m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Phil Foster
This is however not a peculiar American trait, it is a human one, it just so happens that the USA ‘is’ the most powerful nation on Earth and ‘some’ Americans are getting drunk on its implications.
That sums it up quite neatly, indeed. Unfortunately, but not suprisingly these “some” not only include the few odd ones appearing in forums like these, but also a few in leading government positions and that’s where things start being problematic.
I hope that common sense will eventually prevail there and that we will see fewer episodes of the likes we wittnessed in the Czech republic.
m.ileduetsWell, Phil, ok,
but it’s good if now and then somebody holds them a mirror up to their faces. They might not like what they see, and their posts is what we get in return, but I’m sure it makes them start thinking a bit (this is probably what their silence stands for). They certainly don’t seem to be dumb. And that’s all I intend.
Fortunately there’s plenty of US- Americans in real world with whom I can discuss in a more civilized manner. Who knows, some we have here in the forum might not be like this in real world either. It seems to be sort of a game for them as you have pointed out correctly.
m.ileduetsWell Nietzsche sure goes well along with the current administration’s policy. I’d rather have a few hammers less, there would be less hammered existences, too.
And I’d rather have you read a little more Willhelm Busch.
Europeans should accept that the Americans have no shattered and distorted and politically emasculated self-esteem, neither as a people nor as a country.
Well, we certainly never accused you of this.:D
But a little more respect would suit you well and wouldn’t be interpreted as weakness, quite the opposite: It’s usually bully behaviour that tries to cover up some weakness.
m.ileduetsWell, in the unlikely case the true cause remained uncovered, all they would have managed is destroying one target.
In the more likely case of the plot’s discovery, Israel would lose all US- backing, would have to hand in their WMDs to UN inspectors and probably ceased to exist a not so long while later.
m.ileduetsWell, I wonder why you wonder. It’s sort of telling if certain people are always associating German culture with Hitler. But for your interest: It certainly is a lot older than Hitler, as it was used by Willhelm Busch, for example. (The creator of “Max and Moritz”, not some ancester of your current president)
but there’s a point in Human history that given great powers and responsibilities you have to use that wisely…
Have we seen a little too many B-rated movies lately?
I’d rather have the times of great empires a thing of the past. Those times were usually pretty bloody.
The USA went a different way not long ago and contributed greatly to a world where all nations can contribute to a safer and more peaceful environment based on multilateralism, democratic decision making and mutual respect.
Yet it seems that these great achievements are not that well valued anymore with the current US- administration. It seems more inclined to put itself above all others. The times of big egos seeking world domination really could be over and done with, don’t you think?
We’re not discussing Iraq in this thread, it seems to me, so I won’t go into that. It’s a topic treated in depth elsewhere.
We’re talking about bullying allies. Put yourself into the Czech perspective: For decades they didn’t have a choice. They had to buy Soviet made military hardware with their hard- earned Kronas, and not too little.
Now that they would seemingly finally have a choice, the USA, another “great nation” pops up and demands their hardware to be bought, else they might suffer retaliation. How do you think the Czechs feel about this now?
As for the military industrial complex: It certainly has its necessity, and its sophisticated products can even be admired, but, given its nature, if it starts setting the political agenda of any nation, things usually go very wrong. So politicians should be a little more weary of this.
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Vortex
I wonder why people here have the impression that NK only have a few missiles aiming at Japan and South Korea. Interestingly, the South Koreans prefer total retaliation (developing their own missiles) versus a defensive shield as deterence. As to China, they don’t really care about Japan having it…what they care is the level of technology developed that can be sold or used for Taiwan. Obviously that would negate their 450+ missile terrorizing Taiwanese right now. That’s it, Japan should secretly develop nukes and drop the BMD plans :rolleyes:It will only take one until these people start to say “well why didn’t you do something about it before it happened” :rolleyes:
Well, you’re laughing, but there are highly ranked politicians in Japan seriously considering nuklear armament. There have been newspaper articles about half a year ago on that topic. I personally prefer them going for missile defence, it sort of makes sense for them. But missile defence plus WMD’s would look very aggressive to me.
m.ileduetsWell, what does this tell us? Probably that there’s more valuable targets elsewhere…
m.ileduetsWell, German refers to a language, not only to a country…
Why biased? One can appreciate a culture’s achievements and esteem it well, but criticise a government lead astray.
It seems pretty obvious that the Bush administration more represents the interests of the military industrial complex and the oil industry than basic old fashioned American principles like free trade, multilateralism (remember the UN was once founded in NY and still has its headquarter there) and a foreign policy that was at one point very cautious with interventions when it didn’t concern the “back yard”.
It’s the sort of behavior we see in the Czech republic that disillusions lots of people in formerly communist countries about a culture of fundamentaly good values that they were about to embrace. Instead there’s cynisism and resignation spreading, even nostalgia.
