberal media only showed us a FRACTION of the jubilation that was going on.
The prophet Mohammed's warning to the faithful that one day a country then not discovered would become their greatest enemy is my favourite bit of the Koran. And I skip the bits that mention tolerance to others, he was obviously lying when he wrote it. And you like expos� shows, do you? All those aliens and Bigfoot, they're probably tied in somehow, only the "liberal media" doesn't want us to know about it, man. Christ, do you morons have a checklist you follow when you post here? "General cluelessness on world politics. . . check. Mention liberal media. . . check."
quote:We should stand full strength behind Israel, our only REAL ally in the Middle East, and prepare ourselves for the greatest challenge of our age: ending Arab/Islamic agression once and for all time. They (the Arabs) have sown the wind, now let them reap the whirlwind...!
Oooh. Never mind that part of the whole antipathy against the US in the region has a lot to do with the fact that the US is an ally of Israel at all. And that's a telling phrase there, Arab/Islamic. Not all Arabs are followers of Islam, not all Muslims are Arab. You planning to wipe them all out? Sorry, "reap the whirlwind" rather.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Most Muslims are Southeast Asians, as it turns out.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by darkwing_duck1: We should stand full strength behind Israel, our only REAL ally in the Middle East, and prepare ourselves for the greatest challenge of our age: ending Arab/Islamic agression once and for all time. They (the Arabs) have sown the wind, now let them reap the whirlwind...!
First, I stand corrected. Before reading this thread, I had claimed to a friend that Warcraft III had some incredibly cheesy lines, and that no real person would ever talk in such a fashion. I was wrong.
Second, even assuming that you're right and you "should" attack the Arabs, what exactly makes you think that applying the US military would be anymore successful than decades of Israel trying the same thing, and still ending up with suicide bombers?
Third, there's some irony in the fact that a third of the posts in this thread are trying to make the claim that the US military can "kick anyone's ass," when the very point of the article is that pure military force is irrelevant. Whether you agree with his point that some other country will eventually overtake the US ideologically or economically, debating about the "true state" of the military is just....quaint and not entirely useful.
From Shik:
quote: Which reminds me--anyone have any idea how much a kit to convert your car from gas to hydrogen costs, & how much work is entailed? I'd love to tank up with water if I could.
No idea if such a kit even exists. You'd have to replace the entire engine and much of the car's infrastructure supporting it. In the mean time, there are neat stop-gaps like Ars Technica: Honda Insight
From Sol System:
quote: Most Muslims are Southeast Asians, as it turns out.
Actually, I was wondering about that the other day. Do you actually have any statistics on that? Say the population of Muslims in China, Thailand, Indonesia, etc. bs. the Middle East.
I wonder how the Chinese media thinks about the whole situation, since they probably don't really like the Muslim population in western China either. Or are they simply bemused that the US is having such a tough time dealing this?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
What, there is no other religion, but the state, in China....
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: I'm sure you won Vietnam "on the battlefield," but that might have something to do with them thar little yellow sunsabitches not turning up to said battlefield, but instead waging a guerilla war, curse them
Not entirely accurate; the Viet Cong (the South Vietnamese communist guerrilas) were effectively wiped out in the 1968 Tet Offensive. After that most of the battles were between the NVA and US army/marines. The Americans did win most of these but basically were suckered into believing that North Vietnam would stand by the peace accords.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: No idea if such a kit even exists. You'd have to replace the entire engine and much of the car's infrastructure supporting it. In the mean time, there are neat stop-gaps like Ars Technica: Honda Insight
Lovely, but I'm not giving up my Saturn. And I know it exists because I saw it on an episode of "Knight Rider" once, so there!
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: [QUOTE]Before reading this thread, I had claimed to a friend that Warcraft III had some incredibly cheesy lines, and that no real person would ever talk in such a fashion. I was wrong.
Strong words for strong convictions...I assume you'd also find cheesy such famous lines as "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country...", "Give me liberty, or give me death...!", and such famous moments as the drawing of the line at the Alamo.
THAT'S the problem...we've forgotten the profound truths of such sayings and such acts. The evils of the world have forgotten their fear of the strength of good. Even now, after 9/11, we have only partially woken from our stupor of everyday existance.
The greatest challenge of the new century lies before us...to take up the Standard of Right and say to all the forces of darkness: "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" This our grandfathers did, and now this we must do as well. We must not tarry, we must not hesitate, we must not falter...and, if need be, we must stand alone because it is the right thing to do!
I'll leave you with this parting thought (taken from my favorite movie), though I suppose you'll find it cheesy too. But if more people believed and lived the truth of these words, then the world would be a better place:
Inside the table's circle, Under the sacred sword, A knight must vow to follow, The code that is unending, Unending as the table --- A ring by honor bound.
A knight is sworn to valor. His heart knows only virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His strength upholds the weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the wicked.
The right can never die, If one man still recalls. The words are not forgotten, If one voice speaks them clear. The code forever shines, If one heart holds it bright.
