The road to WW3

[Aim64C]

The point really is to depopulize Earth. 500 million is the magic number haven't you heard? Also would help the new world order to impose the no go zones pre texted on radiation and fallout.

Even at the height of the Cold War - the world's nuclear arsenal would have been hard pressed to turn a state like Missouri into an uninhabitable wasteland. Let alone substantial portions of any continent.

Sure - you could kill off huge portions of crop lands and Cesium 131 would end up replacing potassium in plants for a while (assuming some of the more inefficient designs are used) - but that's a temporary hindrance that is only a problem for massive societies spanning entire continents. Even then - it would mostly affect cattle feed supplies and likely see a shift back toward railroads as opposed to over-land trucking (even then - over-land trucking would simply start taking less direct routes - but it would become much more expensive and more dangerous as raids on trucking in more run-down areas would be more likely).

It's amazing what happens when the human animal can no longer be complacent and survive.

Nuclear war would likely fail in doing much more than pissing people off. The idea of "mutually assured destruction" via Nuclear Weapons played off of the fear that nations could be destroyed. Politicians amped the concept up to drum up the voter base even though research being done at the time indicated that nuclear weapons were a lot more bark than actual bite. Casualties even in areas directly hit were expected to only suffer 15-30% casualties depending upon the specifics of the area and the type of weapon used.

Compared to the bio-weapon and chemical weapon research going on at the time - nuclear weapons are the worst possible weapon to use for depopulating a region or ensuring mutual destruction. Which is specifically why Russia was doggedly pursuing the production of weaponized Small Pox and other viral agents.

And why Iraq was contracting former Soviet scientists to develop those weapons even further.

Let's be real. There are no good guys and bad guys, here. Saddam was the type who was resisting Western dominance (it's hard to say that America is in this alone) - Oil for Food was directly undermining Opec (and by extension the Federal Reserve) - anyone who has done even the most basic of proper research knows that bio-weapons are far more effective than nuclear (or even chemical weapons), and far more practical for a smaller nation to develop and deploy. He just liked to buck the system and play by Saddam's rules. Which was good if you were a supporter of Saddam.

There's a bit of a disconnect between America's people and many of the processes based out of America that have secured our dominance. This will end up being the system's undoing. Americans are not generally of the imperialist mindset - nor is the military. Many of the people in the military who go to these regions of the world genuinely want to help - and genuinely try to help. They are willing to fight, bleed, and die beside these people to help them secure a future where they can decide their individual path.

These control freaks can do anything to save the value of that paper currency. We're just pawns of their chess board and like one spoiled kid that smashes and destroys the board when realizes he is losing the game, the powers that be will do whatever it takes to make the money still be money.

You are correct - somewhat.

Have you ever put much thought into why the U.S. and western powers have been so heavily targeted by the environmentalist agenda and lobbyists?

Every barrel of oil that falls out of demand in the U.S. (and the other nations who have agreed to mutually prop up our fiat currencies) is a barrel of oil that will be in demand (for U.S. currency) in other nations. I would imagine that if you trace the money and paper trail back on some of these lobbyists for the environmental legislation - you would find the Federal Reserve (and/or its stock holders) involved.

The problem is that the system is starting to get unwieldy. It is only a matter of time until the dollar begins to lose its domestic and international values. There is a growing portion of the population that no longer looks at 'secession' as being a rejection of the nation but a logical measure to preserve the State. Silver and gold backed standards are becoming more prevalent conversation topics and it is almost inconceivable that any state of the U.S. would be able to secede and manage its own fiat currency (adopting a 'hard' standard like gold, silver, and possibly bitcoin would be more likely).

Eventually - the Opec nations and companies will begin to wander from the Dollar. It may come after the next 'crash' of U.S. securities likely to follow the announcement that insurance companies will be bailed out (along with the expanded Medicaid and medicare programs).

Regardless - it will eventually happen.

But this is where our politicians aren't fully aboard with how all of this is supposed to work. They have been downsizing the military and finding just about every creative way to piss off those of us who wear the uniform (contractors get a raise to their minimum wage that means they get paid more than an E-2 in a combat zone... really?). There will probably be renewed lobbyist interest in military action when the oil producers start dumping the dollar... but there won't be much of a military left to do much about it.

And that assumes you could get the military to go along with it. I'll be honest - Iran wouldn't be a hard sell - but there would have to be some considerable instigation done.

The other fact of the matter is that the Middle East is only a portion of Opec production, and it it is beginning to get difficult to maintain control over U.S. domestic supplies without resorting to overly strong-handed legislation that would only increase tensions. Had Congress been on the same page - things would have worked out better for the Federal Reserve strategy - but the Left's obsession with unions and the continual march of business from the U.S. with few high-tech industries moving in to replace the lost manufacturing base (as should have happened were it not for a hostile environment) has destabilized the domestic economy and there is something of a revolt by which people and smaller businesses are forcing themselves into the market because they will -die- if they don't.

All of this returns to the question of whether or not the U.S. is going to be so easy to guile into another campaign of war when it runs a very high risk of exposing the reason for the war.

If all U.S. citizens were nationalistic robots who actually cared about whether or not other countries were dependent upon our dollar - perhaps we could be convinced to go pound the living daylights out of anyone and everyone who dared try to buck the system. But we aren't.

Afghanistan? Anyone who has been there or done much research into the region knows that any successful nation-building attempt there would take one hell of an effort and commitment - and the result would still probably be different from America's own beginnings simply because of the difference in culture (but you could still put a stop to their understanding of democracy being that you get to elect your favorite warlord to campaign death and destruction against 'the others'). You would have to stick around and keep the Taliban out until the country truly becomes somewhat self-sufficient with principled people in their security forces, farmers growing more than opium under Taliban duress, and a developing exploitation of Neodymium and other rare earth materials that have been shown to be embedded in the mountains (which we would be wise to buddy-up to them and have a supplier of those materials outside the reach of China - who has the current market on rare earth metals pretty much cornered).

If you're going to commit to nation building - you have to commit - you have to 'pull a Naruto' and 'never go back on your word.'

There are a lot of good hearted people (callous, but good hearted) in the military who would give you a sideways look when all of a sudden we start trying to campaign through the countries who are now trying to sell oil for something other than dollars. It would be more than just the troubled Middle East - and it would likely be that Russia starts trying to use similar methods to prop up its own currency (which as recently taken some dives).

I trust Putin to be shrewd and do what he can to strengthen Russia and, by extension, him. For the same reasons Opec decided to deal in the dollar - I imagine Putin will try to invigorate interest in Russia's currency for oil exports (particularly as they grow in regional influence with our current forces draw down while there is a whole generation aching for the 'glory of old' wishing to see Russia at the head where she used to be).

But Putin knows that he can't stand toe to toe even with a weakened U.S. He's forging some relationships with India through joint military development projects and positioning himself to reign in (or at least distract) an arrogant China before they bite off more than they can chew by picking a fight with U.S. allies in the Pacific.

China's quest for energy and their territorial disputes are going to get them into trouble. Putin would want them to be cooperative dissidents of U.S. influence rather than rampaging lunatics (which is what they are in danger of becoming... invading the Philippines? WESPAC is run by the Filipino Mafia... the whole of PACOM (and then some) would practically mutiny and smear China across the New Philippine Sea (what used to be the China Sea).

The U.S. is akin to a Red Giant swelling before its core implodes.

Putin realizes this, and is looking to try and capitalize upon it. He just has to keep China from doing something they don't yet know they will regret. Just like with Syria - he is going to position himself to be the voice of reason amongst a tantric U.S. foreign policy.

Honestly - the man is absolutely masterful when it comes to politics and command/authority. He's a totalitarian dictator - but he's a smart one who utilizes carrots and sticks excellently. He will be difficult to goad into a war. If he fights - he will do it when and how he decides to (assuming no one is stupid enough to start trying to invade Russia - that's never worked out to be a good idea).

If anything - he will do what Reagan did to help push Russia over the edge (we knew they were on thin economic ice at the time) - posture us into commitments we cannot support. He would probably love the simple irony of it - collapsing the U.S. - which has become 1980s Russia - with the same tactics employed by the Reagan administration.

In truth - I suspect that's precisely the sentiment that anchors him to his current diplomatic approach to things (a guy who is known to throw people from high rise buildings for disagreeing with him). It's the simple, conceited thrill of doing to the U.S. what it did to Russia.

And we'll play right into it, more than likely.

The thing is, however, that I doubt Russia will be able to escape the economic implosion of the dollar unscathed - it will be quite unlike any economic collapse in history (in terms of scale and breadth).

 

[Aim64C]

my country has never attacked first on any other country..if someone will try to imply war on my country then we will tell them what the true power is and what is meant by peace....iran is good country and i liked its reputation..

we will welcome ww3

Settle down, now.

You aren't Afghanistan. You're Iran (though your location says Pakistan... though I imagine you're working in the UAE, presently). The only reason we couldn't bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age was because they weren't very far from it to begin with.

Iran has the weakness of organized and centralized infrastructure. Bluntly - we'd steamroll your nation with bombers older than the petrodollar.

You don't quite comprehend what you're welcoming.

The fact is that Russia doesn't want to deal with your nation's political factions, either. They'd rather come in after we've disassembled much of your infrastructure. They'd play to the depth of their influence - allowing us to take land and sky. Putin knows better than to use the age-old human wall tactics against our forces (much of our equipment and strategies still designed around dismantling large numbers of centralized forces). He doesn't have the military strength to play those games of attrition, anyway (not when we have guided cluster munitions that can allow a single wing of fighter-bombers to wipe out a whole armored division).

He'll remind us that his military strength lies further away by using hit-and-fade strikes against garrisons in seized areas - pushing us further north where we get swallowed up by the vast terrain. Too strong to ignore - too sparse to steamroll.

The nations between Russia and the U.S. (and a possible few allies) will all be a giant fun-house of military action where the western media will be his ally.

