Rick Santorum, fact free politician!

[Avenger]

I thought you used a tomahawk?

 

[Zeonix]

I started carrying the Benchmade tomahawk after the e-tool incident, which was more luck than anything. The tomahawk has its place on my flak now, however, so its always ready. They issue us kabars, but they're so ****ty, it stays locked away most times.

My two posts are on the previous page, Deman. Just in case.

 

[harSens]

Better link for Praetorius 'really':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan–Netherlands_relations
Our exclusive trading relationship with Japan was established by helping Japan crush some Christian rebels, so by military means.

 

[Zeonix]

Thanks.

 

[harSens]

Even already a couple of years ago, the Dutch actually decided to do less trade with the US because of it's pending economic collapse.

Interesting. Do you have a source to back up this claim?

 

[Devion]

Better link for Praetorius 'really':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan–Netherlands_relations
Our exclusive trading relationship with Japan was established by helping Japan crush some Christian rebels, so by military means.

That was after initial trade was already established. Read your own sources please.

When formal trade relations were established in 1609, by requests from Englishman William Adams, The Dutch were granted extensive trading rights and set up a Dutch East India Company trading outpost at Hirado. When the Shimabara uprising of 1637 happened, in which Christian Japanese started a rebellion against the Tokugawa shogunate, it was crushed with the help of the Dutch. As a result all Christian nations who gave aid to the rebels were expelled leaving the Dutch the only commercial partner from the West.[2] Among the expelled nations was Portugal who had a trading post in Nagasaki harbor on an artificial island called Dejima. In a move of the shogunate to take the Dutch trade away from the Hirado clan the entire Dutch trading post was moved to Dejima.[3]

The point was, isonalistic nation would trade, even without the threat of force. You completely missed the point -_-.

Interesting. Do you have a source to back up this claim?

Was a newsbulletin of RTL-Z and was mentioned in the Elsevier a couple of years ago.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Devion, you are approaching condescending tones. Once again, expression of opinion and building arguments does not require insulting the intelligence of the person you are debating. Do you really think Zeo hasn't read the source he provided?

 

[Zeonix]

You, too, seemed to have missed the point, because the only two peoples Japan opened its doors to were the Dutch and Chinese. Per the link I posted, it states the following:

During the early part of the 17th century, the shogunate suspected that foreign traders and missionaries were actually forerunners of a military conquest by European powers. Christianity had spread in Japan, especially among peasants, and the shogunate suspected the loyalty of Christian peasants towards their daimyō, severely persecuting them. This led to a revolt by persecuted peasants and Christians in 1637 known as the Shimabara Rebellion which saw 30,000 Christians,rōnin, and peasants facing a massive samurai army of more than 100,000 sent from Edo. The rebellion was crushed at a high cost to the shōgun's army.After the eradication of the rebels at Shimabara, the shogunate placed foreigners under progressively tighter restrictions. It monopolized foreign policy and expelled traders, missionaries, and foreigners with the exception of the Dutch and Chinese merchants who were restricted to the man-made island of Dejima in Nagasaki Bay and several small trading outposts outside the country.

And so it was only through the perceived threat of force that their seclusion was ended. Western imperialism opened the doors to trade. Not a handshake, a wink and a smile.

 

[harSens]

When formal trade relations were established in 1609, by requests from Englishman William Adams, The Dutch were granted extensive trading rights and set up a Dutch East India Company trading outpost at Hirado. When the Shimabara uprising of 1637 happened, in which Christian Japanese started a rebellion against the Tokugawa shogunate, it was crushed with the help of the Dutch. As a result all Christian nations who gave aid to the rebels were expelled

I wouldn't call them very isonalistic (is that a word?) before 1637. I said exclusive trading relationship.

See also here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VOC_Opperhoofden_in_Japan

In 1638, the harsh Sakoku ("closed door" policy) was ordered by the Tokugawa shogunate; and by 1641, the VOC had to transfer all of its mercantile operations to the small man-made island of Dejima in Nagasaki harbor. The island had been built for the Portuguese, but they had been forced to abandon it and all contacts with Japan. Only the Dutch were permitted to remain after all other Westerners had been excluded.

