At least he's honest. Russia and the East are attempting to end the US's status as a superpower, and we should just be ok with that. We're v wrong to resist it.
North Korea: Do we or don't we (invade)?
- Thread starter Musburger1
- Start date
At least he's honest. Russia and the East are attempting to end the US's status as a superpower, and we should just be ok with that. We're v wrong to resist it.
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
What does the US Superpower status due for the average Joe Blow American citizen? Not much as of late. It's time for the empire to do what the British empire did - fade back and become a normal country. The other choice is to continue overextending and end up similar to Rome. Implosion.
It's interesting that you don't preach this mentality for Russia. If you did, you wouldn't want them in Syria, Ukraine, or anywhere else. You're all for Russian involvement in the world. The reason why is that you know this is BS.
Being a superpower has real advantages for average people. That doesn't mean everybody benefits equally. Obviously the politically well-connected benefit the most. The biggest winners are banks, defense contractors, infrastructure builders, etc. However, the average American also benefits in many respects - money, jobs, protection, access to markets, etc.
The British Empire comparison is weak. First, Britain was a small country with limited natural resources. It thrived by acquiring colonies in very distant lands that were extremely difficult to protect and secure and pillaging them and their people. By contrast, the United States is large and has vast natural resources of its own. It doesn't need to dominate a colonial empire of resentful people to maintain its economic dominance.
Second, the United States has a MUCH freer economy than the British Empire's largely command economy, which concentrated the benefits of the British Empire. In the British Empire, government-chartered entities run by the well-connected were basically the only people who made serious money off the Empire. There wasn't an entrepreneurship element to speak up. The US economy is pretty free. Somebody can create a business without asking the government to bless it and sell their products all over the country and all over the world. So yes, American billionaires in the sack with government can get extremely rich off our system, but relatively ordinary Americans can also get in on the action to a significant extent. And of course, all of that creates jobs in the United States.
Third, to the extent that the United States maintains a global presence, it's not resented to the extent the British Empire was, so maintaining it is a lot easier. Our global presence is mostly military bases that are kept with the consent of the host nations, which benefit handsomely from our presence. I'm not saying there's no resentment at all. Of course there is some, because we're a convenient target. However, it's no where near as intense and far less widespread. Go to a country and tell them you want to build a military base on their soil. You'll pay them to be there, use the base to protect that country's security, hire thousands of their people at above-market wages, and create demand for billions of dollars of local business every year. How many will be pissed off about that deal? A handful but very few. Now go to a country, take away all or virtually all of that land's sovereignty, raid the country of its resources, and enslave or virtually enslave its people. How many will be pissed off about that deal? Many more.
The bottom line is that a true empire like the British Empire was just a lot harder to maintain than ours - both politically, socially, and economically. Frankly, even if Putin got his OBOR, he'd try like hell to build Russia into a powerhouse, but he'd probably fail. Russia has more than enough natural resources to do it, but they don't have the economic system, stability, infrastructure, and culture to do it.
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
I'm not going to address Russia's motives so much in this reply, but instead focus on your assessment of the US and the comparison with the British Empire.
The first thing to address is the premise that the US has vast natural resources unlike Britain, implying that the US does not need to conquer and extract resources as did the British. This WAS true for many years until the US became a net importer of energy, hence the focus on the Middle East oil States several decades ago.
In the early 70's, the US began to run trade deficits and the US dollar based on gold was revised by Nixon and introduced floating currencies. This system has been used ever since to allow the US to run large deficits while simultaneously creating an international demand for dollars. The enforcement mechanisms are the IMF, World Bank, and US military which rules the seas and has a footprint in somewhere around 100 countries.
As far as the benefit to the common US citizen, any benefit is tied to the three enforcement mechanisms mentioned above and the continued accumulation of debt, which at some point will become unsustainable.
While the common man has benefitted from this model for some time, globalism has reversed the benefits resulting in growing inequality, shrinking savings, more personal debt, and less disposable income. The Federal Reserve has in essence allowed the paradigm to continue by using its power to invoke continual life support in the form of zero interest rate policy (punishes savers and rewards banks) and quantitative easing (printing money out of thin air to purchase treasuries and other assets in order to keep the asset values at high levels).
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
Damn Deez, you knocked that one out of the park on several levels. 
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
No, he didnt.Damn Deez, you knocked that one out of the park on several levels.
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
As far as there being much less resentment, that's because most nations benefitted from the current system for a very long time. That is now changing. We see that with China and Russia of course, but also in South American populations. As far as US allies, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, and India are examples of countries whose one time alliance with the US are now in flux. Our interventialist policies have creative refugee streams into Europe and our sanctions have resulted in hardships within European allies.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
Disagree, Deez grasp of the British Empire and vast differences was solid.
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
I didn't disagree with anything he stated about the British Empire. I disagreed with his characterization of what I would call today's US empire.
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
One more comment. The British set up viceroys (India) and carved up regions making de facto countries. The US has toppled several governments from South America to the Philippines and installed puppets. The US has to my knowledge never carved out regions and redefined borders. But in my opinion, there are elements in the US deep state looking to do just that in the Syria/Iraq region. There are elements opposed to this. We'll see who prevails.
