Nuklear bomb

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

"The Nazi reference was probably a bit over the top, don't you think?" No. I thought it was irrelevant to an analysis of the current world political situation, which is why I suggested that you should think more before using it, with your 'appeasement' analogies. I haven't called anyone 'evil' either. And where exactly have I come out with 'moral relativism'? Do you actually know what the term means? I have no 'dislike for the USA' - what I dislike is people who take it upon themselves to tell the outside world what the US thinks, while at the same time telling the US population what it ought to think, and then claim to be defending 'freedom' or 'democracy'?

Are 'middle eastern radicals' a threat to world peace? Yes, quite possibly, but so are supporters of US quasi-imperialist tactics, and uncritical supporters of the State of Israel. And the latter have more weapons.

You do understand that I have spent quite a few words criticizing my own country, right? A third of this country believes as you do. A third believes as I do. The other third is completely clueless. So I can't tell you what the USA currently thinks...because we are as divided as the world is.

PSSSST, that's why we are the world's last remaining super power....for about the next five minutes lol. If things continue as they are now, we are on the decline and will be looking up at China. So not to worry.

I'm not sure about the quasi imperialism stuff because I certainly haven't received my share of the ill gotten booty . And these wars seem to be a big part in our slide toward bankruptcy. And my gas still isn't cheap, as a matter of fact it's more expensive. We are spread so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan that we really don't have the resources to respond to a threat anywhere else (did I mention that we are about $13 trillion beyond broke?). So I guess we are just not very good at this imperialism stuff .

I think it is telling that you believe that the US and Israel are as dangerous to the world as Iran, N. Korea, or China.

Let me ask you this, can we pretend for a second that we transplant every Israeli to the American west? Hell, we have huge tracts of desert we don't use. Let us also pretend that we pull out every foreign soldier from the Middle East. Lastly, let's pretend that renewable fuels were available just a bit cheaper than oil.

What would the world look like? Would there be peace in the Middle East finally? Would the radicals fall by the wayside? Would the rest of the world be safe from the leaders in Iran or Alqaeda? Could we all just get along?

If you can answer yes to those questions, you are a great optimist.

Splitter

EDIT: Drewpee (great screen name, BTW), this is relevant because however one views the situation, we are repeating history from some viewpoint.

[drewpee]

Its a game

[AndyJWest]

I see little point in discussing your last post, Splitter. It makes little sense alongside your previous ones. I'll just leave you with this to think about:

let's pretend that renewable fuels were available just a bit cheaper than oil.

Do you actually think the middle east holds an infinite supply of oil? If not, what are you proposing we do when it runs out? And if we can do whatever is required when it runs out, wouldn't it be better to do it sooner, and thus avoid all the problems of relying on energy sources in politically unstable regions?

(P.S. Drewpee, history never repeats exactly, contrary to what Splitter suggests. Indeed, Marx suggested that history occurs first as tragedy and then as farce. For the sake of humanity, I hope he's right.)

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I see little point in discussing your last post, Splitter. It makes little sense alongside your previous ones. I'll just leave you with this to think about:

Do you actually think the middle east holds an infinite supply of oil? If not, what are you proposing we do when it runs out? And if we can do whatever is required when it runs out, wouldn't it be better to do it sooner, and thus avoid all the problems of relying on energy sources in politically unstable regions?

(P.S. Drewpee, history never repeats exactly, contrary to what Splitter suggests. Indeed, Marx suggested that history occurs first as tragedy and then as farce. For the sake of humanity, I hope he's right.)

I know, those are hard questions. If you can't answer yes to the questions I posed then it means there are real threats that run much deeper than foreign intervention, Israel, and oil.

I whole heartedly agree that alternative fuels are a must. I am not afraid of the oil running out, we are a long way from that (we have plenty here, btw, we are just not allowed to tap it). I am afraid of it being cut off.

Nations do go to war over resources, especially when those resources are essential. That's part of the reason Japan chose war. It's part of the reason Germany invaded certain areas. If the oil were cut off tomorrow, countries that have been benignly bickering for decades would suddenly become allies again.

While this is a game, Drewpee, there is not a time when I get flamed or fail to land a wounded bird on the deck that I don't think about pilot's who did it for real. To me personally, playing at war without trying to understand how wars get started, fought, and ended is just irresponsible. I'm not knocking anyone who doesn't look beyond shooting down simulated enemy planes, it's a personal feeling. Call it a mental exercise in seeking understanding.

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

If you can't answer yes to the questions I posed then it means there are real threats that run much deeper than foreign intervention, Israel, and oil.

No, it doesn't. It means that you think that 'these threats run much deeper'. Nothing I can or could not answer could possibly make a significant difference to the level of threats posed. The threats exist (or don't exist) regardless of what either of us think. If you want to convince me that a threat is real, you'll have to show that it isn't just hype generated by vested interests.

I'm interested that you write "Nations do go to war over resources, especially when those resources are essential. That's part of the reason Japan chose war". Was Japan justified in going to war for 'essential resources'? Was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor justified in consequence?