 

[Avenger]

Isolationist is a word. Isonalistic is not.

 

[Devion]

God these posts are getting long.....

State the assumption and then elucidate how and why "the fleet" will be bankrupt. Keep in mind that the fleet is but a part of the American war machine.

How about you turn on the TV or read a newspaper? Have you missed the fact

Who fills the vacuum is the argument. A nation of comparable strength and wealth does not need to fill the void for it to be a threat to the interests of Europe and America. An alliance between nations will suffice in this regard. The absence of our power in a nation does not necessitate that nation take power. That simply isn't how the world works, because if we are no longer the main player, the nation next in line will surely take advantage and exploit them in much the same way we have. And again, for the betterment of the nation leaning on them. For example, The US has left Iraq. Have the Iraqis filled the vacuum? No. Has their government? No. Insurgents and Iran have.

Your putting the cart before the horse. The vacuum was created by destroying the Iraq army, which happened in a war which didn't need to take place. Just because you could Iraq(And the vague strategic advantage) was invaded. The bigger the US fleet the more likely you will start an offensive. As you said yourself, why have a big army if you are not on the offensive.

This statement was made without the backing of any sort of supporting evidence. When America sneezes, the world gets a cold. This isn't bragging on my part. What this illustrates is the symbiosis that exists between the US and its allies, and the world in general. We are all highly interconnected, and what affects one of us affects the other. The general economic strength of a nation will, perhaps, allow it to weather the storm better than a weaker nation, but it is affected all the same. You continue to state the US is going bankrupt. While completely incorrect and inaccurate, I am interested in why you believe this to be so, because the why bolsters my arguments. Answer this question so that I may respond with why you're wrong.

You don't think the US is going bankrupt? You are SO far from any economic reality. People are not questioning IF the dollar will fall, but WHEN, in the process making you bankrupt. We even produced a serie "When the dollar falls". For every economic person it is clear the US is heading for economic collapse and you deny it. European states are now even trying to locate their gold and getting it back from the US. You are going from 10 trillion in debt to 15 trillion in debt in just 3 YEARS! To deny the US is going bankrupt is denying reality.

Also you have a very Keynesian view of looking at economics. When the US collapses it will actually be better for the world. You are living on debt and paying the world with debt which you can never repay. The China are working, defacto, for free for the US. It works a bit like this:

There is an island with 1 American and 3 Chinese.
Chinese number 1 collects firewood every day,
The second Chinese goes fishing every day,
The third Chinese cooks every day a feast of fish on the fire.

The American eats the meal, and leaves a bit for the Chinese.

Now the American says that he is indispensable in this situation, because without his consumption they would be doing nothing.

The US is VERY dispensable.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...d_of_seclusion

Seems to me we've been leaning on them, as has Europe, for quite some time. If you also do well to remember how Britain forced China to "open up", as it were. It involved not so much negotiation as it did opium.

See response to HarSens

Threat of retaliation from whom? Who is it you think would be capable of standing up to a power like Russia or China on the battlefield? Surely you don't mean the States, as we've removed our forces from the world at large, and now spend significantly less on our military, creating a smaller, weaker force with which to defend our shores and not much else. Do you mean Europe's various militaries, which were designed with the idea that the US would be supplementing their forces in the event of a war of any sizable scale? You do not understand what non-interventionism is and how it works. This isn't an insult. This is an observation. Unless we're being directly attacked, we have no need to interfere. And if we were to interfere, what do you think would happen? Do you think we'd ramp up production, fund our military, and bring it back to superior strength, and then let it go all over again? You've yet to learn the lessons of days past.

Surprising that your statement contradicts of what already happened during WW2. Yes the US did ramp up to keep Europe from becoming 1 big Soviet state. Again, you are the one who doesn't understand non-interventionism policy. You think the US will become one big turtle which is just false. One big soviet state would seriously threaten the US, that's why you intervened, not on Europe's behalf. That is self defense.