He can't win as the aggressor - and he can't crush the U.S. - the kind of development necessary for that simply can't be supported by Russia's economy at this point. If he does end up in a situation where he has to fight - he'll have to let us feel like we 'won' - only to play hide-and-seek with him over tens of thousands of square miles across Eastern Europe and Western Asia/North Africa.

He'll probably let the Chinese offer a distraction by doing something in the Pacific that they've always wanted to do.

Your country is a cog in the machinations of both sides, at this point. What your country does could be used to trigger a war - but it's a war that you will quickly find that you have little standing in. There will be no victory in it for you, in the long run. Sure - you can become a militant and 'fight the tyrant' - but that will be after your whole world gets turned to rubble and you have little left to do with yourself.

Most of the weapons and toys your nation has are ones that the CIA and Russia gave to you because we considered them obsolete 30+ years ago.

Don't be stupid with your actions. To be quite honest - I'd prefer it if we all could drop the shenanigans and I could have a business where I sold things to you and you sold things to me, regardless of what country we are in. You can have a job doing what you like to do and I can have a job doing what I like to do - and we both see the exchanges as beneficial.

But that means we have to all stop acting like we hate each other and stop pointing guns at each others' heads. And that's hard to convince people to do - particularly with politicians always vying for control and looking for ways to convince us that we need them.

 

[GhostProject]

Interesting. So if I understood correctly:

The idea is that the Bretton Woods Agreement basically priced international resources at a standard of dollars, but had no way to enforce the agreement and prevent excess printing of dollars. The U.S later decided to print more dollars, causing devaluing of the dollar and no longer having a strong gold equivalent. The U.S then used it's huge international resources to convince oil suppliers in the middle east to accept only dollars, which basically tied the (international) dollar to oil instead of gold? The U.S could now acquire as many resources it needed because it prints the now "petrodollars?" (But 'petrodollars' are unstable as a 'world currency' because there is no long term incentive for the world to keep the dollar, because it essentially has no standard equivalent for any other country?)

What you're saying is that the dollar collapse is eminent, because the U.S's world power only lies in the fact that everyone else is forced onto their playing field of the dollar currently? This only begs the question, of why would oil selling countries accept the dollar, if it essentially gave the U.S maximum power and left everyone else forced to use an unstable resource? Your answer, is that the U.S is waging war against those that might wish to break away from the "petrodollar?" And China and Russia, who are independent of 'petrodollars,' can't have key oil suppliers and the entire middle east be forced to accept the dollar, which you hypothesize could be the cause for WW3?

I'm currently progressing a major in political science, so forgive me, I just am trying to clarify if I followed the general ideas

 

[LED ZEPPELIN]

Interesting. So if I understood correctly:

The idea is that the Bretton Woods Agreement basically priced international resources at a standard of dollars, but had no way to enforce the agreement and prevent excess printing of dollars. The U.S later decided to print more dollars, causing devaluing of the dollar and no longer having a strong gold equivalent. The U.S then used it's huge international resources to convince oil suppliers in the middle east to accept only dollars, which basically tied the (international) dollar to oil instead of gold? The U.S could now acquire as many resources it needed because it prints the now "petrodollars?" (But 'petrodollars' are unstable as a 'world currency' because there is no long term incentive for the world to keep the dollar, because it essentially has no standard equivalent for any other country?)

What you're saying is that the dollar collapse is eminent, because the U.S's world power only lies in the fact that everyone else is forced onto their playing field of the dollar currently? This only begs the question, of why would oil selling countries accept the dollar, if it essentially gave the U.S maximum power and left everyone else forced to use an unstable resource? Your answer, is that the U.S is waging war against those that might wish to break away from the "petrodollar?" And China and Russia, who are independent of 'petrodollars,' can't have key oil suppliers and the entire middle east be forced to accept the dollar, which you hypothesize could be the cause for WW3?

I'm currently progressing a major in political science, so forgive me, I just am trying to clarify if I followed the general ideas

don't feel bad about your knowledge on political science. you're making progress and you're questioning. thats the most important.
"Never discourage anyone... who continually makes progress, no matter how slow." - Plato

first of all, the petrodollar is in few words the comparisson you've made to gold. it's pretty much an international currency, but for oil only. more specifically, let's say that any country that is not auto-suficient on terms of oil, such as japan, for example, needs oil.
because the countries that export oil accept only us dollars as payment, and japan does not print dollars, but yens, it needs to get dollars somehow.

the only way to get US dollars is trading with the US. there are several ways to do this: you can ask for loans, you can give the US your country's technology or some basic commodities or resources. in return, you'll get some federal reserve paper. with that paper you pay an oil exporting country for the crude oil you'll use to run your economy.

therefore, its clear that the US can print as much as money as it wants and wouldn't have problems with this debt. thats why the US debt is 15 trillion as far as i know and its gdp is high too because of this same financial con.

but why do OPEP countries accept the deal? first: it gives them profit, because when OPEP countries working together with the US, these two entities have monopoly on crude oil and can use this advantage to sell things with more expensive tags than they should have. the US also provides the countries that make part of the petrodollar "agreement" military, financial and moral protection. ever wonder why the US foreign aid budget is the highest in the world? thats why.

but however if you disagree to sell your countrys crude oil in dollars you'll find yourself in the same situation as of iraq or libya. it will be time for your terrorist nation get democracy!

You must be registered for see images

why? because if even if one nation starts selling oil in a currency other than the us dollars there will be an automatic end to the monopoly of the united states. oil importing nations wouldn't see themselves obligated to send comodeties to the US or keep federal reserve bonds to keep their country running. it's much more cheaper and everyone would be doing it if one day an oil exporting country sells its crude oil in a currency other than the dollar and if the US sees itself unavaible to attack that country. thats why the dollar is guaranteed to crash and this is where iran and china and russia come in.


iran is one of the last indenpendent oil producers in the world which directs its sales directly to china and russia, although still only accepts dollars as payment. these 3 countries have been trying to move away from the dollar and fund a new gold based currency. if this happens, the petrodollar would automatically end and the dollar would crash.

to stop that, the US would have to invade iran and instaure a new puppet government that is pro-USA.

if that happens, china and russia will lose its main oil supplier causing these two countries to collapse, unless...

they fight.

 

[GhostProject]

don't feel bad about your knowledge on political science. you're making progress and you're questioning. thats the most important.
"Never discourage anyone... who continually makes progress, no matter how slow." - Plato

first of all, the petrodollar is in few words the comparisson you've made to gold. it's pretty much an international currency, but for oil only. more specifically, let's say that any country that is not auto-suficient on terms of oil, such as japan, for example, needs oil.
because the countries that export oil accept only us dollars as payment, and japan does not print dollars, but yens, it needs to get dollars somehow.

the only way to get US dollars is trading with the US. there are several ways to do this: you can ask for loans, you can give the US your country's technology or some basic commodities or resources. in return, you'll get some federal reserve paper. with that paper you pay an oil exporting country for the crude oil you'll use to run your economy.

therefore, its clear that the US can print as much as money as it wants and wouldn't have problems with this debt. thats why the US debt is 15 trillion as far as i know and its gdp is high too because of this same financial con.

but why do OPEP countries accept the deal? first: it gives them profit, because when OPEP countries working together with the US, these two entities have monopoly on crude oil and can use this advantage to sell things with more expensive tags than they should have. the US also provides the countries that make part of the petrodollar "agreement" military, financial and moral protection. ever wonder why the US foreign aid budget is the highest in the world? thats why.

but however if you disagree to sell your countrys crude oil in dollars you'll find yourself in the same situation as of iraq or libya. it will be time for your terrorist nation get democracy!

You must be registered for see images

why? because if even if one nation starts selling oil in a currency other than the us dollars there will be an automatic end to the monopoly of the united states. oil importing nations wouldn't see themselves obligated to send comodeties to the US or keep federal reserve bonds to keep their country running. it's much more cheaper and everyone would be doing it if one day an oil exporting country sells its crude oil in a currency other than the dollar and if the US sees itself unavaible to attack that country. thats why the dollar is guaranteed to crash and this is where iran and china and russia come in.


iran is one of the last indenpendent oil producers in the world which directs its sales directly to china and russia, although still only accepts dollars as payment. these 3 countries have been trying to move away from the dollar and fund a new gold based currency. if this happens, the petrodollar would automatically end and the dollar would crash.

to stop that, the US would have to invade iran and instaure a new puppet government that is pro-USA.

if that happens, china and russia will lose its main oil supplier causing these two countries to collapse, unless...

they fight.

Thank you for clarification and taking the time to respond. This does make a ton of sense. WW3 will always be uncertain until the catalyst starts, but this is not a bad educated prediction at all from what I'm reading. I think I'm going to look more into this for myself. I live in the U.S so it's quite interesting to view these things from a global perspective, especially as most of our media seems...extremely limited on how and what it reports, to say the least. Thank you for this post, it is very thought provoking.

 

[YowYan]

don't feel bad about your knowledge on political science. you're making progress and you're questioning. thats the most important.
"Never discourage anyone... who continually makes progress, no matter how slow." - Plato

first of all, the petrodollar is in few words the comparisson you've made to gold. it's pretty much an international currency, but for oil only. more specifically, let's say that any country that is not auto-suficient on terms of oil, such as japan, for example, needs oil.
because the countries that export oil accept only us dollars as payment, and japan does not print dollars, but yens, it needs to get dollars somehow.

the only way to get US dollars is trading with the US. there are several ways to do this: you can ask for loans, you can give the US your country's technology or some basic commodities or resources. in return, you'll get some federal reserve paper. with that paper you pay an oil exporting country for the crude oil you'll use to run your economy.

therefore, its clear that the US can print as much as money as it wants and wouldn't have problems with this debt. thats why the US debt is 15 trillion as far as i know and its gdp is high too because of this same financial con.

but why do OPEP countries accept the deal? first: it gives them profit, because when OPEP countries working together with the US, these two entities have monopoly on crude oil and can use this advantage to sell things with more expensive tags than they should have. the US also provides the countries that make part of the petrodollar "agreement" military, financial and moral protection. ever wonder why the US foreign aid budget is the highest in the world? thats why.

but however if you disagree to sell your countrys crude oil in dollars you'll find yourself in the same situation as of iraq or libya. it will be time for your terrorist nation get democracy!

