Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#1 Old 12th Aug 2007 at 1:18 AM
Default Should the US attack Iran? Is Iran going to attack us?
This argument was contaminating the Bomb Mecca thread, so I am taking the liberty of cutting and pasting it here, into its own thread.

Is Iran going to attack us with nuclear weapons? Is that there plan? Must we attack Iran to stop them? Should we get into a THIRD war in the Middle East, while so many of our soldiers are at risk right next door in Iraq? What will happen to world oil prices if we do that? What if we invade Iran and find out they had no nuclear weapons? Would we be making the world safer or more dangerous?

If Davious or anybody feels that I have framed the question incorrectly, please advise and I'll change the subject. I just don't like this hijacking a different thread that I started.

Davious previous post:
Quote: Originally posted by Davious
Nobody ever thinks of that [Iran needing more energy] because Iran is the single largest source of natural gas energy in the entire world...They haven't run out of anything, nor will they run out anytime soon.

Also, If they want to build a nuclear power plant, and nothing sinister, why does Iran refuse to share its plans with the UN? If all they want is to build a power plant, why not show the plan to those countries that already have plants? Perhaps they can make their plans more streamlined, more cost efficient, etc...but, Iran refuses to share any of its plans with anyone else, despite claiming it only wants to produce cheap fuel...Whats more plausible, a country with nothing but the best of intentions refusing to share its nuclear power plans with the UN, or a country that has less than the best of intentions in mind? If their intentions are good, no harm in sharing plans, is there? However, if their plans are not good, that gives them a reason not to share them, doesn't it?

The United Nations has condemned their actions, if the world is pissed off at America for going to war in Iraq in order to enforce UN resolutions, why does nobody condemn Iran for blatantly violating UN resolutions?

Reindeer, are you seriously trying to equate nuclear weapons with a firearm? If the difference is not immediately apparent to you, allow me...

Firearms can be used, safely, without ever threatening a single human life. I can use a firearm for sport, ie, I can hunt deer, rabbit, whatever with it, and never use it against another human. You can't do that with a nuclear weapon. I don't even have to hunt with it, maybe I just want to shoot targets, like clay pigeons. Its fun, and doesn't involve shooting any living things...You can't detonate a nuclear missile and not expect to cause harm to any living creatures. You can fire a gun and not expect to. Every soldier in every army in the world is trained to use a firearm, every police officer is trained. Nobody but a select few, those who have to know, understand how to use a nuclear missile. Americans, as private citizens, are allowed to own firearms, provided they follow certain guidelines. Private citizens cannot own a nuclear missile legally, period. If I fire a gun, I do not really create any kind of environmental impact, beyond the shell hitting the ground, and some smoke from the gunpowder. If I launch a nuclear missile, the environmental impact is umm, shall we say slightly higher? If I have a firearm, I can kill one person per bullet. If I have a nuclear missile, I can take out an entire city, like say, Washington DC or Moscow, in one shot. I can cripple an entire country with one strike, or, if I wanted to cripple multiple countries, New York City, the financial capitol of the planet, could be eliminated, which would cause the global economy to descend into pure chaos. The ramifications of such an action should be blatantly obvious. I cannot cripple the entire planet with a firearm. Nuclear weapons are slightly more dangerous than firearms are.

Quote: Originally posted by barook
Maybe the government of Iran is afraid or worried that if they show the faculties to the U.N and the world. America might hit it and destroy it.

Even if Iran has the largest amount of gas reserves in the world, so what? Their economy isn't the best. They had to tighten their belts. Wouldn't it be better to have the gas free to sell to the worlds market and make money those investing it to improve oil production while the nation use nuclear energy?

Quote: Originally posted by Davious
Yeah, because the United Nations loves America so much...but, by showing the UN the blueprints, their research so far, it would indicate what they were planning on using it for. If they open up all of their research, and it shows plans for nuclear power plants, and nothing relating to developing nuclear weaponry, what cause would the USA have to destroy the facility? If Iran can display to the world a nuclear power plant, that is completely benign in nature, what motivation would America have to blow it up? If Iran has nothing to hide, fine, they can prove it. People who act like they are hiding something ARE hiding something. Iran is acting like its hiding something. By keeping everything hushhush, and secret, Iran is making other countries nervous. If they are just interested in nuclear power plants, they have nothing to hide, right? I would also point out that it's not just America that is telling Iran to stop its research, its the entire United Nations. Iran's research into nuclear technology is a violation of international law. If UN Resolutions are absolutely meaningless and unenforceable, then why bother having a UN at all?