Besides that Russia doesn't have the army to conquer Europe. France and Germany combined have a bigger and better army.

Once more, you seem not to understand just how interconnected the nations of the world are. We need each other. There is a reason the US is looked at to take the lead whenever an international mission is created. Deny it all you want, but even a weak America is still more of a superpower than Europe can hope to be in the near future. 10 years of the worst mistakes this country could possibly make, and we're still top dog. This should make you question just how powerful we were before our War on Terror, and just how powerful we could become should we prioritize. The Dutch can decide whatever it likes. It doesn't change the fact that the EU and the US are in constant secret trade negotiations to maximize profits at the expense of their respective citizenry. The EU isn't chasing software pirates because it feels like it. It's doing so because its being told to. And that is but the tippy top of the iceberg that is American-European trade relations.

I'm not denying that American is ridiculously powerful, but this power comes at a huge costs. You simply cannot pay for it anymore and we(China, Europe etc.) aren't going to finance this for much longer. The EU isn't really doing that much against software pirates and you confuse lobbying "with being told to". If Europe says no, there is not a thing the US could do.

Illusions of grandeur? I am simply stating what already is, not what could be. We don't need to bomb every country in the world to demand submission. The threat of force is more often than not enough. We offer both the carrot and the stick. Most nations choose the carrot. Those who do not suddenly find themselves in possession of WMD, or whatever contrived scenario the Allies come up with.

Could US invade Russia? China? Europe? NO the US people wouldn't allow it(Especially Europe in this case), nor do you have the full capability of this kind of assault. Your wars are already making you bankrupt.

You continue on about economic consequences without even understanding what it is that is slowly bleeding us. Were we going broke when Clinton was President? Our current open war is what is behind a significant portion of our fiscal crisis. We can maintain our empire provided we end the war. That particular will not end, however, until we've met our overall goal in the region, which we're fairly close to doing.

You still fail to understand that bases are a big reason why these wars happen and why your leader recklessly starts a war, because he can. With your empire comes unintended consequences(Blowbacks!), which you fail to see.

 

[Devion]

Rome built upon the foundation Greece laid. Science is an accumulation of all knowledge acquired and learned over the course of our history. This isn't debatable, and to ignore Rome's scientific achievement is to wear blinders for no reason other than to reinforce a faulty premise due to hubris. I looked at the positives because you listed its negatives. My point, which you appear to have missed entirely, is while Rome was responsible for terrible things, it was also responsible for absolutely fantastic things that Empires would learn, and emulate over time. And to believe that the Roman Empire didn't create an environment conducive to scientific and technological achievement is preposterous. There is a reason NYC is a great place for one pursuing the arts and why the Congo is perhaps not optimal.

Most of the scientific discoveries were in the little Greece empire, not in Rome..... The reason why NYC is a great place for pursuing arts is becomes of economic reasons, not having a huge empire.

Sure you don't. Libya went just great when led primarily by European forces. And there goes your word of the day, again. We understand the consequences of our actions. In fact, much like chess, we sometimes force those reactions to give us a reason to do certain things. There is a reason we went to Iraq right after Afghanistan, and it was not WMD or human rights. It wasn't even oil. But you know that, of course.

Here you again completely misunderstand my point of view. I was against the war in Libiya and that wasn't self defense of the European nations. A big army is unnecessary.

Do you understand that a non-interventionist approach to our military would significantly decrease the military budget? You continue to use modern day figures to reinforce your argument about a future without a super power America. And are we seriously going to pretend that, despite Russia's meager expenditures on their military, they're still not A-list contenders, who's Airforce is second only to our own? Come now. They're a sleeping giant waiting for a reason to wake up and crush some skulls. That's one of the reasons I like Russia so much, in fact.