*edit/postscript Here's some quotes from a West Wing episode that I just recalled that ought also apply here. I just wish our leadership had come out with words (and deeds) half as strong*
�I am not frightened. I�m going to blow them off the face of the earth with the fury of God�s own thunder." "Let the word ring forth from this time and this place. You kill an American, any American, we don�t come back with a proportional response, we come back with total disaster!" "Did you know that 2000 years ago, a Roman Citizen could walk across the face of the known world free of the fear of molestation. He could walk across the earth unharmed, cloaked only in the protection of the words �civus romanus�: I am a Roman citizen. So great was the retribution of Rome universally understood as certain, should any harm befall even one of its citizens. Where was Morris� protection or anyone else on that airplane? Where was the retribution for the families? Where is the warning to the rest of the world, that Americans shall walk this earth unharmed, lest the clenched fist of the most powerful nation in all mankind comes crashing down on your house?" All quotes by President Bartlet (Martin Sheen) from the West Wing episode Proportional Response
[ July 14, 2002, 13:16: Message edited by: darkwing_duck1 ]
Posted by Ultra Magnus Pym (Member # 239) on :
I love America too! Powerful and Great!
GO USA GO USA GO USA!!
Americans are NOT ASSHATS! NO!
*Cleans Darkwing's Patriot Jizz off the American Masturbational Podium*
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: Say the population of Muslims in China, Thailand, Indonesia, etc. bs. the Middle East.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of these figures, but, in four countries which we could vaguely call Southeast Asian (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia), there are about 515 million Muslims.
In three countries more or less in the Middle East (Turkey, Iran, Egypt), there are about 176 million Muslims.
Again, far from comprehensive numbers, but I would be surprised if there were another 339 million people in the entire Middle East.
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus Pym: I love America too! Powerful and Great!
GO USA GO USA GO USA!!
Americans are NOT ASSHATS! NO!
*Cleans Darkwing's Patriot Jizz off the American Masturbational Podium*
I'm not sure, but I think I'm being insulted...
No, wait, I'm sure...
Surely you have something better to do with your time, UMP...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, in my best A&E voice, I think it's been time well spent.
Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :
You know, its easy to say the problem with America is that we have forgotten our past and that patriotism is lost, repalced by purchasing a flag because you dont want to be the only one in the neighborhood without one.
Again I say this is not Rome, this is not 1941 or 1968 the World is a MUCH different place and you can't apply that era's thinking to now.
Sure we can be as dramatic as we want and call the terrorists barberians then lets call them nazi's and then communists but that doesnt change the fact that they're not the same.
Darkwing we can sit here and write all the pretty words and say all the prolific sayings we want but this is not as cut and dry as you would have us believe. Its easy to say "They are bad" and They are Good" but the fact of the matter is its not the easy to tell.
Sure you could just "Send the army in" as you say but all we are doing is killing people and inspiring more hatred of the United States not to mention the fact that we would have to OCCUPY the region do you understand the beating your setting yourself up for ?
This attitude of lets just roll over them because we can is whats going to destroy this country.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, is it?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Wraith: I hoped the use of the actual words "little yellow sunsabitches" might have announced my sarcastic intent. I was after all replying to a complete twit, as his subsequent post has shown. I can't help but notice that in all his eagerness to see America go forth and smite the ungodly, he's not exactly signing up to do it himself. 8)
Posted by Thoughtchopper (Member # 480) on :
Who's Ungodly? Boy, we have to take care of them.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: The greatest challenge of the new century lies before us...to take up the Standard of Right and say to all the forces of darkness: "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" This our grandfathers did, and now this we must do as well. We must not tarry, we must not hesitate, we must not falter...and, if need be, we must stand alone because it is the right thing to do!
Hang on, which country is saying this? From my count, it could apply to several.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, that is good....
In everything, in every place, there are good and bad people and things.... It has always been this way, such as life....
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Mr. Poet reminds me of a news story I read recently about a large number of young student types (as many of us in this thread are, or at least were once) being surveyed about a possible war in Iraq. I do not recall the first percentage; those who would avoid a draft were one instituted. But what struck me was that something like half (or over half) of those were still in favor of a war. This was interesting.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
American students, I take it?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I've heard rumors that people from Foreign attend school-like camps that have similar educational goals, but I have as yet seen no evidence of this.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Possibly.
I'm not sure what the current mood is of students in this country. The tabloids (or at least the tabloids that actually try and actually have real news) have moced quite considerably away from supporting the US over the past few months. While they are not at the point of saying "Let's attack the US", they don't seem to be too keen on the idea of a "proper" war.
Of course, that's no indication of what the public thinks, but tabloids can be a useful barometer of general opinion.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
There are tabloids that try and have news in them? VP: ooohhhhh; I get it. sorry .
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
And, after a little work, can be used to wipe your rear with too....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: There are tabloids that try and have news in them?
Kinda of. Ignoring stuff like the Daily Mail (because, if they could, they'd kill all left handed babies), you have a fairly wide spread from The Mirror, which tend to be faily populist but also reports important news, rather than "exciting" news, through the Sun to the trash like the Sport (which is pretty much the national enquirer, only with more tits).
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.