vautrain

I don't see how this thread could have possibly given you any real insight, when you're constantly posting messages asserting the complete hegemony of the United States, with what I consider to be extreme hubris. As if the rest of the world needs reminding.

vautrain

It's a mistake to equate military technology with quality and superiority. I believe it would take very little in the way of technology in order to hand us our asses, given the proper strategy and tactics, and cause.

You might be interested to read the writings of William S. Lind, and his notion of fourth generation war.

http://d-n-i.net/lind/lind_archive.htm

Aladdin Sane

I'm glad you've got it figured out.
Makes me wish the more complex things were this simple.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

splck

This is my bad american thoughts.
Americans I've met (and I've met a lot...I went to an american high school) tended to be ignorant about the world around them and were willing to be spoon fed whatever the school, government, media fed them. They seem to think everybody wants to be an American or at least live there (never have, never will). They tended to be fat, loud and obnoxious (USA, USA, USA!!) with rude or no manners. They hold their forks a knives ass backwards or don't use a knife at all when cutting. It's all about americans and everyone else in the world is not important (unless it's in your interest), even your own poor citizens arn't worth shit. It's a shame so many are such right-wing anal types as you could do so much more for the good of the world. Typical American beer sucks and your drug laws are rediculous.
Harsh, I know, but the poster asked.

I'll post my good thoughts later. and yes, I have lots.

__________________
nice line eh?

alansmithee

I read up some on his concept of 4GW. It seems to be little more than guerilla war. Essentially, there's no true front to apply traditional military force. But one of the key components of it seemed to be decentralization of the military away from the state, which I seriously doubt would happen in N. Korea or China. Also, I'm personally not quite sure if I think that this qualifies as true warfare, simply because it lacks the unification that war traditionally has. There seems to be no unity of purpose, and is merely murder and terrorism for it's own sake.


Personally, I think the rest of the world DOES need reminding. The rest of the world seems to want the US to deal with them as equals, when that's just not the case. And these countries don't deal with nations they feel lower as equals, which seems fairly hypocritical. I think much of the international outrage against the US's unilateral action isn't because they dislike what the US did, but are resentful that they lack the capacity to attempt any large-scale unilateral action. Essentially, I am trying to see if the dislike of America is directed at America, or would it be directed at any country with the same disproportionate amount of power.

texxasco

Whew! I hope so!

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

vautrain

I wasn't necessarily talking about North Korea or China, I was talking about the problem of equating tehnological superiority with military superiority. But, I think any people, given the right resolve, could accomplish this type of warfare against a foreign army.

Unity of purpose is precisely what drives fourth generation war. Our military concentrates on protection of our troops and technological superiority, while fourth generation combatants chip away at our military infrastructure, personnel, and resolve, killing us a few at a time, until we are defeated. Tough to fight that. Whether or not you think it qualifies as true warfare, it eats away at our military by taking advantage of our weaknesses.

With great power also comes great responsibility. That part of the equation is missing in your argument. If the United States acts simply as a bully, as the king of the hill, then other countries will attempt to knock us off that hill, through economic, political, or military means. They will slowly chip away at our strength and our resolve, by taking advantage of our weaknesses (rather than confronting us on our strengths) until we are weakened or defeated. Exactly like fourth generation warfare.

We obviously carry the biggest stick. If we swing it around with extreme arrogance, we also make ourselves the biggest target.

alansmithee

I would dispute this somewhat, but it's probably off-topic here. I'll have to read more of Lind, though. It seems quite interesting.


The reason it's missing from my arguement is because I don't see America as Spider-man. America has it's own interests to protect. And it seems to me like any American action that works toward it's on interests primarily is instantly considered bullying. It's not so much that swinging our stick makes us a target, it's the fact that we're made a target by our status, so we need to swing the stick for survival.

cellophanedeity

(what was it that turned this humble thread into the politics board? Something in the middle just went "BOOM!" it seems...)

I don't know very many Americans, but these forums alone prove to me that there are many intelligent, well mannered people from the States, who I would be more than willing to spend an evening with. That doesn't mean that there aren't Americans that I greatly dislike, but so it goes.

I find the way that America presents itself abrasive. It seems to be a fast and disposable society in some areas, and yet also archaically slow and conservative in others. I find the government's general distaste for secularism strange and contradictory to what I thought the United States were supposed to stand for. Each time I read the news, I find the intellectual development of the country to be slowing and advancing, at war with itself.

The United States of America is our great defender, and the home and birthplace of hundreds of the worlds brilliant minds. They are a terrifying and comforting country, filled with wealth and poverty, justices and injustices.

My opinion of the United States isn't very well educated. I admit my ignorance of detailed American foreign policy and the way that Americans actually live. I've only been to the States once, and I was still a child then. I barely remember anything. I hope everything I said makes sense. If not, I can try to clarify if you're interested.

pig

Hmmm...interesting thread.