Russia a sleeping giant haha. I've actually BEEN in Russia(Had a Russian girlfriend) and spend a great time looking in this interesting nation. This nation is NOT capable of mobilizing anything anytime soon. Their population dwindling since the 90's, the army hopelessly outdated and gas/oil is the only thing they have. Corruption is rampant, young scientists immigrating, social unrest and the lists go on. Russia is more like a giant, which just had it's eutanasia shot.

You state they resist from starting wars without actually thinking about why they're hesitant to do so. What is it keeping China at bay from steamrolling over Taiwan, again? Or their allies in NK from doing anything too stupid to SK? Oh. Europe, right? Or is it magic? Must be. Russia, on the other hand, is selling weaponry to everyone willing to buy. Everyone gives us **** for having nukes, but who was it that lost a ridiculous number of them in the 90s? Who's selling weapons to Assad right now, forcing Saudi Arabia to sell to the revolutionaries to balance the board? Ah yes, Madagascar. Those bastards.

China isn't afraid of the US when it comes to Taiwan. They don't attack Taiwan, because this will seriously hurt there trade interests.

You don't understand the military at all, so I'm not going to bother explaining why our presence in certain regions is not only necessary, but beneficial economically and militarily. I will say, however, that interventionism has gotten us quite far, and has done the same for Europe, a continent quite familiar with colonialism, interventionism and empire. And we've learned your lessons and put our own little spin on them. The fact that Europe isn't trying to get us to stop, but instead frequently aids us in our endeavors should suggest to you that perhaps your respective governments are not nearly as outraged as they'd have you believe. Just food for thought.

You are the expert I guess?(obviously not) I'm not going to explain to you that your presence is only going to start more wars and is going to be bad for the people living in this region. Furthermore I didnt say Europe was going to stop the US. I'm saying the US has to stop because economically you are bankrupt. Just some food for thought.

What was the stated reason for invading Afghanistan? 9/11. What caused 9/11? Terrorists. Who allowed 9/11 to occur? Debatable. Al Qaeda has never truly been a threat. It has been a reason, an excuse, to do certain things that a segment of our country has intended to do for quite some time.

Threatening to mobilize in a month or two is just that: a threat. A threat that states, "You have 2 months to prepare for us. And then we're going to trickle in and hopefully you don't have any aces up our sleeves." The ability to be there in 24 hours means the enemy knows 3 things: 1) We're coming. 2) We're going to kill you. 3) There's nothing you can do to stop us. And it is this warfighting strategy that ensures victory, and keeps others from repeating their mistakes.

No your strategy is ensuring bankruptcy. Keeping a big standing army is very costly. You will find out in a decade.

Also, and this will be my one "Zeonix-like" remark, the examples you gave are simply adorable. Israel would not exist were it not for the US, who finances them, basically gives them weapons for free, and has promised to back them in absolutely everything and anything they do, including a strike on Iran, even if Israel should strike preemptively. US Marines are standing post right now in SK, as they have since the war, waiting for NK to make the first move. Again, we protect SK, both from NK and China, we supply them with weapons, and in the event of a war, we'd be there fighting alongside them. Symbiotic relationships. It makes the world go round. Germany's own military is almost purely a defensive force, and in the event of a full-scale war, would need to be supplemented by the rest of Europe, who, together, are still not equal to the military might the US wields. Say what you will about our social programs and general backassward behavior (Thats a play on assbackward, btw), but our warfighting machine is unparalleled. And that's why we play an integral role in the defense of Europe through NATO, as was also the case during the Cold War when Russia was on your front doorstep.

Israel shouldn't exist at all, but that's a different discussion. Israel now doesn't need the US. Their army is big enough to defend themselves. The US has been interfering the peace talks with the Palestines etc.. Same goes for SK. China has no interest in attacking SK, they just want NK as a bufferzone, because of the presence of the US. That's the only reason China still gives food to NK, because of the US presence. These are the blowbacks I'm talking about.

You don't protect anything, you are making thing worse, but we will never agree on this.