You must be registered for see images

why? because if even if one nation starts selling oil in a currency other than the us dollars there will be an automatic end to the monopoly of the united states. oil importing nations wouldn't see themselves obligated to send comodeties to the US or keep federal reserve bonds to keep their country running. it's much more cheaper and everyone would be doing it if one day an oil exporting country sells its crude oil in a currency other than the dollar and if the US sees itself unavaible to attack that country. thats why the dollar is guaranteed to crash and this is where iran and china and russia come in.


iran is one of the last indenpendent oil producers in the world which directs its sales directly to china and russia, although still only accepts dollars as payment. these 3 countries have been trying to move away from the dollar and fund a new gold based currency. if this happens, the petrodollar would automatically end and the dollar would crash.

to stop that, the US would have to invade iran and instaure a new puppet government that is pro-USA.

if that happens, china and russia will lose its main oil supplier causing these two countries to collapse, unless...

they fight.

Good to see more and more people catch up to the real motivation of emperialists.

 

[Holy Cross]

I hope so

We need new inspiration for CoD maps

 

[Aim64C]

Thank you for clarification and taking the time to respond. This does make a ton of sense. WW3 will always be uncertain until the catalyst starts, but this is not a bad educated prediction at all from what I'm reading. I think I'm going to look more into this for myself. I live in the U.S so it's quite interesting to view these things from a global perspective, especially as most of our media seems...extremely limited on how and what it reports, to say the least. Thank you for this post, it is very thought provoking.

The problem that we, in America, have is a foreign and economic policy that is completely disconnected from the American people.

Americans, generally, want to help the world. We see dictators abuse their people, ethnic cleansing, revolutions, etc - and we look at our military might and say: "We've got it... and there are people suffering. Let's stand up for what is right."

Of course - most Americans don't really understand what it takes to help some of these regions. Let's say we were to have gone into Yugoslavia and 'taken them under our wing' - we host an election. Democracy, right?

But America isn't a democracy. It's a republic with democratically elected offices. We are also -supposed- to be a government with constitutional outlines of government jurisdictions and authority (it is a very limited governmental structure compared to what most of the rest of the world is used to dealing with).

So - we help them set up an election - but you would have the Serbs voting for Serbs, the Muslims voting for Muslims (or maybe throwing in behind someone they know won't slaughter them and who has mainstream support), Croats voting for Croats - and at the end of the day, whoever 'wins' gets to 'punish' the dissidents. Because, historically, that's how it goes.

It's one giant face-palm.

Sure - it may initially start out looking good - then a few years later, they write whatever laws they want (and don't give a damned about 'the other guys' when they write it - or may even single them out for tax increases) ... people start resisting, 'order is enforced,' groups feel threatened - the whole thing devolves into killing each other again.

That's sort of where we are at with Iraq. No one with any experience over there believed the control we were turning over to them was a good idea. The same with Afghanistan - where the entire concept of a nation is different than ours (they identify along tribal and township lines far more strongly).

Anyway - what it all boils down to is that nation-building is not a glamorous job suitable for the microwave mentality. It takes decades - and even then, in some areas, our 'model' of a nation simply doesn't work because most of the population exists within self-contained communities focused on basic survival. The economic benefits of uniting as a nation don't even translate to their experience (so you would, basically, have to subsidize the development of an economy that makes a 'nation' more sensible to the people).

So it is literally a sacrifice that must be made. It may turn out to have long term (as in, 40+ years) mutual benefits - but it should never be a whimsical decision to get involved in the building of war-torn nations. You have to fight beside them, you have to die beside them, and you have to pour money into developing their resources into an economy (best just to let private investment handle that - but you do have to watch to make sure they see the involvement as beneficial rather than as an exploitation).

Korea was an 'easy' nation to build. They are an industrious lot, and socially are less troubled than areas where there is more ethnic or tribal division. All we had to do was force unacceptable attrition ratios on China (it is possible, despite their assertions) and let investors do their thing.

Vietnam, on the other hand - was a nightmare. South Vietnam was not all that committed to being independent in the first place. Our refusal to commit to the war until after it had already drug on for over a decade made it very difficult to convince the people and leaders to throw their chips in with us (not to mention our handling of the puppet government over there was ... not good... putting a guy in who looks Vietnamese but is not seen as Vietnamese doesn't earn you any Brownie Points). Even then - we let the war drag on for another ten years because we weren't willing to piss off the Russians (who probably just thought it was an amusing way to keep us Americans entertained - Russia served as advisers and financers, but China actually committed troops on the ground in NVA uniforms - China was the only one with any real skin in the game).

If it was possible to 'win' that war and successfully secure South Vietnamese independence - we were going about it all the wrong way... as in - there is no way we would succeed anywhere with the approach we were using.

So... that's Nation-building. It's what Americans want to do on impulse, politicians suck at managing, and few realize what kind of commitment it requires.

While it is something of an imperial expansion - the end goal is a fully autonomous state that sets its own laws and has its own economy (though the international economy kind of interconnects everyone with holdings and investors that transcend national boundaries). So it is more of an expansion of influence and governmental philosophy than the classical concept of an empire.

But that is easily manipulated.

While I doubt a centralized conspiracy - it is the trend of our media to ignore much of the rest of the world. It doesn't pick out the various tragedies to stir up Americans' desire to be the knight in shining armor. Much of what goes on gets ignored or relegated to ads for charity. It reports on celebrities, sports, politicians, and singles out opposition to its favored agendas.

This allows politicians (and by extension, the lobbyists behind them) to focus media attention on issues of their choosing. When politicians begin talking about some conflict that lobbyists for the Federal Reserve have brought to their attention - it allows for a huge amount of compliance with a blatantly imperialist economic agenda.

There is almost always something going on somewhere that can be used to provoke America's sense of justice enough to comply with a war.

The Federal Reserve can use oil and politics to forcibly expand the use and acceptance of its bank notes.

So long as it can keep oil suppliers in stable nations content and the unstable suppliers intimidated - it is easy enough to manipulate the American populous into enforcing an imperial agenda.

Except, I believe, the Federal Reserve is losing control. Their control is not absolute - their actions not infallible. Politicians like to breed complacency and dependency. The 'progressive' social and political agenda that attempts to pay people for existing is, well, dumb. Russia tried the exact same model and failed, miserably.

The Federal Reserve knows that the whole system will implode at the rates of government spending we are seeing. While the 'petro dollar' has been able to cushion situations that should have triggered a full-blown collapse, the value of all fiat currencies is tied to the dollar and oil by extension. It's a layer of stability that resembles snow prone to an avalanche.

Oil and other energy producing resources are essential - they will be traded for goods, directly, if necessary. The dollar is a middle-man that, at any time, can become unnecessary. The problem is that other currencies are also fiat and have their relative values tied through the dollar. When the dollar 'goes' - they will over-value before collapsing in a run on their banks, as well.

It will be a hell of a spectacular show to watch play out. The dollar will evaporate, literally, in an afternoon. By the end of that week - there will probably not be a single fiat currency with any recognized value. While the electronic banking era has allowed banks to enjoy increased resistance to bank-runs, it also means that fiat currency can (and will) be 'authorized' at insane rates without so much as the cost of a printing press.

 

[asad70ful]

Settle down, now.

You aren't Afghanistan. You're Iran (though your location says Pakistan... though I imagine you're working in the UAE, presently). The only reason we couldn't bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age was because they weren't very far from it to begin with.

Iran has the weakness of organized and centralized infrastructure. Bluntly - we'd steamroll your nation with bombers older than the petrodollar.

You don't quite comprehend what you're welcoming.

The fact is that Russia doesn't want to deal with your nation's political factions, either. They'd rather come in after we've disassembled much of your infrastructure. They'd play to the depth of their influence - allowing us to take land and sky. Putin knows better than to use the age-old human wall tactics against our forces (much of our equipment and strategies still designed around dismantling large numbers of centralized forces). He doesn't have the military strength to play those games of attrition, anyway (not when we have guided cluster munitions that can allow a single wing of fighter-bombers to wipe out a whole armored division).

He'll remind us that his military strength lies further away by using hit-and-fade strikes against garrisons in seized areas - pushing us further north where we get swallowed up by the vast terrain. Too strong to ignore - too sparse to steamroll.

The nations between Russia and the U.S. (and a possible few allies) will all be a giant fun-house of military action where the western media will be his ally.

He can't win as the aggressor - and he can't crush the U.S. - the kind of development necessary for that simply can't be supported by Russia's economy at this point. If he does end up in a situation where he has to fight - he'll have to let us feel like we 'won' - only to play hide-and-seek with him over tens of thousands of square miles across Eastern Europe and Western Asia/North Africa.

He'll probably let the Chinese offer a distraction by doing something in the Pacific that they've always wanted to do.

Your country is a cog in the machinations of both sides, at this point. What your country does could be used to trigger a war - but it's a war that you will quickly find that you have little standing in. There will be no victory in it for you, in the long run. Sure - you can become a militant and 'fight the tyrant' - but that will be after your whole world gets turned to rubble and you have little left to do with yourself.

Most of the weapons and toys your nation has are ones that the CIA and Russia gave to you because we considered them obsolete 30+ years ago.

Don't be stupid with your actions. To be quite honest - I'd prefer it if we all could drop the shenanigans and I could have a business where I sold things to you and you sold things to me, regardless of what country we are in. You can have a job doing what you like to do and I can have a job doing what I like to do - and we both see the exchanges as beneficial.

But that means we have to all stop acting like we hate each other and stop pointing guns at each others' heads. And that's hard to convince people to do - particularly with politicians always vying for control and looking for ways to convince us that we need them.