Quote: Originally posted by Doofus
Where did I hear that before. It's sounds so familiar... Was it... ummm... The Bush administration 4 and a half years ago? Except then it was supposedly Iraq and its imaginary nuclear weapons.
Advertisement
#2 Old 12th Aug 2007 at 1:47 AM
I originally posted this response to Davious in the "Nuke Mecca" thread, but felt it was more relevant to this topic.

Quote: Originally posted by davious
Reindeer, are you seriously trying to equate nuclear weapons with a firearm? If the difference is not immediately apparent to you, allow me...

Firearms can be used, safely, without ever threatening a single human life. I can use a firearm for sport, ie, I can hunt deer, rabbit, whatever with it, and never use it against another human. You can't do that with a nuclear weapon. I don't even have to hunt with it, maybe I just want to shoot targets, like clay pigeons. Its fun, and doesn't involve shooting any living things...You can't detonate a nuclear missile and not expect to cause harm to any living creatures. You can fire a gun and not expect to. Every soldier in every army in the world is trained to use a firearm, every police officer is trained. Nobody but a select few, those who have to know, understand how to use a nuclear missile. Americans, as private citizens, are allowed to own firearms, provided they follow certain guidelines. Private citizens cannot own a nuclear missile legally, period. If I fire a gun, I do not really create any kind of environmental impact, beyond the shell hitting the ground, and some smoke from the gunpowder. If I launch a nuclear missile, the environmental impact is umm, shall we say slightly higher? If I have a firearm, I can kill one person per bullet. If I have a nuclear missile, I can take out an entire city, like say, Washington DC or Moscow, in one shot. I can cripple an entire country with one strike, or, if I wanted to cripple multiple countries, New York City, the financial capitol of the planet, could be eliminated, which would cause the global economy to descend into pure chaos. The ramifications of such an action should be blatantly obvious. I cannot cripple the entire planet with a firearm. Nuclear weapons are slightly more dangerous than firearms are.


Davious, please don't take what I'm about to say as a personal attack. Most of the time I consider what you have to say as well reasoned and intelligent, though I may not always agree with it. The reason I made the statement I did was not to make an analogy between firearms and nuclear weapons, but to try and demonstrate that statements like "If Iran would never, ever, use nuclear weapons, why do they need the technology?" is nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric for the sole purpose of justifying a war.

The rest of the points have pretty well been covered. Iran is an NPT signatory, and as long as they are developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, it is not our right to tell them otherwise. As far as WHY they want to develop the power, it's a simple cost to benefits analysis... meaning which produces a more efficient kilowatt hour? Also which is of greater benefit to them... burn their own oil/gas or sell it on the open market for a profit? With oil prices being what they are right now, especially with increasing demands from China and India, and the fact that Iran wishes to become an industrialized nation, I see the move as very logical.

Let's face it too that industrialized nations with the possible exception of this one are far less likely to engage in open hostilities than developing countries. That's a good thing. Personally I think if you really want to solve the problem of religious extremism, the best thing that could possibly be done right now is for our government to quit meddling, drop the macho Texas gunslinger crap, and let Iran develop its economy. Generally when people are well fed and have their Playstations, they are less likely to want to go to war over such nonsense.
Theorist
#3 Old 12th Aug 2007 at 2:33 AM
Reindeer, I didn't see anything remotely resembling a personal attack, so no worries...

BUUUUUUUUUT, if Iran is so concerned with being a good little NPT signatory nation, why do they insist on intentionally violating United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, which imposed sanctions on Iran for failing to cease and desist on its research? The Resolution even offered to GIVE Iran civilian nuclear technology, suitable for developing benign nuclear power plants. Iran refused. Why would they refuse someone giving them the tech they claim they are researching, unless they aren't really researching it for that purpose? Even Russia and China have condemned Iran's efforts, due to Iran's belligerent statements towards other nations. If Iran truly wishes to become more industrialized, maybe it should focus on improving relations with other industrialized countries, rather than spew hate filled rhetoric at them. Perhaps if they played nicely, other countries might play nice back, and supply them with the tools they need to industrialize faster.

Now, to answer Doc's questions...