Please explain how a smaller military that spends less on military innovation, has less units, less people and armaments, little to no ability to fight as an expeditionary force and has to cross an ocean and more to even get to the fight is a better fighting force than what we have now. For comparison's sake, if Germany were to fight us in total war on an agreed upon battlefield, who would win? It wouldn't even be close. Again, not hubris. Simple reality.

And here is were you fail. You have spending many years on military which wasn't effective. It made your country poorer and poorer and now is on the verges of bankruptcy. Germany doesn't need to fight you, you are committing suicide already. But in theoretical sense, a nation that hasn't spend decades wasting in a big standing army, can build up their army much more cheaply and will have more resources to spend when it's really needed.

edit:

You, too, seemed to have missed the point, because the only two peoples Japan opened its doors to were the Dutch and Chinese. Per the link I posted, it states the following:



And so it was only through the perceived threat of force that their seclusion was ended. Western imperialism opened the doors to trade. Not a handshake, a wink and a smile.

Trade was already opened with Dutch before 1637 :tired:

The whole Christian thing is unimportant to the argument. Trade happens without military pressure, that was my point. I took Japan as example because of it's isolationism.

I wouldn't call them very isonalistic (is that a word?) before 1637. I said exclusive trading relationship.

See also here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VOC_Opperhoofden_in_Japan

THAT wasn't my point, again read my orginal post. You are making arguments I am not making.

 

[Zeonix]

God these posts are getting long.....

How about you turn on the TV or read a newspaper? Have you missed the fact

You didn't even attempt to answer the question.

Your putting the cart before the horse. The vacuum was created by destroying the Iraq army, which happened in a war which didn't need to take place. Just because you could Iraq(And the vague strategic advantage) was invaded. The bigger the US fleet the more likely you will start an offensive. As you said yourself, why have a big army if you are not on the offensive.

And when the Iraqi army ceased to exist, who filled that power vacuum? The US did. The US became the de facto ruler of Iraq, and micromanaged every aspect of the country. So again, per your assertion that the nation being repressed by said terrible ruler would fill the vacuum created once said ruler made its exit, who then filled the void? Was it the Iraqis? No. It was another nation capable and willing to exploit the nation. This is but a single country in a single region. Were the US to suddenly disappear from spheres of influence throughout the world, other nations would fill that power vacuum and most likely by nations who's sphere of influence overlapped or was kept at bay by our influence.

You don't think the US is going bankrupt? You are SO far from any economic reality. People are not questioning IF the dollar will fall, but WHEN, in the process making you bankrupt. We even produced a serie "When the dollar falls". For every economic person it is clear the US is heading for economic collapse and you deny it. European states are now even trying to locate their gold and getting it back from the US. You are going from 10 trillion in debt to 15 trillion in debt in just 3 YEARS! To deny the US is going bankrupt is denying reality.

Because you deny the very notion that our relationship with Europe and the rest of the world is symbiotic in nature, it makes absolutely no sense for me to explain why the US will not be allowed to fail. After all, you've ignored absolutely everything I've said in favor of repeating yourself.


Also you have a very Keynesian view of looking at economics. When the US collapses it will actually be better for the world. You are living on debt and paying the world with debt which you can never repay. The China are working, defacto, for free for the US. It works a bit like this:

Yes, as the fall of Rome was great for Europe. The Dark Ages were a splendid time for all.

There is an island with 1 American and 3 Chinese.
Chinese number 1 collects firewood every day,
The second Chinese goes fishing every day,
The third Chinese cooks every day a feast of fish on the fire.

The American eats the meal, and leaves a bit for the Chinese.

Now the American says that he is indispensable in this situation, because without his consumption they would be doing nothing.

The US is VERY dispensable.

And what, pray tell, would happen if we stopped purchasing Chinese products? Business would continue as usual, and they'd keep...I don't know...catching fish? I think just about everyone can agree this isn't the case. Yours is a simplistic perspective of economics and, at best, borders on a level of absurdity found only in a copy of Cheney's Economics for Cats.