Huh! Bombing, destroying a country takes more than weapons, it needs guts in soldiers and will to end what is started, it needs gut to die for your country smiling,i have seen heck of videos of Afghanistan in which NATO soldiers have superior weaponry than Talibans and still running from them, that video was put on YouTube and Facebook many times but it was removed in a day, bcz you guyz only see what your media shows you and your media shows what your government tells it,the fact is that Americans don't have that, we can see that in Vietnam,Afghanistan(made more groups of Al-Qaeda) and got it's economy down that's why leaving the middle east, the fact you guyz can't start a war or can't tolerate the next war bcz your economy is very down

We on the other hand being a country which is in war for more than 10 years, first Afghan-Russia war and then your war on terror, and other countries like India Israel trying to disassemble and destabilize our country from inside, and if can tolerate 10 years gorilla war then we can tolerate it then we can welcomeWW3 and we well welcome it, bcz we people hug death smiling

There's alot I can tell but it's no use, bcz it 'll just start a flame war,this is a anime site and I want it as anime site,

Don't take it serious, everyone has it's own point of view and love for it's own country

 

[KillerMongoose]

First off the USA spends so much on the military that no one can even come close to touching them.

Second people say that the states would suffer if suddenly china stopped trading with them. But what people fail to realize is that it is a two way streak.

As far as oil goes Canada as more than enough to supply the US with.

Any way, that is just my little input.

 

[Aim64C]

Huh! Bombing, destroying a country takes more than weapons, it needs guts in soldiers and will to end what is started, it needs gut to die for your country smiling,i have seen heck of videos of Afghanistan in which NATO soldiers have superior weaponry than Talibans and still running from them, that video was put on YouTube and Facebook many times but it was removed in a day, bcz you guyz only see what your media shows you and your media shows what your government tells it,the fact is that Americans don't have that, we can see that in Vietnam,Afghanistan(made more groups of Al-Qaeda) and got it's economy down that's why leaving the middle east, the fact you guyz can't start a war or can't tolerate the next war bcz your economy is very down

*rolls eyes*

That depends entirely upon the military objective.

Will your radars work without power? What about your water treatment and delivery systems? The price of modernization is a dependence upon modern infrastructure. Goods must be transported, power must be relayed, information must be communicated. Our country has the effort to stop every one of those dead in its tracks and absolutely destroy your infrastructure.

Then you are irrelevant, spare for AK-47 spamming our allies in the region. That's a pain in rear - but your country will have rapidly reverted back to the tribal structure that is common for survival throughout the region. That leads to cultural isolation that makes force movements manageable.

We have no interest in owning a country like Iran. If we did anything in terms of militarily - it would be to break all of their infrastructure and sink any ship providing supplies. Iran would be a subject of history after a month.

If, on the other hand, we wanted to 'liberate' a country like Iran - we can't play nearly as brutal. Power plants and relay stations are difficult to rebuild and cut off power to the people we are trying to help. We have to hit far more military targets. We also have to seize land - otherwise the army will simply point their rifles at the citizens and demand their compliance in aiding their war effort.

That means soldiers on the ground, operating patrols, and not shooting everything that -could- be a threat.

That completely changes the game, because we -don't- want to kill everything or leave a country in complete irreparable ruin.

I helped to train our soldiers leaving on deployment (a bit of an embellishment - but a true enough point). I know how vulnerable the people fulfilling our mission over there are. The defensive role is a hundred times more difficult than the offensive role. It sucks - you have to be vigilant - the guy herding his goats near your compound tells the local militant leader about what he sees, then a few mortars rain down on your head or there's a 'rock' that suddenly decided to camp itself near a bend in the road.

There are no clear enemies until they are already doing harm - and the militants adjust their strategies to capitalize on that fact. They hit with as much force as they can while they have the 'element of surprise' - then they fade away back into the civilian population.

We put up with that because there are people there (supposedly the majority) who want a better lifestyle - where problems are not always solved with suicide vests or a swarm of AK-47 fire. They may not necessarily -like- the other factions/denominations within their nation - but they don't want to see the aggression and fighting continue to destroy the potential future their sons and daughters have.

There are other people there who have made quite the living for themselves by demanding protection money and/or forcing local industry to produce products that support their agenda. Tired of seeing starving people and want to grow some more food crops? Well... your compassion is admirable - but if you've got time and resources to spend on, say, wheat - you've got time and resources to spend on more Opium. It'd be a shame if some of your business partners found out you were stealing their [potential] product and got ... upset...

Nations like Iraq and Iran united around the economic potential of oil. Then dictators came in, executed the tribal leaders in a display of power, and brought all of the cronies under their domain (or executed/exiled those who wouldn't comply). Remove that centralized dictator - and the sub-faction infighting starts up again (we saw this in Iraq very quickly with the Sunni and Shiite fiasco). This also happened to Yugoslavia after the death of Tito.

Removing Iran's centralized authoritarian government and disabling key infrastructure would cause much of the same to happen, there. There are all manner of different groups there who hate each other but have been oppressed into behaving by an authoritarian regime. Remove the power and the hungry political figures within each group will rapidly turn to old tensions and hatreds in order to secure their constituents.

All America would have to do is strike hard, once, and fade from the picture. The rest would take care of itself.

While the oil out of those regions is valuable and crucial to their economies - it isn't really enough to affect our economy, directly. Instability in their oil production would be an acceptable detriment.

Though, ultimately, it would empower AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood - who would be the ones to ultimately bring the region under their influence, completely. So it would probably not be the wisest action to simply 'break' Iran. Though our politicians are whimsical and retarded, if anything.

We on the other hand being a country which is in war for more than 10 years, first Afghan-Russia war and then your war on terror, and other countries like India Israel trying to disassemble and destabilize our country from inside, and if can tolerate 10 years gorilla war then we can tolerate it then we can welcomeWW3 and we well welcome it, bcz we people hug death smiling

That betrays a failure of perspective.

When countries decide they -want- land, rather than to simply command influence over it, the results and goals of a war are much different.

Compare how the British fought the American Revolutionary War to how the Americans later forced all of the Native Americans onto reservations.

If America, India, China, etc, decided they actually wanted to remove you from your land - it would happen.

Wars of domination are completely different from wars of elimination. Domination is a war of elimination upon leadership and the enforcement of that leadership. Saddam's Republican Guard? They know what it is like to be selected for elimination by a power like the U.S. The Native Americans? They know, too.

As I said - "Your passion is admirable."

But to believe you will be 'embracing death' to a desirable outcome is foolish. Every week the U.S. military graduates thousands of people from boot camp and into military service. We refuse more requests to re-enlist into the military than are killed from the very commands deployed into combat theaters in the middle east.

In other words - more people say: "I want to stay in the military and get shot at" than people who actually get shot in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other little squabble areas we operate in.

Then we replace that guy who wanted to stay in with a new trainee (because accountants that no company would hire got accepted into government service and advised our politicians).

So - while Afghanistan and Iraq are costing us lives, and our soldiers are not invincible - if we -really- decided we wanted to sweep the sand with y'all - it'd happen.

There's alot I can tell but it's no use, bcz it 'll just start a flame war,this is a anime site and I want it as anime site,

While I'm sure you can tell me some stories - as I said, it's a failure of perspective.

Where you show me a video of some guy who manages to shoot one of our soldiers - I see where a lack of training and focus meant he only got one. Where you see the results of passion, I see the failure of impatience, planning, and organization.

I'm -not- one of those trained with combat as a primary focus. However, with the training I received - a single squad of five of us should be able to inflict about 20 casualties on a garrison force and three of us be able to walk away having only used one magazine.

That is simply how steep the advantage is for the attacker.

The two of us that didn't make it likely broke off contact from the garrison - but the QRF managed to pursue and press on our retreat (before they broke off to avoid falling into a suspected trap).

If we were a better trained or more experienced squad, we could likely clear the garrison, depending upon the size of the force and their relative state of preparedness (every few seconds they fail to organize and respond is another casualty).

Essentially - you cheer and say: "Yay, we killed an American, they aren't as invincible as they think they are!"

We (at least those of us in the military) look and say: "Good thing this guy and the two other idiots with him didn't have much of an idea of what they were doing. That could have been bad."

We actually find some of the ingenuity used to blow us up intriguing (freezing mortars in the tube to create a time delayed mortar strike is a practical stroke of genius) - Sure, it's annoying and it's devastating to lose people you care about - but it's always interesting to see how these guys adapt to the challenge.

Don't take it serious, everyone has it's own point of view and love for it's own country

It's all opinion and sentiment until someone starts doing something based on opinion and sentiment.

It's the impassioned whims of people that create cultural rifts that last for thousands of years.

Should my nation have the power it does? It's a bit of an irrelevant and philosophical question. It does have the power to completely break countries in less time than it takes the Post Office to deliver a letter from Los Angeles to New York. American citizens need to become more aware of the power their military and government has. But, at the same time - smaller countries have to keep the difference in strength in mind when they decide to start provoking attention from American media.

Trying to stand up and be the 'big tough guy' that solves tribal disputes will get you smashed like a bug on the global arena. The city of St. Louis could square off against all of Iran in a more fair fight... but our entire country? Be very wise in your use of hostility and confrontation.

 

[GhostProject]

The problem that we, in America, have is a foreign and economic policy that is completely disconnected from the American people.

Americans, generally, want to help the world. We see dictators abuse their people, ethnic cleansing, revolutions, etc - and we look at our military might and say: "We've got it... and there are people suffering. Let's stand up for what is right."

Of course - most Americans don't really understand what it takes to help some of these regions. Let's say we were to have gone into Yugoslavia and 'taken them under our wing' - we host an election. Democracy, right?

But America isn't a democracy. It's a republic with democratically elected offices. We are also -supposed- to be a government with constitutional outlines of government jurisdictions and authority (it is a very limited governmental structure compared to what most of the rest of the world is used to dealing with).

So - we help them set up an election - but you would have the Serbs voting for Serbs, the Muslims voting for Muslims (or maybe throwing in behind someone they know won't slaughter them and who has mainstream support), Croats voting for Croats - and at the end of the day, whoever 'wins' gets to 'punish' the dissidents. Because, historically, that's how it goes.

It's one giant face-palm.