No, Iran is not going to attack America with nuclear weapons, nor did I ever state that they would. I also never advocated a preemptive strike. In regards to the other thread, it was only under the conditions laid out by Tancredo... nuclear retaliation by America would only come AFTER a nuclear powered terrorist attack, and only after we knew who did it. Provided they never use a nuclear bomb or other such device, I never said that we had any business launching nukes at anyone. Doc, you are making it seem like I stated that we should just nuke Iran because we could, and thats not only inaccurate, but downright inflammatory. I stated multiple times in the other thread that I supported a nuclear response ONLY if we were attacked first, and I reiterate that here. No preemptive nuclear strike. Only if attacked, and then only if the attack was made using a nuclear device of some sort, and then only if we can trace who was responsible.

Even if I start from the position that Iran does intend to pursue the technology for nefarious purposes, it probably will not be in a missile form. If it was in a missile form, and they launched against Israel, which I believe is a much bigger target to Iran than America is, Iran would be wiped out before the missile ever hit Tel Aviv. A nuclear launch would be easily detectable by Israel, and they would counterattack before the missile could strike. Tehran would fare no better than Tel Aviv. Instead, if I put myself into Iran's position, and again, assuming we are developing it to use it in a hostile action, the only way to commit a nuclear attack on Israel and not be immediately destroyed would be to make smaller, dirty devices. Smuggling a nuclear device into Israel, perhaps a truck bomb, or something like that...no launch, no detection by Israel until its too late, and the Israeli government is wiped out, before they knew what happened. If I am Iran, I do not plan to be overt in my ways, I would be subtle...a missile would be too easily detected by the enemy, but, nuclear weaponry doesn't have to be designed as a missile...

But, to any terrorist out there pondering committing such an action, Japan learned the hard way...don't wake a sleeping dragon. Attack us, we will attack back, and our weapons are a hell of a lot bigger than yours are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Test Subject
#4 Old 12th Aug 2007 at 4:14 AM
Why should the U.S. attack Iran? Sure their leader is horrible but a whole bunch of countries have bad leaders and it's nor our job to remove them all. Yes we should aid the citizens there such as the women in Iran who are being treated like second class citizens in Iran but it's up to the people there to remove bad leadership.I thnk that's going to happen there.I don't think Iran will attack us but we shouldkeep an eye on them. I think Korea is a bigger threat than Iran cause the leader there is crazy.
Inventor
#5 Old 12th Aug 2007 at 6:45 AM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
But, to any terrorist out there pondering committing such an action, Japan learned the hard way...don't wake a sleeping dragon. Attack us, we will attack back, and our weapons are a hell of a lot bigger than yours are.


I came across this today and found it to be the best response/rebuttal to that statement and much better than my own words. Feel free to insert the name of your God where and when it says Tao.

When a country obtains great power,
it becomes like the sea:
all streams run downward into it.
The more powerful it grows,
the greater the need for humility.
Humility means trusting the Tao,
thus never needing to be defensive.

A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts.

If a nation is centered in the Tao,
if it nourishes its own people
and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others,
it will be a light to all nations in the world.

We have gone so wrong we can't even identify our own reflection as it stares back at us. Iran is not the problem as Iraq was not the problem.
#6 Old 12th Aug 2007 at 8:44 AM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
Reindeer, I didn't see anything remotely resembling a personal attack, so no worries...

BUUUUUUUUUT, if Iran is so concerned with being a good little NPT signatory nation, why do they insist on intentionally violating United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, which imposed sanctions on Iran for failing to cease and desist on its research? The Resolution even offered to GIVE Iran civilian nuclear technology, suitable for developing benign nuclear power plants. Iran refused. Why would they refuse someone giving them the tech they claim they are researching, unless they aren't really researching it for that purpose? Even Russia and China have condemned Iran's efforts, due to Iran's belligerent statements towards other nations. If Iran truly wishes to become more industrialized, maybe it should focus on improving relations with other industrialized countries, rather than spew hate filled rhetoric at them. Perhaps if they played nicely, other countries might play nice back, and supply them with the tools they need to industrialize faster.


Good question. I've seen other commentary on this, and I think that the answer for Iran's refusal is that the U.N. is not following it's own rules. Iran voluntarily became an NPT signatory under one set of rules, and have been abiding by those rules. Now the U.N. comes back and arbitrarily places a new set of rules on Iran because certain people fear that they may one day break the rules and develop a bomb even though there has been no evidence thus far and have stated they have no desire to build one. That essentially amounts to a breech of contract.