Be aware that there’s plenty of Europeans, me including, living in relatively small countries who’ve experienced this sort of bullying time and again. We just don’t want it anymore. If the US admin. is assuming this role now, we just don’t like it. This is not Anti- Americanism, it’s anti- arrogance. This doesn’t have anything to do with nostalgia of former greatness. My country was never “great”. We don’t wish to be “great”, only respected (and that’s no denial).
It has a culture and even a democratic tradition that goes back quite a bit further than the one of the USA. But even if our western style democratic tradition would be as short as -let’s say- the Czech republic, it would be worth a little appreciation.
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Distiller
The US does what a strong people and a strong country does.
The Europeans do what weak people do.
Well, this logic might be applied up to elementary school. Behaving like a bully among friends (or allies) usually doesn’t lead anywhere but into isolation and downfall. There’s a nice German saying that describes it well: Haughtyness preceedes the decline.
I’m very much familiar with the history you are refering to, and I think Paul Kennedy in “The Rise and Fall of Great Powers” describes well how fragile the position of a nation is that puts itself above all others.
The USA with its free and egalitarian history would have a big chance of avoiding the common error previously committed, but there are forces at work that seem to drive away from these good old ideals prefering short term benefits like voters popularity and quick money…
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Sauron
So I guess we all agree. The US is the only nation which is guilty of acting to protect it’s self interests and uses unfair political and economic tactics to try and force its products on the rest of the world. Oh the shame of it!:rolleyes:
Every country has the right to protect its self interest, of course. Yet the problem is that with this policy the government doesn’t protect the country’s interest at all: It portrays it as a bully and advocate of protectionism which stands diametrically opposed to American ideals and the position it advocates in economics. In who’s interest the Bush admin. is acting is quite obvious: The military industrial complex. This isn’t the same as the US of A, or is it?
m.ileduetsIsreal transfers a strike package of unmarked F-16s and F-15s all the way through the Med, down the Atlantic, round Africa, up the Indian Ocean (all with USAF air-to-air refuelling), heading for Diego Garcia about three days before the strike. From there it will strike Iran, again with air-to-air refuelling from USAF. Some minutes before the IAF airstrike hits the Natanz, Arak and Bushir facilities, SLCM from subs will be launched against the Iranian C3 infrastructure. At the same time CNN will air a press conference with Sharon tellinbg about self-defense and declaring the state of national emergency and general mobilisation to defend against possible counter-attacks. Maybe when the first attack wasn’t sufficient, IAF will attack directly through Jordan and Saudi-Arabia.
Well, it would seem a whole lot easier for the US to strike themselves, with their carrier wings and all, instead of being Israel’s “assistant” in a shaky gamble. If the gamble went the wrong way, they would be blamed for failure, if it went the right way, they would have to endure the fury of Islamic extremists just as much.
But first of all an again after Iraq it seems to me that the cheapest and most effective mean to rid the Middle East of WMDs would be to let the UN- inspectors do their job in Iran and then let them proceed to Israel.:D
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by PAF Fan
IDF F-16Is and F-15I can be refuled mid air over Turkey and fly over Iraq ( a request the US would not deny them methinks) and strike at Iranian targets anyhwhere, they can then head back over Iraq and refuel again………..
Well, even though Iraq and Turkey are not really Iran- friendly, I doubt they would appreciate this strategy. It could rise some minor unrest in their countries.
If they want to opt for this strategy, they better do it over Iraq and fast, as long as the US still has a firm grip on it.
m.ileduetsSince LM and the US of A will most likely offer them “a deal they can’t refuse” (See. S. Korea), they should definitely go for the F-15, eat the carrot and avoid the stick.
Political considerations aside it would be good to buy a jet that’s not at the end of its production lifespan, so either Rafale or Typhoon. But this is irrelevant, unfortunately.
m.ileduetsWell, looking at it from a political perspective I can’t see how Israel could launch an attack now given the recent Iran signature under the nuclear non proliferation treaty.
It is Israel is in the defensive now. It has to justify it’s own non- signing. If UN- inspectors should be allowed into Israel after all, I’m sure they would find more interesting objects in Israel than in Iran…
With the Palestine issue still unresolved, Israel is too much occupied with more pressing issues than Iran anyway.
If Iran should be made a target in the near future, the more likely agressor seems to be the US of A, since Bush jr. might be in need of an other boost of popularity during his second presidency period, but only if Iran should be stupid enough to oppose inspections again.
m.ileduetsI trust the Japanese to use the system in a purely defencive manner, but it has to be noted that these sort of missile defence systems can be used excellently in an offensive strategy:
They offer a country the option of a nuklear first strike without a big risk of a retaliation strike, as the MDS on high alert could probably eliminate the decimated numbers of the remaining incoming missiles.
If you consider this you might agree that the spreading of missile defensive systems can even increase the likelyness of nuklear strikes, as it makes a nuklear first strike a “more rational choice” again.
Sign In