Quick question: alansmithee: objectivism. your take? your language choice is interesting in your earlier posts.

Carrying on, I would have to say that I think that one of the underlying factors in the current discussion is that Americans have an inherent sense of the frontier still built into our national conscious. This was, at one time, a place with unlimited possibility for expansion, and isolation due to limited communication and transportation. Those days are over, but we don't always act like it. We have a combination of an inherited sense of this isolationism, combined with the tremendous economic/political clout we yield. Other countries, or regions (i.e. the EU: power, non-isolated - Australia: isolated, non-power) may have one of these qualities, but not both. This combination fosters the sense of arrogance displayed by alansmithee (right or wrong), and I think it's ultimately what others dislike about americans.

I think that despite the fact that the us is the current world superpower, our claim on that power is somewhat tenuous, but we don't realize it. This is where I think your argument may have some problems, alan. We are increasingly dependent on the rest of the world, but we fail to anticipate the probability that knowledge of the surrounding world would be to our benefit in the future, if not now. Let's assume that the US, much like every other dominant civilization in the history of mankind, eventually falls. Would your position, alansmithee, be that the US should not worry about other countries until this happens? How would you react to the concept that perhaps this fall can be prevented or delayed by incorporating consideration of much of the world into our policies? Would you say that this is backhanded concession of power from the strong to the weak?

And no, I don't think Joe Schmoe the hot-dog vendor (no disrespect to hotdog vendors) or Ellen Bellen the secretary at the health club (no offense to Ellens either) should sit around worrying about just what in the fuck the Basque People are up to these days, but a slow incorporation of more international awareness, I feel, would be to our benefit.

For what it's worth, I don't think I'm the only person to see it this way. Learning a second language (might I recommend Spanish?) is increasingly becoming valued in educational circles and for job prospects, corporations are rapidly expanding to international conglomerations, people are travelling more than ever, and communication abilities are vasting taking off. Pretty soon, I'm not sure that we'll be able to differentiate, as easily, American concerns from international concerns. Like it or lump it, it's happening.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

aberkok

Tongue. ....too....strong.....can't....keep...biting...

It was clear from the outset that the moment any of us said anything bad about the U.S. that someone would take offense and chime in. Unfortunately that is not the focus of the thread, which I believe was to derive a varied impression of what non-Americans think of the place. Perhaps someone should start a thread titled - "why non-American opinions of the U.S.A. are wrong."

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

maleficent

True enough... (i posted this in my journal because it amused the heck out of me -- it also scared me) Conversation overheard in the airport. Mother talking to her daughter who was probably in her late teens. They are sharing a bag of nuts. Darling daughter asks mom what kind of nut something is. Mom says its a filbert. Mmmm filberts. They [make awesome nut butter. I digress

Mom then goes on to educate darling daughter that filberts were named after a president. Not many presidents get nuts named after them so he must have been great

I'm still thinking president filbert? She from mars, or canada ? Mom didn't disappoint. Ah yes the great mullet filbert. President. I had to board at that point but I wondered if perhaps the mullet was named after him also.

Near as I can figure, she was talking about the underrated Millard Fillmore...


the trivia buff in me remembers that fillmore's claim to fame (other than being the name of the junior high school that marcia brady went to) was that he was the only president to never be elected ( bush bashers, shut up) Filmore was the 13th president and succeeded Taylor --after he died - but filmore was never elected president in his own right.

However, I'm hoping this woman was in the minority, I'd say the US is pretty well educated, just not overly educated in affairs that don't deal with the US directly.

__________________

aberkok

mal I think Cellophanedeity was referring to her own opinion of the U.S. not being very well informed. Maybe we can think of this as a freudian slip of the ears?

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

maleficent

Cello is very sweet and very nice, I figured she was calling us stupid in a very nice way... And based on what i see of people, she wouldnt be completely wrong..

__________________

irateplatypus

if the news coverage i see overseas were my only source... then i don't think i'd like the president either.

i'm open to suggestions that balanced foreign policy coverage may be lacking within the US... but trust me, if my experience is any indicator, the foreign coverage of internal US affairs is generally very poor.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

StanT

Hmmmm, the trivia buff in me believes that Gerald Ford was never elected, as well.

Elphaba

He could swing a great pardon, though.

pocon1

nothing to say

Charlatan

I was thinking the same... also LB Johnson, Harry Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, no?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

maleficent

I meant first president... gawd you people are harsh...

__________________

Charlatan

Of course I knew you meant that... flibert was the first to have a nut named afterhim... even Canadians know that...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

gal

I think most people here (Norway) like the US, although the past years we mostly talk about the evil Bush and his henchmen. After 9/11 you had all our symphaty, and widespread support to go into Afghanistan. The Iraq war quickly changed that.