The U.N. also has a history of being selective in who and how they will enforce their laws. I can give examples if you wish, but I think you probably know enough of their history that I don't really need to. I think Iran also sees the U.N. and the U.S. as being terribly hypocritical in that we are telling them they can't develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes because they MIGHT someday violate the NPT when we ourselves are currently violating it with the development of these new micro-nukes. As a policy it is speculative and discriminatory. Is the rest of the planet condemning the U.S., threatening it with a war, and placing sanctions on it? Is the U.N. lifting a finger to stop the development of these new weapons? Obviously not.

I'm sure too that the lessons of North Korea haven't been lost on the Iranians either. Kim Jong Ill has been FAR more belligerent to the U.S. and it's neighbors... now they've got their bomb, and successfully got the U.S. to back down. Also look at how belligerent China has been to it's neighbors, including the U.S. They threatened to nuke Los Angeles, have been threatening to invade Taiwan, and forced down one of our reconnaissance planes amongst other things, yet in spite of all of that, we can't seem to sell them our technology or move our industries over there fast enough.

In the case of the Iranians, they still have oil itself as a weapon and pretty much everybody knows it. If we were to engage in a preemptive strike as both Israel and the White House both seem to be advocating, and the price of oil suddenly jumped up to $200/barrel as some have suggested, our economy would come to a grinding halt along with the rest of the industrialized world. That I would say is far more effective weapon than a nuke any day.
Lab Assistant
#7 Old 12th Aug 2007 at 9:12 AM
well let me just say anything about countries with nukes
if the soviet union, china,France, India,Pakistan and the uk hasn't fired them ever and the us hasn't fired any of them on over 50 years how would you be sure that Iran would be willing to fire them

and if you say that the UN isn't allowed to investigate the the power plants than what are these articles?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6923324.stm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1BB10840-B1EE-4DB1-86BF-02E7C58FEA1F.htm?FRAMELESS=true&NRNODEGUID=%7b1BB10840-B1EE-4DB1-86BF-02E7C58FEA1F%7d

P.S. let me just say one thing, ahmedinejad is democraticly elected among more than 5 candidates

edit: maybe this will shed some light on why iran needs nuclear energy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688984.stm

my dear lord, it's the ferocious black beast of Rhipsanydoridontodontodontodon, with its large black teeth that can eat 3 humans at once, mate 3 times a year, can reach an average speed of 80 miles/hour, and is 50 ft aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrggghhh

P.S. if you have seen him put this in your signature
Theorist
#8 Old 12th Aug 2007 at 4:52 PM
wargarurumon, learn how to use the edit button please, double posting is against the rules of the Debate room...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Lab Assistant
#9 Old 12th Aug 2007 at 8:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by urisStar
I came across this today and found it to be the best response/rebuttal to that statement and much better than my own words. Feel free to insert the name of your God where and when it says Tao.

When a country obtains great power,
it becomes like the sea:
all streams run downward into it.
The more powerful it grows,
the greater the need for humility.
Humility means trusting the Tao,
thus never needing to be defensive.

A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts.

If a nation is centered in the Tao,
if it nourishes its own people
and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others,
it will be a light to all nations in the world.

We have gone so wrong we can't even identify our own reflection as it stares back at us. Iran is not the problem as Iraq was not the problem.


well i couldn't say it much better than that
beautifully said

my dear lord, it's the ferocious black beast of Rhipsanydoridontodontodontodon, with its large black teeth that can eat 3 humans at once, mate 3 times a year, can reach an average speed of 80 miles/hour, and is 50 ft aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrggghhh

P.S. if you have seen him put this in your signature
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#10 Old 13th Aug 2007 at 3:09 AM
"If a nation is centered in the Tao,
if it nourishes its own people
and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others,
it will be a light to all nations in the world."


That IS well said.

You know, I don't think a lot of people on the right understand how much we (America) stand to lose from all this loose belligerent hyperventilation. Invading other countries on false pretenses, false flag operations to start wars, lying to the UN, dissing the same UN we helped create... All of this undermines our position in the world. We have been terribly blessed since the end of World War II to be one of the world's great superpowers, and a lot of that power comes not from our nukes, but from our diplomatic position in the world. For sixty years, our international foreign policy was based on realism and respect for maintaining the global status quo. We had enough sense of the danger of the rest of the world (in particular the USSR) that we would never have thought of making idle threats against other countries just because it felt good.