See response to HarSens
That doesn't even begin to broach the subject of how Japan was forced at gunpoint to open up to the rest of Europe. The Netherlands is but one country. It quite clearly states warships were used as a negotiating tool to open up trade between Japan and the US and Europe. I don't know how it could be made any clearer.

Surprising that your statement contradicts of what already happened during WW2. Yes the US did ramp up to keep Europe from becoming 1 big Soviet state. Again, you are the one who doesn't understand non-interventionism policy. You think the US will become one big turtle which is just false. One big soviet state would seriously threaten the US, that's why you intervened, not on Europe's behalf. That is self defense.

You don't seem to have a proper grasp of WW2. We intervened because of the Nazis, and that intervention later extended to the Soviets for the same reasons. While it is true we don't do very much unless we benefit from it, to even think Europe did not also benefit from this relationship is, at minimum, insane. Because, again, there exists a symbiotic relationship. If we benefit, you benefit, and if you benefit, we benefit. It's why we have such close ties to each other.

As for the perceived contradiction, what was it? Honestly, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with that paragraph.

Besides that Russia doesn't have the army to conquer Europe. France and Germany combined have a bigger and better army.

You really don't seem to understand military strategy and geopolitics at all. Can the US take on every country in the world at once? No. Does the world at large still cave in to most of our demands anyway? Yes. Why is that, exactly? There are more ways than one to bring an enemy to its knees, and oftentimes it does not involve putting a sword through your enemy's face.

I'm not denying that American is ridiculously powerful, but this power comes at a huge costs. You simply cannot pay for it anymore and we(China, Europe etc.) aren't going to finance this for much longer. The EU isn't really doing that much against software pirates and you confuse lobbying "with being told to". If Europe says no, there is not a thing the US could do.

This is going to be my last attempt to explain to you where the costs are coming from. The military budget has increased significantly since 9/11. Were these funds being used to pay for bases that we couldn't afford during Clinton's administration. No. If you remember, we were in the green then. So what are these funds being used for? The logistics of fighting multiple wars in multiple nations, and maintaining our warfighting capabilities in those nations. Over time, weapons break, gear breaks, vehicles break. Right? Right. We're spending money not just to operate FOBs in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also to acquire new weapons and vehicles to replace what was broken. Then we're spending money on making improvements for our equipment to work better in that environment. We're also paying to house and feed a much larger fighting force, as a greater number of people are required to maintain operation tempo.

So again, what is it that caused us to go into the red? Yes, the wars. Were we "going bankrupt" before the wars? No, right? Al Qaeda's stated goal? Draw us into a conflict or conflicts that we could not win so that we could bleed ourselves dry in the long term. So what can we do about this? THat's right. End the wars. Iraq is done and over with. But what about Afghanistan? That war will never end! Except it already is. The draw down has begun and will continue for the rest of this year and beyond. No one even really bothers fighting our guys anymore because its pointless, so we're mostly at the mercy of IEDs and Afghan policemen and soldiers, who have a nasty tendency to turn on their allies.

But that isn't enough! Agreed, and that is why the military is downsizing in a big way. We're going to focus on becoming a "leaner" fighting force, which also means what? That we're going to be spending less on the military because it no longer requires such extravagant funds. It's amazing how this is all working out. It's kinda like people are taking the time to think about this and figure out how to fix the issue.

If a European nation, and I say nation because is hardly united, were to say no to the US, what could happen? Sanctions, blackmail, loss of privilege, and whatever else the fine minds who make it their business to get what we want can think of. But generally speaking, we don't have to work very hard to get what we want, because we deal in the favor system. You give us this, we give you that. You give us that, we give you this. It works quite well, honestly.