Sure - it may initially start out looking good - then a few years later, they write whatever laws they want (and don't give a damned about 'the other guys' when they write it - or may even single them out for tax increases) ... people start resisting, 'order is enforced,' groups feel threatened - the whole thing devolves into killing each other again.

That's sort of where we are at with Iraq. No one with any experience over there believed the control we were turning over to them was a good idea. The same with Afghanistan - where the entire concept of a nation is different than ours (they identify along tribal and township lines far more strongly).

Anyway - what it all boils down to is that nation-building is not a glamorous job suitable for the microwave mentality. It takes decades - and even then, in some areas, our 'model' of a nation simply doesn't work because most of the population exists within self-contained communities focused on basic survival. The economic benefits of uniting as a nation don't even translate to their experience (so you would, basically, have to subsidize the development of an economy that makes a 'nation' more sensible to the people).

So it is literally a sacrifice that must be made. It may turn out to have long term (as in, 40+ years) mutual benefits - but it should never be a whimsical decision to get involved in the building of war-torn nations. You have to fight beside them, you have to die beside them, and you have to pour money into developing their resources into an economy (best just to let private investment handle that - but you do have to watch to make sure they see the involvement as beneficial rather than as an exploitation).

Korea was an 'easy' nation to build. They are an industrious lot, and socially are less troubled than areas where there is more ethnic or tribal division. All we had to do was force unacceptable attrition ratios on China (it is possible, despite their assertions) and let investors do their thing.

Vietnam, on the other hand - was a nightmare. South Vietnam was not all that committed to being independent in the first place. Our refusal to commit to the war until after it had already drug on for over a decade made it very difficult to convince the people and leaders to throw their chips in with us (not to mention our handling of the puppet government over there was ... not good... putting a guy in who looks Vietnamese but is not seen as Vietnamese doesn't earn you any Brownie Points). Even then - we let the war drag on for another ten years because we weren't willing to piss off the Russians (who probably just thought it was an amusing way to keep us Americans entertained - Russia served as advisers and financers, but China actually committed troops on the ground in NVA uniforms - China was the only one with any real skin in the game).

If it was possible to 'win' that war and successfully secure South Vietnamese independence - we were going about it all the wrong way... as in - there is no way we would succeed anywhere with the approach we were using.

So... that's Nation-building. It's what Americans want to do on impulse, politicians suck at managing, and few realize what kind of commitment it requires.

While it is something of an imperial expansion - the end goal is a fully autonomous state that sets its own laws and has its own economy (though the international economy kind of interconnects everyone with holdings and investors that transcend national boundaries). So it is more of an expansion of influence and governmental philosophy than the classical concept of an empire.

But that is easily manipulated.

While I doubt a centralized conspiracy - it is the trend of our media to ignore much of the rest of the world. It doesn't pick out the various tragedies to stir up Americans' desire to be the knight in shining armor. Much of what goes on gets ignored or relegated to ads for charity. It reports on celebrities, sports, politicians, and singles out opposition to its favored agendas.

This allows politicians (and by extension, the lobbyists behind them) to focus media attention on issues of their choosing. When politicians begin talking about some conflict that lobbyists for the Federal Reserve have brought to their attention - it allows for a huge amount of compliance with a blatantly imperialist economic agenda.

There is almost always something going on somewhere that can be used to provoke America's sense of justice enough to comply with a war.

The Federal Reserve can use oil and politics to forcibly expand the use and acceptance of its bank notes.

So long as it can keep oil suppliers in stable nations content and the unstable suppliers intimidated - it is easy enough to manipulate the American populous into enforcing an imperial agenda.

Except, I believe, the Federal Reserve is losing control. Their control is not absolute - their actions not infallible. Politicians like to breed complacency and dependency. The 'progressive' social and political agenda that attempts to pay people for existing is, well, dumb. Russia tried the exact same model and failed, miserably.

The Federal Reserve knows that the whole system will implode at the rates of government spending we are seeing. While the 'petro dollar' has been able to cushion situations that should have triggered a full-blown collapse, the value of all fiat currencies is tied to the dollar and oil by extension. It's a layer of stability that resembles snow prone to an avalanche.

Oil and other energy producing resources are essential - they will be traded for goods, directly, if necessary. The dollar is a middle-man that, at any time, can become unnecessary. The problem is that other currencies are also fiat and have their relative values tied through the dollar. When the dollar 'goes' - they will over-value before collapsing in a run on their banks, as well.

It will be a hell of a spectacular show to watch play out. The dollar will evaporate, literally, in an afternoon. By the end of that week - there will probably not be a single fiat currency with any recognized value. While the electronic banking era has allowed banks to enjoy increased resistance to bank-runs, it also means that fiat currency can (and will) be 'authorized' at insane rates without so much as the cost of a printing press.

This was an extremely well thought out post, I thank you for taking the time to reply this to me.

As for the content, you're right about the disconnect between the people's ideals, and the foreign / economic policy of America as a country. Our involvement in "nation building" is quite redundant at this point, as like you said, there is a lot that goes into Nation Building and we don't truly invest what it takes, simply putting these nations back in the same loop as they were before.

It may be in the government's motivations at some points to actually help these war torn nations, but it would have to be through the teaching of constitutionalism and spreading the philosophy of unity through respect of a constitution and limits of government, which takes time, guidance, and resources. Without that, we are in simplest terms, only forcing pure democracy on these countries, which only ends in the oppression of the minority. Meanwhile it plays into the imperialistic economic strategy through the media, from what I understand here. At the end of the day, it seems like a hollow "dirty hands being helped by dirtier hands," without putting forth a true solution.

As an American, I say that we should be above these sort of agendas and truly put forward the honest effort to "do the right thing" in our current foreign issues. I suppose that's the disconnect you mentioned in the opening of your post.

As for the fall of the dollar, I'll have to look in to how all fiat currency survival is tied to the dollar. I get how the dollar is the middle man, but I still need to look into the finer details I suppose. I do agree though, sounds like a hell of an event when it happens. All of this speculation is interesting beyond belief alone.

 

[asad70ful]

*rolls eyes*

That depends entirely upon the military objective.

Will your radars work without power? What about your water treatment and delivery systems? The price of modernization is a dependence upon modern infrastructure. Goods must be transported, power must be relayed, information must be communicated. Our country has the effort to stop every one of those dead in its tracks and absolutely destroy your infrastructure.

Then you are irrelevant, spare for AK-47 spamming our allies in the region. That's a pain in rear - but your country will have rapidly reverted back to the tribal structure that is common for survival throughout the region. That leads to cultural isolation that makes force movements manageable.

We have no interest in owning a country like Iran. If we did anything in terms of militarily - it would be to break all of their infrastructure and sink any ship providing supplies. Iran would be a subject of history after a month.

If, on the other hand, we wanted to 'liberate' a country like Iran - we can't play nearly as brutal. Power plants and relay stations are difficult to rebuild and cut off power to the people we are trying to help. We have to hit far more military targets. We also have to seize land - otherwise the army will simply point their rifles at the citizens and demand their compliance in aiding their war effort.

That means soldiers on the ground, operating patrols, and not shooting everything that -could- be a threat.

That completely changes the game, because we -don't- want to kill everything or leave a country in complete irreparable ruin.

I helped to train our soldiers leaving on deployment (a bit of an embellishment - but a true enough point). I know how vulnerable the people fulfilling our mission over there are. The defensive role is a hundred times more difficult than the offensive role. It sucks - you have to be vigilant - the guy herding his goats near your compound tells the local militant leader about what he sees, then a few mortars rain down on your head or there's a 'rock' that suddenly decided to camp itself near a bend in the road.

There are no clear enemies until they are already doing harm - and the militants adjust their strategies to capitalize on that fact. They hit with as much force as they can while they have the 'element of surprise' - then they fade away back into the civilian population.

We put up with that because there are people there (supposedly the majority) who want a better lifestyle - where problems are not always solved with suicide vests or a swarm of AK-47 fire. They may not necessarily -like- the other factions/denominations within their nation - but they don't want to see the aggression and fighting continue to destroy the potential future their sons and daughters have.

There are other people there who have made quite the living for themselves by demanding protection money and/or forcing local industry to produce products that support their agenda. Tired of seeing starving people and want to grow some more food crops? Well... your compassion is admirable - but if you've got time and resources to spend on, say, wheat - you've got time and resources to spend on more Opium. It'd be a shame if some of your business partners found out you were stealing their [potential] product and got ... upset...

Nations like Iraq and Iran united around the economic potential of oil. Then dictators came in, executed the tribal leaders in a display of power, and brought all of the cronies under their domain (or executed/exiled those who wouldn't comply). Remove that centralized dictator - and the sub-faction infighting starts up again (we saw this in Iraq very quickly with the Sunni and Shiite fiasco). This also happened to Yugoslavia after the death of Tito.

Removing Iran's centralized authoritarian government and disabling key infrastructure would cause much of the same to happen, there. There are all manner of different groups there who hate each other but have been oppressed into behaving by an authoritarian regime. Remove the power and the hungry political figures within each group will rapidly turn to old tensions and hatreds in order to secure their constituents.

All America would have to do is strike hard, once, and fade from the picture. The rest would take care of itself.

While the oil out of those regions is valuable and crucial to their economies - it isn't really enough to affect our economy, directly. Instability in their oil production would be an acceptable detriment.

Though, ultimately, it would empower AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood - who would be the ones to ultimately bring the region under their influence, completely. So it would probably not be the wisest action to simply 'break' Iran. Though our politicians are whimsical and retarded, if anything.



That betrays a failure of perspective.

When countries decide they -want- land, rather than to simply command influence over it, the results and goals of a war are much different.

Compare how the British fought the American Revolutionary War to how the Americans later forced all of the Native Americans onto reservations.

If America, India, China, etc, decided they actually wanted to remove you from your land - it would happen.

Wars of domination are completely different from wars of elimination. Domination is a war of elimination upon leadership and the enforcement of that leadership. Saddam's Republican Guard? They know what it is like to be selected for elimination by a power like the U.S. The Native Americans? They know, too.

As I said - "Your passion is admirable."