Are we going to lose that position? Can the rest of the world turn their backs on the US, decide that we are the loose cannons with nukes, crazy hysterical people led by corrupt people with their own agendas that manipulate our fear and a national desire for grandiosity? Could we lose all that diplomatic firepower by being jerks?

Really, why would the rest of the world, and by that, I mean in particular our allies that helped extend our global influence, why should they continue to support our foreign policy when we seem as dangerous to the world and the status quo as we claim Iran is?

This is one of the sorry side-effects of Bush's fake macho swaggering foreign policy that we may have to deal with for decades after he is gone. We may, at the end of it, I am afraid, not be the big top dog anymore. New alliances will form to counterbalance the US in the event of new global crises. Our position as the sole superpower will disintegrate. That position always depended more on the confidence of the rest of the western world in us than it did on our nukes.

But idiots will be idiots, I guess. History goes through cycles. A hundred years ago, the greatest military power on earth was the United Kingdom. "The sun never sets on Brittania," they used to say, because British colonies and influence circled the globe. That all evaporated. These things are temporal. They certainly don't last when countries take them for granted.
Lab Assistant
#11 Old 13th Aug 2007 at 12:42 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Doc Doofus

Are we going to lose that position? Can the rest of the world turn their backs on the US, decide that we are the loose cannons with nukes, crazy hysterical people led by corrupt people with their own agendas that manipulate our fear and a national desire for grandiosity? Could we lose all that diplomatic firepower by being jerks?

But idiots will be idiots, I guess. History goes through cycles. A hundred years ago, the greatest military power on earth was the United Kingdom. "The sun never sets on Brittania," they used to say, because British colonies and influence circled the globe. That all evaporated. These things are temporal. They certainly don't last when countries take them for granted.


well its true America is starting to lose power, within 20 years they will probably be merely minor powers, the signs are everywhere,( massive domestic problems, trade deficit,rise of other superpowers(Russia Brazil India and china), allies that are leaving, plunging currency,...) ,the neo-liberal(capitalistic system) will be gone and replaced by something else, hopefully by something that isn't as crazy, nationalistic, war-mongering and paranoid as this one is

but the good thing is that us Europeans will probably survive it, yay for the EU

my dear lord, it's the ferocious black beast of Rhipsanydoridontodontodontodon, with its large black teeth that can eat 3 humans at once, mate 3 times a year, can reach an average speed of 80 miles/hour, and is 50 ft aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrggghhh

P.S. if you have seen him put this in your signature
Theorist
#12 Old 13th Aug 2007 at 6:05 PM
Quote: Originally posted by wargarurumon
well its true America is starting to lose power, within 20 years they will probably be merely minor powers, the signs are everywhere,( massive domestic problems, trade deficit,rise of other superpowers(Russia Brazil India and china), allies that are leaving, plunging currency,...) ,the neo-liberal(capitalistic system) will be gone and replaced by something else, hopefully by something that isn't as crazy, nationalistic, war-mongering and paranoid as this one is

but the good thing is that us Europeans will probably survive it, yay for the EU


HAHAHAHAHAHA

oh wait, you are being serious, aren't you? I am sorry, but if you seriously think that in the next 20 years America is going to have some kind of revolution, and replace capitalism, I would march into whatever schools you went to as a kid, and slap every teacher for teaching you absolute garbage. If you really believe that America is going to trade capitalism for something else in the next 20 years, you have been VERY poorly educated in American history. Ditto for whoever got you to think that America would be a minor power in that time...Perhaps in a socialists dream would this happen, however, its simply not going to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Lab Assistant
#13 Old 13th Aug 2007 at 10:09 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
HAHAHAHAHAHA

oh wait, you are being serious, aren't you? I am sorry, but if you seriously think that in the next 20 years America is going to have some kind of revolution, and replace capitalism, I would march into whatever schools you went to as a kid, and slap every teacher for teaching you absolute garbage. If you really believe that America is going to trade capitalism for something else in the next 20 years, you have been VERY poorly educated in American history. Ditto for whoever got you to think that America would be a minor power in that time...Perhaps in a socialists dream would this happen, however, its simply not going to happen.


that's what the british probably also said about 70 years ago

and it doesn't necessarily have to be socialism you know, or require a revolution for that matter

and capitalism was a great system for us, while it lasted

my dear lord, it's the ferocious black beast of Rhipsanydoridontodontodontodon, with its large black teeth that can eat 3 humans at once, mate 3 times a year, can reach an average speed of 80 miles/hour, and is 50 ft aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrggghhh

P.S. if you have seen him put this in your signature
Test Subject
#14 Old 13th Aug 2007 at 10:43 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
HAHAHAHAHAHA

oh wait, you are being serious, aren't you? I am sorry, but if you seriously think that in the next 20 years America is going to have some kind of revolution, and replace capitalism, I would march into whatever schools you went to as a kid, and slap every teacher for teaching you absolute garbage. If you really believe that America is going to trade capitalism for something else in the next 20 years, you have been VERY poorly educated in American history. Ditto for whoever got you to think that America would be a minor power in that time...Perhaps in a socialists dream would this happen, however, its simply not going to happen.

I wouldn't get so arrogant about that.Rome was the same way with their empire and we all know what happened to them.No country including ours is immune to people turning against it.We did it during the civil war and it could happen again if we aren't careful.Let's be real here,the U.S. does have a lot of socialist programs already.
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#15 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 8:46 AM
I don't see socialism having anything to do with it. The British didn't lose their colonies and influence because of socialism. I'm not an expert on 20th century British history, but I think World War I had a lot to do with that. Perhaps somebody with a better education in British history than I can explain it better (briefly, I hope)..

I think there's a grave possibility that we COULD become a minor power in twenty years time. If we keep blundering the way we are now. Remember, we were hardly the most powerful country seventy years ago. The time of America as a big world-power began only 70 years ago, right after World War II, when the rest of the world was still shattered and nations had to align themselves with either the Soviets or the West. We did have a brief monopoly on nukes, but only for two years.

There is a real moral dimension to this, a problem of people not functioning in the real world, not taking matters seriously. When we start making idle threats against other countries, that bespeaks an enormous MORAL failure. The failure is not just one of rudeness, nor of belligerence, nor of hubris. It comes from a certain kind of playful self-deception that people (and countries) indulge in. Indulgence is the right word, I suppose. Our whole foreign policy lost its sanity and became one huge self-indulgent fantasy.

When empires collapse, they usually do so much more quickly than anybody could imagine. The bulk of the Roman Empire was lost in a few short years, sometime around 400 AD. The extended sphere of the Soviet Union collapsed in a very tight timeframe of a couple of years. Think about that last one... For sixty years, every night, the nightly news had been about whatever evil business the Soviets were up to, and then, poof, they just went away! I imagine they were less surprised by it than we all were.
#16 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 9:18 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Doc Doofus
I don't see socialism having anything to do with it. The British didn't lose their colonies and influence because of socialism. I'm not an expert on 20th century British history, but I think World War I had a lot to do with that. Perhaps somebody with a better education in British history than I can explain it better (briefly, I hope)..

I think there's a grave possibility that we COULD become a minor power in twenty years time. If we keep blundering the way we are now. Remember, we were hardly the most powerful country seventy years ago. The time of America as a big world-power began only 70 years ago, right after World War II, when the rest of the world was still shattered and nations had to align themselves with either the Soviets or the West. We did have a brief monopoly on nukes, but only for two years.

There is a real moral dimension to this, a problem of people not functioning in the real world, not taking matters seriously. When we start making idle threats against other countries, that bespeaks an enormous MORAL failure. The failure is not just one of rudeness, nor of belligerence, nor of hubris. It comes from a certain kind of playful self-deception that people (and countries) indulge in. Indulgence is the right word, I suppose. Our whole foreign policy lost its sanity and became one huge self-indulgent fantasy.

When empires collapse, they usually do so much more quickly than anybody could imagine. The bulk of the Roman Empire was lost in a few short years, sometime around 400 AD. The extended sphere of the Soviet Union collapsed in a very tight timeframe of a couple of years. Think about that last one... For sixty years, every night, the nightly news had been about whatever evil business the Soviets were up to, and then, poof, they just went away! I imagine they were less surprised by it than we all were.


I'm not an expert by any means, but my understanding is that the two world wars basically left the Brits broke, and they simply couldn't afford the resources necessary to maintain their territories any longer.
 
Back to top