Your politics is very different from ours, and that's fair enough. Even our right-wing parties would probably pass as socialist in the US so I won't go there. One things that puzzles me though is how easy you are on politicians, especially the president. Why don't we ever see Bush, Dick or Rove on a live studio debate where they have to answer for their actions? All we see is Bush on his Texas ranch, lecturing reporters like they were kids about good guys and bad guys. We saw the same thing when Arnold toured California. The guy never faced any debates or even tough questions. No wonder we think Bush and Arnold are morons when we never see them disproving it.

Other than that, we share a lot of the views mentioned before; that Americans are loud, obnoxious and selfish, but I would add sociable and friendly as well. You guys are easy to get to know, and you're polite and helpful to strangers. At least outside New York.

alansmithee

LBJ, Truman, and TR all were elected in their later terms. And I think Ford is the only one not elected whatsoever, since he was appointed VP by Nixon. I think Fillmore was at least elected in as a VP (but I'm not sure on that).

Daniel_

Sorry - I was wrong about the handguns. I stand corrected.

I just love that old "they're gonna get them anyway" argument. Every country in the world where there is free access to guns has a gun crime problem, and every country that makes gun ownership illegal (or heavily restricted) finds that gun crime falls.

In England it was legal to have handguns until the early 20th Century. Once it was outlawed rates of gun crime started to fall. Admittedly recently gun crime has started to rise again, but you know what? Most of the illegal guns in the UK were smuggled in from countries where they were easy to buy (like the US).

I accept the constitutional right to bear arms in case a militia needs to be formed, but you know what? I think that the government could outlaw everything except bolt action 0.303" rifles and make possession of anything else an arrestable offence with a mandatory 10 year sentence.

The 303 rifle was good enough to kill millions in the world wars, and would be quite capable of setting up a militia. The good news is that it would mean that in event of civil insurrection, everyone would have the same ammo, and everyone would need the same spare parts.

Obviously, because it's hard to hide a rifle in your pants pocket, concealed weapons would be harder to use in crime.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Daniel_

Hardly a shock that some non-Americans dislike some Americans.

"They keep taking our money" - what do you think the US government (and armed forces) would do if any of your major trading partners (like China) decided to dump all of their US$ reserves? Or refused to trade with you anymore? If you thought the 30s were bad, you'd better PRAY that it never happens. The Chinese national bank PWNS the US economy. If they dumped their dollars you would see double digit inflation in the US for a generation.

English is first language for about 1/3 of the people in the world - for the same reason it's the language in the US. The clue is in the name of the language

India
Australia
Half of Africa
Canada
England
The US.

India is the worlds largest democracy, by the way. And the worlds fastest growing IT based economy. And home to a billion people.

---

TRANSLATION (from a European's perspective) = We's rich. We's powerful. We's gonna shit in your water, and fart in your air. If you disagree that we are entitled to do this we's gunna bomb your asses into the stone age.

Just remember, America, that all the goods you take for granted are made by the people that you shit on every day. One day they will tell you to fuck off, and your economy will be toast.

If you don't believe me, ask the Romans, The Mongols, The Great British Empire, The Soviets.

History does not repeat itself, but it certainly RHYMES.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

pig

I think this whole point is basically like arguing over why people use Microsoft products. Fact is, Britain conquered a shitload of the world, at the right time, people in very different parts of the world adopted at least some use of English, and now it's the international standard for science and business, because we don't do so well speaking in binary or heiroglyphics. Shit, you've got to have something.

Well, let's not forget China...I know they don't speak English, but economic growth of 9% annually for a while now. Them bitches are taking off...so many people, they've got to start hardcore regulation of births? Pretty soon we might be having to learn some Mandarin and get real good with chopsticks...

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Daniel_

Since 1855?

The US has invaded several countries - even discounting the ones where they got invites.

Who did the Swiss invade?
Or Poland?

Portugal?

Australia?

Algeria?

Tibet?

Nepal?

Etc. etc. etc.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Daniel_

Excuse me while I soil myself laughing.

England was the world's only superpower a century ago, and we got our asses kicked by all maner of "weaker" countries.

The US would win against China?

That's crazy talk, Mr Smithee. You are getting your asses kicked in Iraq by a bunch of terrorists.

You got kicked in the 'nads by Vietnam all those years ago.

There is no conceivable way that the US could win a foreign war agaist China. They can bankrupt you. They outnumber you. They don't have to worry about the government beig called to account for the massive death toll of their people.

You know why Napoleon couldn't take Russia? It was largely down to support at hme evaporating.

You know why Germany lost the first world war? At the time of the armistice not a square inch or German soil had been taken by military force. However the gvernment was collapsing because peopleno longer supported the war.