Could US invade Russia? China? Europe? NO the US people wouldn't allow it(Especially Europe in this case), nor do you have the full capability of this kind of assault. Your wars are already making you bankrupt.
The US has no need to invade any of those nations because its easier to deal with them at a table while sipping a nice hot cup of tea. Also, I'd be hesitant to state the US couldn't take on Europe. Keep in mind we have a fighting force that's actually, you know, been fighting wars for the last decade, so the experience factor is certainly on our side. Then, of course, we'd have air superiority, and your best bet would be the F-35s we sold you. But most importantly, this would be a conventional war. And the best kind of conventional war: Total war. But yeah, what would be the point? You're our right-hand man, even if you want to pretend that isn't the case.

You still fail to understand that bases are a big reason why these wars happen and why your leader recklessly starts a war, because he can. With your empire comes unintended consequences(Blowbacks!), which you fail to see.

Bases are the reason why these wars happen? Uh....yeah, you don't get military strategy and geopolitics at all.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 

[Zeonix]

Most of the scientific discoveries were in the little Greece empire, not in Rome..... The reason why NYC is a great place for pursuing arts is becomes of economic reasons, not having a huge empire.

Do you just have this thing where you trivialize any and every nation that even remotely resembles an empire? Because that's a ridiculous assertion.

Uh...empires are created for what purpose? Wealth and power? Wealth gives people a greater degree of freedom to do whatever they want, right? If my life wasn't consumed with doing hard manual labor, eating, sleeping and then doing it all over again, I'd have a lot of free time to do things like think and create, yes? That's the point I'm getting at.

Here you again completely misunderstand my point of view. I was against the war in Libiya and that wasn't self defense of the European nations. A big army is unnecessary.

It doesn't matter what your point of view is. Europe pretends not to intervene, and for the most part, they can rely on Uncle Sam to do the intervening for them. But you stated its alright to intervene when it comes to protecting economic assets, correct? That is what Europe was doing in Libya. Protecting their interests. The US had little to gain from it, so we took a backseat in the whole thing and let Europe flex its muscle. And let me say you guys haven't been working out lately.

Russia a sleeping giant haha. I've actually BEEN in Russia(Had a Russian girlfriend) and spend a great time looking in this interesting nation. This nation is NOT capable of mobilizing anything anytime soon. Their population dwindling since the 90's, the army hopelessly outdated and gas/oil is the only thing they have. Corruption is rampant, young scientists immigrating, social unrest and the lists go on. Russia is more like a giant, which just had it's eutanasia shot

I'm sure Western Europe was of a similar mindset before Stalin got on the job.

China isn't afraid of the US when it comes to Taiwan. They don't attack Taiwan, because this will seriously hurt there trade interests.

There's no way to sugarcoat this one. You're just plain wrong. China believes Taiwan is a part of the China, and therefore they'd not be invading so much as clearing house. They believe it is their right. However, they will not make a movie due to the size and scope of our weapons deals with Taiwan, and the fact that we've promised to support them should China invade. China prefers subtlety over overt action nine times out of ten, and so, because they're not too devastated by the "loss" of Taiwan, they're content to wait it out and approach the issue through other avenues.

You are the expert I guess?(obviously not) I'm not going to explain to you that your presence is only going to start more wars and is going to be bad for the people living in this region. Furthermore I didnt say Europe was going to stop the US. I'm saying the US has to stop because economically you are bankrupt. Just some food for thought.
Yeah, yeah, bases are bad. Whatever. You continue to ignore the source of our economic woes while attributing it to things that existed prior to said woes because you're intent on parroting Ron Paul. Awesome. We had bases in the ME, which the host nations declared was perfectly fine, so Osama decides he's had enough. He blows some **** up, kills a bunch of people, and we're the bad guys. Roger that.

No your strategy is ensuring bankruptcy. Keeping a big standing army is very costly. You will find out in a decade.

Aaaaaand you don't keep up with current events as we're clearly downsizing. Again, roger that.

Israel shouldn't exist at all, but that's a different discussion. Israel now doesn't need the US. Their army is big enough to defend themselves. The US has been interfering the peace talks with the Palestines etc.. Same goes for SK. China has no interest in attacking SK, they just want NK as a bufferzone, because of the presence of the US. That's the only reason China still gives food to NK, because of the US presence. These are the blowbacks I'm talking about.

Israel doesn't need the US? You're out of your element, Donnie. Not only do they ask for our support in every endeavor, but if we stopped selling them arms and filling their coffers, they'd be essentially left alone in a region that absolutely despises them, and would strike given the opportunity. If they preemptively attack Israel, who's going to bail them out? France? Germany? Please.

SK also requests our presence in their nation, and their ROK Marines are basically a clone of our Marines. We're best buddies, and knowing that we have their back in any situation gives them the confidence to tell NK and China to go suck a fat one. China is allied with NK for the buffer they create, yes, but its in their best interests to keep NK up and running or else they'll have an influx of N-koreans running across their borders. China doesn't want that. The US plays an integral role in the peace process in both the ME and in the NK/SK scenario. In the former, we generally agree with Israel on everything because of politics, but in Korea, we've kept the situation pretty damn calm all things considered. And again, if you don't think having our ships in the region has any affect on NK or China, you're just not thinking straight.

You don't protect anything, you are making thing worse, but we will never agree on this.

Tell that to Israel and SK next time you go there.

And here is were you fail. You have spending many years on military which wasn't effective. It made your country poorer and poorer and now is on the verges of bankruptcy. Germany doesn't need to fight you, you are committing suicide already. But in theoretical sense, a nation that hasn't spend decades wasting in a big standing army, can build up their army much more cheaply and will have more resources to spend when it's really needed.

You completely missed the point of my post because you're on loop.

edit:


Trade was already opened with Dutch before 1637 :tired:
Key phrase: With the Dutch. So again, the rest of the world decided the big stick approach was the way to go, and history showed they were quite successful in that regard, while the Dutch were relegated to the periphery.

The whole Christian thing is unimportant to the argument. Trade happens without military pressure, that was my point. I took Japan as example because of it's isolationism.

Except trade with the US began because of military pressure. Which is my point.

Negative, Ghostrider.

 

[Eon]

Hey you guys stopped arguing. I have nothing to do or read right now, help me out here.

 

[harSens]

We don't need the US for that. You live in a fantasy world that mutual trade does not exists without US threating these nations. We traded 400 years ago already with the most isolationistic nation that ever existed, without the threat of invading it. This country was Shogunate Japan.

Trade happens without military pressure, that was my point. I took Japan as example because of it's isolationism.

This is becoming a bit silly, but I'll go on to please Eon. Historic events are as follows:
1. 1609 ish: Japan is not isolationistic, trades with numerous European countries
2. 1639 ish: Japanese Christians rebel, European countries help them, the Netherlands sides with the Japanese
3. after 1639 ish: the Japanese kick out all other Europeans and trade only with the Dutch
My point is that the exclusive trade with the Dutch was established by military means (although not so much pressure of invasion), so your example is not so nice. If I remember correctly we actually tried to invade Japan first (and failed horribly) before trying to set up trade relationships, but I can't find any sources for that.

 

[Mkilbride]

So this is the guy I turn my TV on late at night and see spouting the weirdest stuff that even a pot smoking 15 year old would know isn't true.

 

[sub]

Every other day there is a news story about Santorum that makes me uneasy. This one says that, if elected, he would attempt to have married gays divorced. This is exactly what America needs, the ability for the government to declare people's marriages null against their will. These are the same people that preach for limited government.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/03/MN3Q1N9EV9.DTL

 

[Optimus Prime]

Rick Santorum scares the **** out of me.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Every other day there is a news story about Santorum that makes me uneasy. This one says that, if elected, he would attempt to have married gays divorced. This is exactly what America needs, the ability for the government to declare people's marriages null against their will. These are the same people that preach for limited government.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/03/MN3Q1N9EV9.DTL

Social conservatives are not for limited Government, they want to use Government to enforce "social norms". I do not support Social Conservatives, Rick Santorum in particular. Government regulation is always the answer to him, and it most certainly does not belong in the bedroom.