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

No, it doesn't. It means that you think that 'these threats run much deeper'. Nothing I can or could not answer could possibly make a significant difference to the level of threats posed. The threats exist (or don't exist) regardless of what either of us think. If you want to convince me that a threat is real, you'll have to show that it isn't just hype generated by vested interests.

I'm interested that you write "Nations do go to war over resources, especially when those resources are essential. That's part of the reason Japan chose war". Was Japan justified in going to war for 'essential resources'? Was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor justified in consequence?

That question has to go back one step further: Why did Japan need the resources that were being embargoed?

Well, because they were trying to expand their empire. Western powers protested their aggression by refusing to sell them the resources they needed to wage the wars they were fighting.

In turn, the Japanese decided to go south to capture the resources they needed.

So if one looks back only to the embargo, the answer would seem to be "yes", they had to go to war to get the resources needed. But going back just a few years ealier, it becomes apparent that the real cause for war was Japan's perceived "right" to unite Asia under their emperor.

Other countries were taking away their ability to wage war on their neighbors by denying them resources to do so.

Therefore they were not justified in attacking Pearl because their need for resources was mandated by their aggressive effort at expansion. They brought the embargo on themselves.

The situation also shows that embargoes and sanctions usually don't work against a determined foe. Such actions may even push them over the edge into violence.

A different question is whether or not the Japanese were "smart" in attacking Pearl. As it turned out, they "awakened a sleeping giant" and it cost them dearly.

However, if they had caught the carriers in port and followed up their attacks, it might have been years before the US could have put a large enough force at sea to challenge them. It might have been too late by then.

Besides, if they had hit the US hard enough, the US attention would have turned to defending it's own west coast. The US might not have even been motivated enough to do more than assist Australia and other nations in Japan's path.

Here they showed that to win, you actually have to beat the foe and not just wound. They wounded the US Pacific forces, but they did not beat them hard enough to make them quit.

BTW, when a foreign leader declares that destroying other nations is his goal, I tend to believe him. When he goes about acquiring the means to make that threat a reality, he totally convinces me that he is a threat. If he is just full of bluff and bluster then he is playing a dangerous game.

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

Given your endless analysis of politics as war, or potential war, between nations over finite resources, I'm beginning to wonder whether my earlier rejection on your parallels with the 1930s was unjustified. Nothing in your analysis even contemplates that US foreign policy could have been wrong. The 'sleeping giant' (that incidentally had been awake enough to impose sanctions on Japan) once aroused can stomp around the Pacific putting the world to order, without any need to consider the consequences. This reminds me of nothing so much as a Godzilla movie, where abstract monsters engage in physically-implausible combat, and a victor emerges by throwing his enemies to a painful death, or by frying them with some unlikely death-ray. Sadly, this denial of the humanity of ones opponents, and assertion that oneself possesses superhuman powers, is all too familiar to students of 20th century history. Are you actually incapable of believing, even as an abstract proposition, that US foreign policy might be mistaken?

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Given your endless analysis of politics as war, or potential war, between nations over finite resources, I'm beginning to wonder whether my earlier rejection on your parallels with the 1930s was unjustified. Nothing in your analysis even contemplates that US foreign policy could have been wrong. The 'sleeping giant' (that incidentally had been awake enough to impose sanctions on Japan) once aroused can stomp around the Pacific putting the world to order, without any need to consider the consequences. This reminds me of nothing so much as a Godzilla movie, where abstract monsters engage in physically-implausible combat, and a victor emerges by throwing his enemies to a painful death, or by frying them with some unlikely death-ray. Sadly, this denial of the humanity of ones opponents, and assertion that oneself possesses superhuman powers, is all too familiar to students of 20th century history. Are you actually incapable of believing, even as an abstract proposition, that US foreign policy might be mistaken?

Ok, so you tell me, how did the big bad US start WWII?

It would be nice if everyone in the world was peaceful and reasonable and there were no wars. Since we have been keeping track, and it's been a few thousand years, it hasn't worked out that way.

As for foreign policy, I will say that I do not think our motives have been sinister in the last half of the previous century and the first part of this one. If opposing communism was wrong in your eyes, well then I don't know what to tell you. Were poor decisions ever made? Sure. Vietnam is a good example of a questionable war, fought for the right reasons without the will to win.

If taking out a dictator that gasses his own people (using WMD's btw, just sayin'), threatens his neighbors, and gives money to terrorists, then we're guilty. A poor decision to stick around and rebuild the country? Yep, in my opinion. An even poorer decision to get involved in a ground war in Afghanistan to try to deny terrorists a base of operations? I would say yes and a bunch of former citizens of the Soviet Union would probably agree.

Don't confuse poor decisions with sinister motives.

Of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, right? lol

In WWII when we stomped (slogged is more like it), we didn't slog alone. We were but one part of a much larger effort.

Are you incapable, even in the abstract, of believing that the US is not the bad guy at every junction in recent history?

The real difference between our viewpoints is that you think war is avoidable while I think some wars are unavoidable and still others need to be fought to prevent worse evils. I also think that when a nation decides to go to war, it needs to do so with the intent and will to win. Anything short of that risks defeat, and worse, prolonging the conflict which causes even higher casualties.

So yes, war is a part of politics. Or at least it has been to this point in human history.

Splitter