How many flag draped coffins would it take for the government to be overturned?

1,000?

10,000?

Even if you had a kill rate of 200:1 (better than Iraq, and China is stronger than Iraq), they have BILLIONS of people. To kill 5% of their population would cost you over 1,000,000 dead.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Daniel_

Totally agree.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Hardknock

No, please do. I'm curious as well to find out what foreigners think.

You won't hurt my feelings.

alansmithee

Different situation. The British Empire was spread out across the world, and were usually greatly outnumbered where they had outposts. they didn't have concentrated forces.

Wrong. We won the war, we are losing the police action. The Iraqi army was routed. And I think their body count is significantly higher than ours.

We failed our objective. But considering that war a "loss" is a bit extreme. THe body count would show us quite on the plus side. Also, the military was never authorized to go into N. Vietnam. Had we gone there, things would've been much different.

This is blatantly false. They coudn't bankrupt us. And them outnumbering us is meaningless. All that means is that they can get more chumps armed with pitchforks to die. If they were to attempt to fight anything resembling a conventional war (where there is actual identifiable armies) they would be greatly outgunned. The onlly thing in that section that would be relevant is the fact that the Chinese gov't wouldn't be called to task for death toll or war crimes. That would be their only advantage.

Napoleon didn't take Russia because he tried to go into Russia too late, so that winter hit and greatly sapped the morale and fighting ability of the French troops. Also, in Russia he was too reliant on non-native fighters.

They opened up two fronts, and their fighting ability was sapped. Also, America arrived to bolster the Allied forces. The writing was on the wall, the surrender was to conserve the inevitable loss of life that having an occupying force invade would do. In WWI, the public was actually very supportive of the war.

You assume that the entirety of their population would have to be killed. I was not assuming that the US could just causually march into China and take them over. I am saying that in an outside field, the US would win. (And I think it would be hard, but I think enough causalties could be caused in mainland china to force surrender or greatly hurt the gov't. China would have approx. zero chance of doing the same to the US because their navy isn't any where near as advanced as is the US's).

alansmithee

I do see China as the biggest threat to the US. They have taken capitalistic economic principles but applied them to a totalitarian government. The thing that I think might be their undoing is the fact that despite their growth, their population in general isn't feeling the effects. They are able to get the large growth by essentially screwing over their people in the world labor pool. I liken this attitude to the similar views that were said about Japan in the 1970-80's.

connyosis

I have nothing against america or americans, hell I have an american girlfriend and we're planning on going over there for thanksgiving. That being said, I don't like Bush and his policies in most cases, but I'm not so stupid (Unlike some of my "friends") that I'll take out my disliking for one man over an entire country.

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Daniel_

I assume no such thing Alan. I actually explicitly said that to take 5% of their population would cost too many US dead.

I accept that you have very strongly held beliefs. I have equally strongly held, diametrically opposed ones, and neither of us will convince the other, so there's no point arguing.

The one point I would still like to make is that you (perhaps accidentally) misrepresented my argument to strengthen yours - that is unfortunate and reflects badly on you.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

alansmithee

I extended your line of thinking to it's logical conclusion. I took your mentioning population to assume that you expected a conflict to only end when one side was totally wiped out. You attached no significance toward the 5% number being anything more than an arbitrary point supposedly showing how ineffective the American military would be against China. that's not the case, then I misread what you said. Although I did reread that section, and notice you exaggerated a bit. China does have BILLIONS, 1.2 BILLIONS to be exact. And using the ratio you provided (200:1), 1,000,000 would kill around 18% not 5%. I think your use of hyperbole and incorrect facts is unfortunate and reflects badly on you.

Pacifier

So all that matters is killing as much as possible?
no wonder you lost those "police actions"

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

silent_jay

The same thing happened in Vietnam and we all know what happened there.


As for what I think of the US, I've been there to play hockey quite a bit, the people were nice enough, like any other place some are nice some are assholes, some were ignorant some weren't, I can't hate the whole of the people because of a few assholes.

As for the government of the US, thats where my hatred comes into play, but this isn't about the administration so I won't comment on that.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Janey

I'll take a stab at this one. I think that it is not the 'system' of government, but the somewhat Orwellian nature that can take place during certain administrations. For example, currently there is a 'if you aren't with us, you're against us' sentiment afloat, which reminds me of Animal Farm ( by Orwell).

This was also evident during the Moral majority era, and the McCarthy era. To me, this is the scary part, that is not liked. Dissent, which is the very cornerstone of the nation, is seen as un-patriotic.

As for the system of government, it is different, but ultimately democratic, as much as any other democracy...

pig

so...ummm...are you....with us....or

AGAINST

us?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Charlatan

Aren't we all?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke