 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Koryo |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| User | Post | ||
Koryo Keese                  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| Its unwinable considering that most of America is not involved, committed, or even interested, and because Bush thought it would be a quick war. I agree that a surge probably won't work now because 1, its probably far too late, considering the amount of bad blood between Sunnis and Shiias that foreign terrorists have been able to instigate, and 2, very little that we do in Iraq at this point will actually be an attempt to "win" or "stabilize" Iraq but will actually just be an attempt to "lose more gracefully" or "lose less."
Edit: but the whole war could have been done differently from the start, and we could be in a very different Iraq by 2006. But that's not the subject of the thread, so I'm not sure we should go into a detailed discussion. That could fill 5 threads and then some. (edited by Koryo on 12-29-06 11:41 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| The US is not loosing in Iraq because we don't have the power. It's because we're holding back, and because we're sympathetic people, as I already said. We could "win" in Iraq if winning was simply defined as removing Saddam. We could also "win" in Iraq if we didn't care about inflicting tens of thousands of civilian casualties. The same is true in North Korea. We could "win" in North Korea if our only goal was removing KJI. We could also "win" in North Korea if we didn't care about how many South Koreans KJI killed during the war. It is our more benevolent qualities that weakens us as a global power. | |||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| Ziff: blaming Rumsfeld is taking a very narrow and exclusionary view. Many in the Bush administration felt the same as Rumsfeld. Why he has become the poster child for all that is wrong in Iraq, I don't really know. And I didn't say the American public "lost" Iraq. I said the American public is not even fighting in Iraq (and I don't mean in the sense of them enlisting in the army). If given the choice, most Americans right now would gladly pull out of Iraq, and they wouldn't even think of or know about the consequences that will follow and the thousands of Iraqis who will die in the chaos that follows a US withdrawal.
Arwon: you think Al Gore will win in 2008? LOL You are a dreamer.  (edited by Koryo on 12-29-06 11:48 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| If it makes you feel better to make Rumsfeld your scape goat, then so be it. But we will learn nothing by offhandedly saying "it was all Rumsfeld's fault." Assuming that things would have gone swimmingly had Rumsfeld only not been in power will only give us delusions that will come back to bite us later. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| It's not bollocks, nor is it a contradiction. Those other Empires fell out of power for various different reasons, and all of them held on to power for much longer than the US has. The Roman Empire and the Muslim Empires held on to power for centuries. The Spanish and French Empires were also powerful for some time, but were eventually overtaken by the British Empire, which continued on for quite a while. Then came the Germany Empire, whose reign was cut short almost as soon as it began by a coalition of other empires. The British Empire lost most of its imperial lands during and shortly after WW2. The US then became the reigning super power in part because it survived WW2 without sustaining much damage, and also because we simply had more people than the older empires. America today has a population of 300 million. Though some of the more developed countries have a similar per capita level of wealth, the US simply has more people. Only China and India have more people than the US, which is why they are the only two countries that I could conceivably see overshadowing us in the near future. Of the two, China worries me more. People create wealth. Wealth translates into power, military and otherwise. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
I agree that republics are better than monarchies, though the former British Empire monarchies are largely ceremonial, as has already been said in this thread. It probably is best to cement once and for all the independence of former British colonies, the disassembly of the Monarchs, etc. I don't really like your characterization of Great Britain, though. I also don't see why you would call the Queen a "foreigner" with such conviction. Unless you are black, I doubt you are a native Australian yourself.
While it is, of course, not good to have an all powerful executive (which is not at all what the US has), I do none the less see a good reason for it. How many people get involved in local elections? Every American knows the name George Bush, but many Americans don't know the name of their senator or congressman. Voting for the president at least puts his election in the hands of the people. If you have your legislators selecting a president, you have much less citizen involvement. Instead of a President being chosen by the people, you have a president chosen by legislators who are chosen by the people, but a much smaller percentage of the people. I doubt you will get more than 25% voter turn out. But you might be OK with that. In fact, a weak government may be your preference. I believe a strong executive would have an easier time managing a war or negotiating with hostile countries than a representative chosen by a large legislative body chosen by a small percentage of the population. Still, Republics are good. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| I am not for public torture. Hopefully I didn't have to say that, but I said it anyway. I am mildly in favor of the death penalty, because it gives closure. The argument that the death penalty deters crime sounds logical, but I haven't seen any statistics proving that, and few are ever likely to be accurately compiled. Still, the death penalty adds closure. I believe that the US criminal justice system (at least for murder, rape, and such) should punish the guilty and protect the innocent, not rehabilitate the guilty. If you are a murderer, I want to feel safe knowing that you are no longer out on the streets. If you are dead or behind bars, then I'm fairly certain that you can't kill me. The reason I support the death penalty is because murderers and rapists are released from prison, if not often, then far more often than they should be, after which they commit more of the same crimes. If you are given a lethal injection, then there is no chance you will be released and allowed to become a repeat offender. Prisoners are sometimes released on "good behavior" or because the prisons are becoming over crowded. I'm not talking about the death penalty for petty theft and vandalism, but murder and rape, certainly. Do I think the death penalty is essential for America? No. But I am rather upset and abortionist hypocrites who protest the death penalty but think nothing of killing an unborn baby. I would be happy to give up the death penalty if they would give up abortion in trade.
As for Saddam, I find it funny that people are more upset that Saddam was hanged than they were about Saddam's victims. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| I once had a socialist college professor tell me that there is no difference between the two major American parties. But he only felt that way because we don't have a socialist party (or one that wins elections, anyway).
I would like to point out a couple of things, though. Please don't forget that the Republican and Democratic parties have completely open membership. Its not like a college fraternity. Anyone can call himself a republican or democrat, whether or not his views are even remotely related to the main stream of his party. Some Republicans have a conservative ideology at heart, while others are just politicians claiming fealty to one party (but whose political views will change according to whatever they think will get them elected). The same is true with the democrats. (edited by Koryo on 01-05-07 01:27 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| Perhaps a more precise word would have been "ironic", or "interesting." | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| I hope we are all thoroughly convinced by now that Russia is non democratic.
I don't see Russia democratizing in a hurry, but at least Russia is no longer influencing nations all around the world to accept a dictatorial "communist" government. Interestingly enough, Russia is selling quite a bit of oil to the European Union. This is going to put them in a position of power over the EU, especially as I can see the EU becoming a large economic power (in the sense that they will be a massive consumer block), but not a military power. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| Those are almost mutually exclusive statements. Without projection capability, your military power is almost worthless. They have a couple hundred nuclear bombs, which is enough for a casual deterrent, but China and Russia each have more atomic bombs than all of the European Union combined. Their military hardware is technologically advanced, but poorly organized, distributed in a piecemeal fashion, and not present in nearly enough quantities to equip a large military. They have modern aircraft, but not in any great numbers. All in all, their military power is limited. Still, I doubt anyone would attack the EU on their own soil within the foreseeable future. What is likely to happen, though, is that something will happen elsewhere in the world, and the EU will be unable to project their power that far away. Also, Russia no longer needs military power over the EU. Oil gives them all the power they need. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| And that's the measure of a super power, is it?
In truth, while the EU will have considerable economic power, that power will probably rest exclusively with their being a large consumer block. Countries like China and India will be the world's primary producers of goods and merchandise in the coming decades. The EU will have some power, in that they could tariff or otherwise restrict imports from China to the EU (cars, for example), but the EU will not be a world producer of industrial goods, or an exporter of energy. Economically powerful, to be sure, but not an economic super power. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Alkis You clearly don't understand the terms we are using here. Both Republics and Constitutional Monarchies can be largely democratic. Read up on it.
I don't believe in compulsory voting. I know far too many stupid people who don't vote, and I'm quite frankly glad that they don't vote. (edited by Koryo on 01-05-07 01:03 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| Here's another thing that I find funny (interesting? ironic?). Saddam was not a loved figurehead by anyone accept those select few (and certainly not all of the Sunnis) who were benefiting from his rule is some way, such as being given a position of power by Saddam. Now that he's dead, all of a sudden people are mourning the death of this "great man." Its just propaganda. The radical clerics in control of a militia, the Arab language news media propaganda outlets, and the foreign terrorist supporters are just using the situation to stir up more violence, because they want to see more chaos and death in Iraq. And here we are giving them credibility. Saddam was not, and should not have been, a martyr for anyone. He was almost unanimously hated (even by Iraqis). It is only now that he is "loved" because he has been trumped up as a brave man who resisted the evil American imperialists. Insanity.
I still maintain that it was the Iraqi's decision. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| While I respect the latest gaming system from Nintendo as a significant leap foreword, I hardly think they can be of any help to us in Iraq. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| I hate to disappoint you if you are a Nintendo loyalist, but I believe only the X Box 360 can help us now. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| Please research things. I'm begging you. I'm getting down on my hands and knees in front of my computer right now.
Now that I'm back: Please take a look at this link. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html There is a lot of information on that website. You might want to book mark it for later use. But for now, take a look at that front page. GDP is not a perfect measure of wealth and economic power, but for our purposes today, and when comparing the most wealthy western nations, it works. The UK, France, Spain, etc were strong, when compared with most countries. Compared with the US and China, however, they fell behind. Even the entire EU's GDP is about the same as Americas. However, America's GDP is under the control of one single government, which makes it a stronger economic force than the EU. The EU's GDP is only that large on paper. That is the sum of all nations within the EU, who do not yet act as a cohesive unit. It is also interesting to consider that the US has a much lower population than the entire EU added together, which means that each individual American is more productive than each European. Once again, the EU looks good on paper, but is not yet what it might one day be. Edit: Also consider this. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html This chart of per capita GDP in purchasing power parity is from the same site. What this basically means is, if you take the total wealth of a country, and divided it by the number of people in the country, you would get the per capita GDP. In other words, if wealth was perfectly equally distributed in that country. The US is in 7th place, according to that chart (which will very slightly from year to year), and all 6 of the countries above the US have tiny economies over all in terms of GDP. But that's not the important thing we can glean from this chart. Scroll down a bit until you find the EU. You will find it in position number 31. A number of EU countries, such as Germany, the UK, and Italy, are above that on the chart, while most of the rest are below it. This means that most of the EU is not nearly as developed and wealthy as the Western and Northern European countries that we all think of when we think of EU economic power. The US is more homogeneous. I hope those poorer countries will be brought up to the level of Germany and the UK, but it is not likely to happen tomorrow. (edited by Koryo on 01-07-07 10:56 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| No government will ever function without offending, ignoring, or otherwise harming one group or another. You can never make everyone happy, nor do you want to. But leaning toward the majority at the expense of the small minorities does not make a government non democratic. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
Which is one of the reasons why he didn't like them. He was quite opposed to "free" trade. But then, he was also urging the proletariat to rise up and throw off their oppressors, so what can I say? |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 5918 days Last view: 5918 days |
| ||
| So it may be, but its not happening right now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not hoping the EU will fail just because they aren't the US. I would much rather see the EU eclipsing the US (though I doubt that would happen) then China eclipsing the US. Ideally, the US and EU could ally, as the world force for western style democracy, against the non democratic forces that will be rising soon or already have, such as China, Russia, Iran, terrorism, and possibly a socialist Latin American economic bloc. Still, I don't see any scenario in which the EU builds a military to rival the US or China (or even Russia). (edited by Koryo on 01-08-07 12:36 AM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Koryo |