But to believe you will be 'embracing death' to a desirable outcome is foolish. Every week the U.S. military graduates thousands of people from boot camp and into military service. We refuse more requests to re-enlist into the military than are killed from the very commands deployed into combat theaters in the middle east.

In other words - more people say: "I want to stay in the military and get shot at" than people who actually get shot in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other little squabble areas we operate in.

Then we replace that guy who wanted to stay in with a new trainee (because accountants that no company would hire got accepted into government service and advised our politicians).

So - while Afghanistan and Iraq are costing us lives, and our soldiers are not invincible - if we -really- decided we wanted to sweep the sand with y'all - it'd happen.



While I'm sure you can tell me some stories - as I said, it's a failure of perspective.

Where you show me a video of some guy who manages to shoot one of our soldiers - I see where a lack of training and focus meant he only got one. Where you see the results of passion, I see the failure of impatience, planning, and organization.

I'm -not- one of those trained with combat as a primary focus. However, with the training I received - a single squad of five of us should be able to inflict about 20 casualties on a garrison force and three of us be able to walk away having only used one magazine.

That is simply how steep the advantage is for the attacker.

The two of us that didn't make it likely broke off contact from the garrison - but the QRF managed to pursue and press on our retreat (before they broke off to avoid falling into a suspected trap).

If we were a better trained or more experienced squad, we could likely clear the garrison, depending upon the size of the force and their relative state of preparedness (every few seconds they fail to organize and respond is another casualty).

Essentially - you cheer and say: "Yay, we killed an American, they aren't as invincible as they think they are!"

We (at least those of us in the military) look and say: "Good thing this guy and the two other idiots with him didn't have much of an idea of what they were doing. That could have been bad."

We actually find some of the ingenuity used to blow us up intriguing (freezing mortars in the tube to create a time delayed mortar strike is a practical stroke of genius) - Sure, it's annoying and it's devastating to lose people you care about - but it's always interesting to see how these guys adapt to the challenge.



It's all opinion and sentiment until someone starts doing something based on opinion and sentiment.

It's the impassioned whims of people that create cultural rifts that last for thousands of years.

Should my nation have the power it does? It's a bit of an irrelevant and philosophical question. It does have the power to completely break countries in less time than it takes the Post Office to deliver a letter from Los Angeles to New York. American citizens need to become more aware of the power their military and government has. But, at the same time - smaller countries have to keep the difference in strength in mind when they decide to start provoking attention from American media.

Trying to stand up and be the 'big tough guy' that solves tribal disputes will get you smashed like a bug on the global arena. The city of St. Louis could square off against all of Iran in a more fair fight... but our entire country? Be very wise in your use of hostility and confrontation.

Nice.....
Bro..the energy problem doesn't effect our military, as for the transporting goods and ammo then it can be done nicely and easily, don't forget we fought 2 wars with India won those wars, we against country which is alot bigger than us, we don't rely on Ak47 for your info....

As for America India China, wants us out well you can't, and America, Israel and India wants us out, India is doing gorilla war with us since Our country came into being.....As you know that Talibans have more than 10 groups now...bcz of India and Israel's propaganda....we have shown pics and videos showing the Talibans killed by our army have tattoos and are white people's (westerns)....just having a beard training them Urdu pushtu and other languages...And you got Talibans which are not Talibans..... now India is trying to separate balochistAn from us like India separated BANGLADESH from us,I can prove you that India did that and doing it from the day my country came into being

As for removing the leadership which is not good for humanity and a country, first who gave you the America the authority to going in one's home and removing the leader ship it's like that a neighbor who is rich and interferes in a poor or moderates home issues that's not good........second if you even do this then why you don't free Kashmir from India and ask there people what they want, why don't America free Palestine from Israel? Or pass a bill that settles the issue of Palestine.... .

As for videos I told you the videos was removed from YouTube and Facebook....And we have heard and saw heck of stories documentaries showing that in actuality America lost the war on terror in Afghanistan....you only see what your government wants you to see.....your western media totally in U.S.and Europe's hand.....Our media or media personnels and also selling themselves in America's hand....

Your passion is also admirable bro as I said "everyone lined it's country and tries to protect it at all costs and in every ground"....

 

[Aim64C]

Nice.....
Bro..the energy problem doesn't effect our military, as for the transporting goods and ammo then it can be done nicely and easily, don't forget we fought 2 wars with India won those wars, we against country which is alot bigger than us, we don't rely on Ak47 for your info....

Actually - your country was funded in many of its wars directly by U.S. and Russian interests at various intervals.

Not that it really matters. What you have fought isn't the type of war I am talking about. We have the ability to pick any building of yours and eliminate it with the push of a button.

It's a variation on the old "siege" tactics that go back to the middle ages. We have the ability to sit around your borders with relative immunity from attacks. It'd be a political fiasco - but we have the military capability. Then we can watch and hammer anything you organize around with precision (or area, if we so choose) munitions.

Troop formations would be hit with area-effect weapons from aircraft too high for you to shoot down or launchers too far away for you to do anything about.

Your air force wouldn't survive the first week - so it isn't even worth considering. The F-14As are about as threatening as it gets in the air superiority arena. While it's possible a few good idea fairies got a hold of some newer equipment and retrofitted it into those old tomcats - it would be a curiosity that analysts would be noting in the radar return and RWR logs of our aircraft returning from shooting them down. (A shame, honestly - the Tomcat is my favorite aircraft to have entered service; I'd absolutely love to purchase and overhaul a surplus model into the "Tomcat 21" proposal - or similar).

To give you an idea of what our wars look like:

[video=youtube;0acJ3xyhaJo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0acJ3xyhaJo[/video]

Basically - we can punch through your air defenses like Kakashi through Rin.

Then any and every building we decide to make disappear does just that.

As for America India China, wants us out well you can't, and America, Israel and India wants us out, India is doing gorilla war with us since Our country came into being.....As you know that Talibans have more than 10 groups now...bcz of India and Israel's propaganda....we have shown pics and videos showing the Talibans killed by our army have tattoos and are white people's (westerns)....just having a beard training them Urdu pushtu and other languages...And you got Talibans which are not Talibans..... now India is trying to separate balochistAn from us like India separated BANGLADESH from us,I can prove you that India did that and doing it from the day my country came into being

The Taliban is akin to a mafia. Many of the countries in the region fund them for various reasons or another. Some are partners, some are being extorted.

As the political landscape of Iran changes - so does the relationship with the Taliban and/or AQ.

But what you speak of is hardly the type of war the U.S. wages. I know that sounds like I am talking down to you - but, seriously - you have very little concept of what our country is able to do on a whim.

As for removing the leadership which is not good for humanity and a country, first who gave you the America the authority to going in one's home and removing the leader ship it's like that a neighbor who is rich and interferes in a poor or moderates home issues that's not good........second if you even do this then why you don't free Kashmir from India and ask there people what they want, why don't America free Palestine from Israel? Or pass a bill that settles the issue of Palestine.... .

The question isn't who gave us authority. No one gives anyone the authority to do anything they do. Individual and collective capability give individuals and nations the power to assume authority. Whether we have the right or authority to make a decision is irrelevant as to whether or not we can go through with that decision.

It is why I continually harp on American citizens that we need to pay very close attention to our nation's foreign policy (or lack thereof, in this case). Our national government does many things that are very disconnected from our population's desires - and very little of what our population hears about the outside world is a comprehensive and honest picture of what is going on.

There is a saying in my country: "The squeaky wheel gets the oil." Americans concern themselves with Iran's actions because Iran's leadership, at times, has come out with threats toward the U.S. and/or European nations. It's a hot-button issue for our media - when the media reports on Iran, they get more people to stick around to hear what is going on (so their advertising spaces remain valuable).

What you have to understand is that Iran is seen by many in my country as antagonistic. It funds groups that have initiated suicide bombings on various groups/nations in the region, has consistently pursued the development of nuclear weapons (the two of those trends tend to concern many people - delivery trucks going nuclear in shopping mall parking lots would rather be avoided), and your region of the globe is considered somewhat backwards and 'stuck' in an archaic way of thinking - preoccupied with thousand-year-old blood feuds and deeply rooted ethnicism that makes negotiations regarding Israel impossible so long as the state of Israel exists.

Then you have the fact that "Death To America" is, apparently, akin to our National Anthem - prompting controversy over suggestions that it -might- not be the best slogan:

You must be registered for see links

So... when you stand up and say: "We welcome war"

It doesn't really get received the same way. Americans do not share the same patriotism for your country or the knowledge of its struggles. They see it as a pesky bug.

As for videos I told you the videos was removed from YouTube and Facebook....And we have heard and saw heck of stories documentaries showing that in actuality America lost the war on terror in Afghanistan....you only see what your government wants you to see.....your western media totally in U.S.and Europe's hand.....Our media or media personnels and also selling themselves in America's hand....

You didn't really read anything I said. Or if you did, you failed to understand it.

The reason we 'lost' the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has absolutely nothing to do with military capability and everything to do with politics.

AQ wasn't dumb. They went and resided in nearby Pakistan and other compliant regions - regions of the planet where they don't even know what country they are in, or care. We stop at imaginary lines in the sand (called borders) and don't allow our military to pursue Taliban and AQ where they hide.

The people and leadership of Afghanistan and Iraq know this. Not to mention the difficulty in actually communicating the concept of small government (not that our political leadership understands small government or the importance of integrity - most of them are corrupt and twisted to the core... and they think they are going to teach another group of people from a culture of cyclic oppression how to run a democracy....). The result is a train wreck where groups vote in a totalitarian leadership with the belief they will settle some age-old dispute - which results immediate oppression and distrust in the system. Then America says: "looks like you guys have it - we'll leave you to defend your population now" - and AQ crawls out of the rocks to reclaim its old stomping grounds.

That's why we 'lost.'

Or 'are losing.' It's not entirely past-tense. It would just take a reversal of our current politics to go back in and do what needs to be done (and that will be even more difficult because of the damage to our reputation by leaving things in the state we have).

In all honesty - it would have happened even without the militants. It would have happened -faster- without the militants. If AQ had simply hid without fighting - we'd have assumed all was well and left very quickly (politically, at least - our military leaders would have known better - but try telling a politician that he doesn't know something...)

The loss and failure was entirely due to policy on our part - not resounding success on the part of the militants.

Your passion is also admirable bro as I said "everyone lined it's country and tries to protect it at all costs and in every ground"....

You misunderstand, entirely, what I am saying.

I'm entirely against almost every course my country is taking, currently. I'm actually becoming very pro-secession (where our states resume full autonomous authority and reject our nation's authority over them). I don't think we need to be getting involved in many of these conflicts overseas - and the few that we do should be very carefully selected for their odds of being a long-term success (changing your region's entire culture to be compatible with small government ideologies would take a generation or more - it wouldn't have been worth it).

But what I do believe in is to neutralize threats. I would have no problem with us knocking a nation back into the stone age for being a threat to us and our allies. But I don't play the nation building "nice guy" strategy where we try not to harm people.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Our arsenal of these weapons is enough to stop China dead in its tracks. I'd expand that arsenal five fold - and not bother myself with concerns about the civilian population of a targeted country - send all of the pilots who need their flight hours and have all munitions coming up on expiration or re-certification to be deposited into that nation on whatever seems necessary.

Wiping out a nation could be rolled into the training costs of a military of our size without much additional overhead.

But what is important for you to understand is that our country has those kinds of capabilities. When you say: "We welcome war" - you really have no clue of the scale you are inviting and of how effortlessly we can destroy the accomplishments of your nation.

To put it into context - one of our aircraft carriers can easily match your nation's entire military (and they really couldn't give two shits about an insurgency or militants - you're not going to swim ten miles out to sea and do something about it - and CIWS is brutal on fishing boats... had one lock on to a whale by accident one time - it was a mess). We have ten, are building three more as we speak, and that's not even touching our air force, army, and marines.

There will probably be a push to go to war with Iran before too much longer - for a number of reasons (some of them I empathize with, others of which I do not).

You need to realize that what you think of as "My nation has been at war" is, quite bluntly, quaint by comparison to what you are egging on. The nation you know and understand as Iran, today simply will not survive a war with the U.S. While we will probably attempt to 'nation build' again (which will fail because we are a collapsing nation where our politicians are dysfunctional), and there will likely be a war against insurgencies (which you will find it is a little harder to 'stick it to America' than you think it is - particularly since we have implemented drone overwatch systems that will fire missiles into groups of militants prepping an attack or committing to an attack) - when we leave, it will not be capable of being a self-sufficient, independent nation (and will likely fall under the control of AQ).

You can blame 'the media' all you want to. Our President does the same thing to try and excuse his failings. The fact is that your region of the world is a deeply troubled one that has many ideological perspectives that are difficult for those in the European, American, and many of the Asian nations to understand.

A foreign friend of mine commented on how our culture (particularly in America) is considerably different from many other regions of the world. We have the capacity (and even the tendency) to blame ourselves. The people in our country who support yours implicitly (there are some of those) honestly don't know a thing about your nation (and, to be blunt, really don't care). They simply use your nation as a means of blaming and disliking our own - which is as deep as they get into the debate.

We blame ourselves, and we expect that we (as a people and as a nation) are to solve the problem. The current hot-issue items are all regarding an internal conflict in the U.S. regarding the course of government. People in previous generations have been complacent and allowed politicians to make them promises and went along with their decisions. After several notable incidents - there is growing concern that our government has gone well beyond the limits that were laid out for it - and plans to take back the power that the politicians have concentrated in their offices.

That mentality is notably absent from a number of other cultures. It's always the fault of some other group. It's easy for war-lords and politicians (war lords without swords) to hijack the minds and efforts of people. India is to blame. Pakistan is to blame. China is to blame. Israel. The list goes on.

While those things may certainly be problems and challenges - at the end of the day a country must accept responsibility for its own actions. Our nation is on the verge of collapse and has been running amok around the world because the people have not been taking responsibility for their government. In your region's case - it is an entire culture that has been born, raised, and buried on ethnic rivalries and conquests.

Are you beginning to see where I am coming from?

People are not the problem. Politics is the problem. Politics convinces us that we can blame our problems on someone else rather than look inwardly for ways to improve from the lessons of experience. People, generally, want to simply live and be able to find a fulfilling way of being productive.

Your whole region of the world is able to do what America originally accomplished (and our country will soon have no choice but to return to those ways - though whether or not it happens amidst a war or through a more orderly common agreement is yet to be seen). The shift in focus is not that you have power to throw out other nations - but that you have power over your own nation. And when you have power over your own nation - that means you have a responsibility to your relations with other nations.

Some you will almost always agree with. Most, you will have relatively neutral relationships with. A few, you will find yourself at odds with.

You say that you have pride in your country and will defend it. But do you really know what your country is? Is your country the same thing as what your government says your country is?

These are questions Americans are beginning to re-discover. The answer is not as important as the asking of the question and the realization that we, as the people of a nation, are the source of its power and identity - and we should not let others take its name and deface it.

It's a change of mentality that won't come easy - but it comes with great rewards.

But it does mean that you have to let old feuds drop and focus more on self-improvement than on self-victimization. That doesn't mean that other nations and peoples have not wronged you - but that you can't let that be your focus or motivation.

 

[Wabbit]

Nice.....
Bro..the energy problem doesn't effect our military, as for the transporting goods and ammo then it can be done nicely and easily, don't forget we fought 2 wars with India won those wars, we against country which is alot bigger than us, we don't rely on Ak47 for your info....

As for America India China, wants us out well you can't, and America, Israel and India wants us out, India is doing gorilla war with us since Our country came into being.....As you know that Talibans have more than 10 groups now...bcz of India and Israel's propaganda....we have shown pics and videos showing the Talibans killed by our army have tattoos and are white people's (westerns)....just having a beard training them Urdu pushtu and other languages...And you got Talibans which are not Talibans..... now India is trying to separate balochistAn from us like India separated BANGLADESH from us,I can prove you that India did that and doing it from the day my country came into being

As for removing the leadership which is not good for humanity and a country, first who gave you the America the authority to going in one's home and removing the leader ship it's like that a neighbor who is rich and interferes in a poor or moderates home issues that's not good........second if you even do this then why you don't free Kashmir from India and ask there people what they want, why don't America free Palestine from Israel? Or pass a bill that settles the issue of Palestine.... .

As for videos I told you the videos was removed from YouTube and Facebook....And we have heard and saw heck of stories documentaries showing that in actuality America lost the war on terror in Afghanistan....you only see what your government wants you to see.....your western media totally in U.S.and Europe's hand.....Our media or media personnels and also selling themselves in America's hand....

Your passion is also admirable bro as I said "everyone lined it's country and tries to protect it at all costs and in every ground"....

Can you clarify these?I think your schools are teaching you wrong things.

You must be registered for see links

can you clarify why you want to go against US even though you were a stratergic ally of the US and you get a huge stratergic advantage when combined with Chinese friendship

 

[asad70ful]

Can you clarify these?I think your schools are teaching you wrong things.

You must be registered for see links

can you clarify why you want to go against US even though you were a stratergic ally of the US and you get a huge stratergic advantage when combined with Chinese friendship

First of all the Wikipedia isn't true at all times, even on anime like naruto it gives wrong info sometime and this is a really serous matter.

As for funds from china and America to us, well India gets the double from it, and a country alot bigger than us have more spend more and get more.

And we are not get wrong teachings, in both wars we occupied a huge area of India, but after the war ended through United nations we have then back, in 1965 the Indians general's said that we will drink tea evening in Lahore(our capital of province) but instead we occupied some there cities, in Lahore museum we have cars of those general's who left them and ran for their lives.....

After the war of 1987 almost every soldier of Indian military was on border, in the mean time there was a PAKISTAN-India cricket match in Delhi, our reigning president(zia ul haq) went India to watch the match, both presidents watched the match, at the end day when both presidents on airport our president whispered in his ears "you might able to defeat us and kill all Muslims in PAKISTAN but there are millions more, but if we defeated you then make sure that there won't any Buddhist or Hindu left this planet"
After that Indian president called it's forces back, and this thing was told by the Assistant or Secretary of Indian president

You must be registered for see links

 

[Namikun]

I don't agree....

 

[asad70ful]

Actually - your country was funded in many of its wars directly by U.S. and Russian interests at various intervals.

Not that it really matters. What you have fought isn't the type of war I am talking about. We have the ability to pick any building of yours and eliminate it with the push of a button.

It's a variation on the old "siege" tactics that go back to the middle ages. We have the ability to sit around your borders with relative immunity from attacks. It'd be a political fiasco - but we have the military capability. Then we can watch and hammer anything you organize around with precision (or area, if we so choose) munitions.

Troop formations would be hit with area-effect weapons from aircraft too high for you to shoot down or launchers too far away for you to do anything about.

Your air force wouldn't survive the first week - so it isn't even worth considering. The F-14As are about as threatening as it gets in the air superiority arena. While it's possible a few good idea fairies got a hold of some newer equipment and retrofitted it into those old tomcats - it would be a curiosity that analysts would be noting in the radar return and RWR logs of our aircraft returning from shooting them down. (A shame, honestly - the Tomcat is my favorite aircraft to have entered service; I'd absolutely love to purchase and overhaul a surplus model into the "Tomcat 21" proposal - or similar).

To give you an idea of what our wars look like:

[video=youtube;0acJ3xyhaJo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0acJ3xyhaJo[/video]

Basically - we can punch through your air defenses like Kakashi through Rin.

Then any and every building we decide to make disappear does just that.



The Taliban is akin to a mafia. Many of the countries in the region fund them for various reasons or another. Some are partners, some are being extorted.

As the political landscape of Iran changes - so does the relationship with the Taliban and/or AQ.

But what you speak of is hardly the type of war the U.S. wages. I know that sounds like I am talking down to you - but, seriously - you have very little concept of what our country is able to do on a whim.



The question isn't who gave us authority. No one gives anyone the authority to do anything they do. Individual and collective capability give individuals and nations the power to assume authority. Whether we have the right or authority to make a decision is irrelevant as to whether or not we can go through with that decision.

It is why I continually harp on American citizens that we need to pay very close attention to our nation's foreign policy (or lack thereof, in this case). Our national government does many things that are very disconnected from our population's desires - and very little of what our population hears about the outside world is a comprehensive and honest picture of what is going on.

There is a saying in my country: "The squeaky wheel gets the oil." Americans concern themselves with Iran's actions because Iran's leadership, at times, has come out with threats toward the U.S. and/or European nations. It's a hot-button issue for our media - when the media reports on Iran, they get more people to stick around to hear what is going on (so their advertising spaces remain valuable).

What you have to understand is that Iran is seen by many in my country as antagonistic. It funds groups that have initiated suicide bombings on various groups/nations in the region, has consistently pursued the development of nuclear weapons (the two of those trends tend to concern many people - delivery trucks going nuclear in shopping mall parking lots would rather be avoided), and your region of the globe is considered somewhat backwards and 'stuck' in an archaic way of thinking - preoccupied with thousand-year-old blood feuds and deeply rooted ethnicism that makes negotiations regarding Israel impossible so long as the state of Israel exists.

Then you have the fact that "Death To America" is, apparently, akin to our National Anthem - prompting controversy over suggestions that it -might- not be the best slogan:

You must be registered for see links

So... when you stand up and say: "We welcome war"

It doesn't really get received the same way. Americans do not share the same patriotism for your country or the knowledge of its struggles. They see it as a pesky bug.



You didn't really read anything I said. Or if you did, you failed to understand it.

The reason we 'lost' the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has absolutely nothing to do with military capability and everything to do with politics.

AQ wasn't dumb. They went and resided in nearby Pakistan and other compliant regions - regions of the planet where they don't even know what country they are in, or care. We stop at imaginary lines in the sand (called borders) and don't allow our military to pursue Taliban and AQ where they hide.

The people and leadership of Afghanistan and Iraq know this. Not to mention the difficulty in actually communicating the concept of small government (not that our political leadership understands small government or the importance of integrity - most of them are corrupt and twisted to the core... and they think they are going to teach another group of people from a culture of cyclic oppression how to run a democracy....). The result is a train wreck where groups vote in a totalitarian leadership with the belief they will settle some age-old dispute - which results immediate oppression and distrust in the system. Then America says: "looks like you guys have it - we'll leave you to defend your population now" - and AQ crawls out of the rocks to reclaim its old stomping grounds.

That's why we 'lost.'

Or 'are losing.' It's not entirely past-tense. It would just take a reversal of our current politics to go back in and do what needs to be done (and that will be even more difficult because of the damage to our reputation by leaving things in the state we have).

In all honesty - it would have happened even without the militants. It would have happened -faster- without the militants. If AQ had simply hid without fighting - we'd have assumed all was well and left very quickly (politically, at least - our military leaders would have known better - but try telling a politician that he doesn't know something...)

The loss and failure was entirely due to policy on our part - not resounding success on the part of the militants.



You misunderstand, entirely, what I am saying.

I'm entirely against almost every course my country is taking, currently. I'm actually becoming very pro-secession (where our states resume full autonomous authority and reject our nation's authority over them). I don't think we need to be getting involved in many of these conflicts overseas - and the few that we do should be very carefully selected for their odds of being a long-term success (changing your region's entire culture to be compatible with small government ideologies would take a generation or more - it wouldn't have been worth it).

But what I do believe in is to neutralize threats. I would have no problem with us knocking a nation back into the stone age for being a threat to us and our allies. But I don't play the nation building "nice guy" strategy where we try not to harm people.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Our arsenal of these weapons is enough to stop China dead in its tracks. I'd expand that arsenal five fold - and not bother myself with concerns about the civilian population of a targeted country - send all of the pilots who need their flight hours and have all munitions coming up on expiration or re-certification to be deposited into that nation on whatever seems necessary.

Wiping out a nation could be rolled into the training costs of a military of our size without much additional overhead.

But what is important for you to understand is that our country has those kinds of capabilities. When you say: "We welcome war" - you really have no clue of the scale you are inviting and of how effortlessly we can destroy the accomplishments of your nation.

To put it into context - one of our aircraft carriers can easily match your nation's entire military (and they really couldn't give two shits about an insurgency or militants - you're not going to swim ten miles out to sea and do something about it - and CIWS is brutal on fishing boats... had one lock on to a whale by accident one time - it was a mess). We have ten, are building three more as we speak, and that's not even touching our air force, army, and marines.

There will probably be a push to go to war with Iran before too much longer - for a number of reasons (some of them I empathize with, others of which I do not).

You need to realize that what you think of as "My nation has been at war" is, quite bluntly, quaint by comparison to what you are egging on. The nation you know and understand as Iran, today simply will not survive a war with the U.S. While we will probably attempt to 'nation build' again (which will fail because we are a collapsing nation where our politicians are dysfunctional), and there will likely be a war against insurgencies (which you will find it is a little harder to 'stick it to America' than you think it is - particularly since we have implemented drone overwatch systems that will fire missiles into groups of militants prepping an attack or committing to an attack) - when we leave, it will not be capable of being a self-sufficient, independent nation (and will likely fall under the control of AQ).

You can blame 'the media' all you want to. Our President does the same thing to try and excuse his failings. The fact is that your region of the world is a deeply troubled one that has many ideological perspectives that are difficult for those in the European, American, and many of the Asian nations to understand.

A foreign friend of mine commented on how our culture (particularly in America) is considerably different from many other regions of the world. We have the capacity (and even the tendency) to blame ourselves. The people in our country who support yours implicitly (there are some of those) honestly don't know a thing about your nation (and, to be blunt, really don't care). They simply use your nation as a means of blaming and disliking our own - which is as deep as they get into the debate.

We blame ourselves, and we expect that we (as a people and as a nation) are to solve the problem. The current hot-issue items are all regarding an internal conflict in the U.S. regarding the course of government. People in previous generations have been complacent and allowed politicians to make them promises and went along with their decisions. After several notable incidents - there is growing concern that our government has gone well beyond the limits that were laid out for it - and plans to take back the power that the politicians have concentrated in their offices.

That mentality is notably absent from a number of other cultures. It's always the fault of some other group. It's easy for war-lords and politicians (war lords without swords) to hijack the minds and efforts of people. India is to blame. Pakistan is to blame. China is to blame. Israel. The list goes on.

While those things may certainly be problems and challenges - at the end of the day a country must accept responsibility for its own actions. Our nation is on the verge of collapse and has been running amok around the world because the people have not been taking responsibility for their government. In your region's case - it is an entire culture that has been born, raised, and buried on ethnic rivalries and conquests.

Are you beginning to see where I am coming from?

People are not the problem. Politics is the problem. Politics convinces us that we can blame our problems on someone else rather than look inwardly for ways to improve from the lessons of experience. People, generally, want to simply live and be able to find a fulfilling way of being productive.

Your whole region of the world is able to do what America originally accomplished (and our country will soon have no choice but to return to those ways - though whether or not it happens amidst a war or through a more orderly common agreement is yet to be seen). The shift in focus is not that you have power to throw out other nations - but that you have power over your own nation. And when you have power over your own nation - that means you have a responsibility to your relations with other nations.

Some you will almost always agree with. Most, you will have relatively neutral relationships with. A few, you will find yourself at odds with.

You say that you have pride in your country and will defend it. But do you really know what your country is? Is your country the same thing as what your government says your country is?

These are questions Americans are beginning to re-discover. The answer is not as important as the asking of the question and the realization that we, as the people of a nation, are the source of its power and identity - and we should not let others take its name and deface it.

It's a change of mentality that won't come easy - but it comes with great rewards.

But it does mean that you have to let old feuds drop and focus more on self-improvement than on self-victimization. That doesn't mean that other nations and peoples have not wronged you - but that you can't let that be your focus or motivation.

I agree war these days are changed.....but it's not that easy what you think ok, these thing you telling us, that hitting a building or all that aircraft's, why didn't use on AQ/Talibans? Hitting there nests, they should have been dead long ago bro......winning a war isn't that easy, it takes alot more than just tech and weapons......And I understood everything you said, and i know that you guyz got tech and weapons but it doesn't man you won the war

 

[asad70ful]

I don't agree....

You don't agree "what???"

Sorry for triple post.....on my mobile so can't do multi reply

 

[Wabbit]

First of all the Wikipedia isn't true at all times, even on anime like naruto it gives wrong info sometime and this is a really serous matter.

As for funds from china and America to us, well India gets the double from it, and a country alot bigger than us have more spend more and get more.

And we are not get wrong teachings, in both wars we occupied a huge area of India, but after the war ended through United nations we have then back, in 1965 the Indians general's said that we will drink tea evening in Lahore(our capital of province) but instead we occupied some there cities, in Lahore museum we have cars of those general's who left them and ran for their lives.....

After the war of 1971(3 years later I think) almost every soldier of Indian military was on border, in the mean time there was a PAKISTAN-India cricket match in Delhi, our reigning president(zia ul haq) went India to watch the match, both presidents watched the match, at the end day when both presidents on airport our president whispered in his ears "you might able to defeat us and kill all Muslims in PAKISTAN but there are millions more, but if we defeated you then make sure that there won't any Buddhist or Hindu left this planet"
After that Indian president called it's forces back, and this thing was told by the Assistant or Secretary of Indian president himself

Well you do have most part of Kashmir from 1947 war on the other hand your battle tactics of sending militants says otherwise,So you saying it was the fear of nukes stopped India from further continuing the war? well.......
The conversation you mentioned is said to happen in 1987 and relates to Operation Brasstacks..

You must be registered for see links

.where he said to be threaten to use neclear weapons if they crossed the border and Indians said it is just an exercise and continued it and they were ready to fight in 2001 after terrorist attack on Indian parliment and they kept calm watching your nuclear programme...
but related to the thread topic of WW3 you havent said why you want go against the US or even think that you have a chance