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
This article is timely to the discussion. Eric Prince proposes the British model. Lets hope Mattis and Trump don't go for it.
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201707171055625468-erik-prince-afghanistan-ideas/
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201707171055625468-erik-prince-afghanistan-ideas/
Which is why I do not care if Russia wants to play around with non-nato countries on their border. It may suck for some of them, but we are not the world police. Im not convinced eastern Ukraine or Crimea want to be in the Ukraine anymore anyway. People I have talked to from nearby countries (who are no fan of russia) think east ukraine would rather be in Russia now, but those people could certainly be wrong. Also, I am 100% in favor of Britain becoming the world police again and wasting their money on military bases everywhere and having endless wars instead of us, but that is not going to happen. Personally, I think the British Empire did a pretty good job at being the world police, but I have British family and am biased.
I think if the Ukraine and Georgia took more neutral stances, Russia would leave them alone like Finland and Belarus (though, honestly, why is Belarus an independent country at all and why does it still have a dictator?). I do acknowledge a counterargument is Finland did join the EU and that has not been an issue. I will also add, I assume we never pushed for Finland in NATO since the Finns are the last remaining Axis Power
.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
Lawrence Wilkerson: maybe the only sane view from the US
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
If you have ever wondered why the United States has retained legal jurisdiction over the remote Pacific island of Guam, now you know
See
and http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ers-all-descend-guam-massive-show-force-17352
See
and http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ers-all-descend-guam-massive-show-force-17352
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Why would Trump play the NK game? In a paranoid country, his rhetoric has the opposite effect of what he's hoping to accomplish. I'm assuming he wants to deescalate the matter and stop them from a nuclear missile. I'd argue the escalation in rhetoric simply justifies their race to go nuclear.
What now Mr. Trump? Your threat of "fire and fury" if they threaten us is a red line they just crossed. What now? Clearly you've learned nothing from your incessant critiques of Obama's red line with Syria.
What now Mr. Trump? Your threat of "fire and fury" if they threaten us is a red line they just crossed. What now? Clearly you've learned nothing from your incessant critiques of Obama's red line with Syria.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Johnson speaks for all Democrats! Let's see....who can I claim speaks for all Republicans? How 'bout Alex Jones speaks for all alt-righters? Nahh...he's just crazy.
I35
5,000+ Posts
Yes because deescalating has worked great for the past few presidents. The good news is that it's believed N Korea's accuracy at the location they are aiming for isn't all that accurate. Bad news is they would miss Los Angeles or San Antonio, but could hit San Francisco or Austin.
Once you figure out the difference in extreme amount vs a very small amount will you get it. Again, you try to compare a murderer to a kid stealing bubble gum because..... hey they are both crimes right? You could name your list of crazy people on the right in about 3 minutes where it would take someone all day to name the crazy on the left. Same with criminal or corruption of the two parties. As long as you can name one or two on the right then its a wash because both parties do it. Your party has lost their mind from top to bottom for the most part. I'm shock how you guys can still support that party. I guess it's like a brainwashed Patty Hearst thing.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Yes because deescalating has worked great for the past few presidents. The good news is that it's believed N Korea's accuracy at the location they are aiming for isn't all that accurate. Bad news is they would miss Los Angeles or San Antonio, but could hit San Francisco or Austin.
Wait...you think we should be escalating towards war?
This is an emotional driven rant with no semblance of facts or data. In turn, it's not worthy of a response.
Bad news is they would miss Los Angeles or San Antonio, but could hit San Francisco or Austin.
I am from San Antonio. Why would missing San Antonio be bad news? If I had to choose, I would say nuke Austin over San Antonio in a heartbeat. Preferably nothing gets nuked. No cities getting nuked is ideal.
Also, I want Ginobli to retire too, but having North Korea nuke San Antonio seems extreme.
Last edited:
I35
5,000+ Posts
What? We're talking about deescalating. Which means backing off or look the other way when another country threatens to nuke you. Leaders across the world don't respect a sissy boy. The escalating has come from one direction for many years before Trump became President. We can't keep tucking our tails and run away. So in other words what we've been doing and what you are suggesting hasn't worked and actually has allowed him to build nukes that can now hit our country. What an accomplishment we've made deescalating. Standing up to a bully shouldn't be interpreted as escalating. But leave it up to a Lib to believe that. Showing strength is the best defense.
[QUOTE="This is an emotional driven rant with no semblance of facts or data. In turn, it's not worthy of a response.[/QUOTE]
Of course you'd think that. You still deny that refugees being allowed in would be a threat to our country.
I35
5,000+ Posts
LOL. Point being they aren't accurate so missing their intended target could still be bad for an American City.
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/08/stop-the-bluster-north-korea-is-a-nuclear-weapon-state.html
Stop the Bluster - North Korea is a Nuclear Weapon State
The Washington Post headlined today: Trump threatens ‘fire and fury’ in response to North Korean threats
"Okay - just another Trump bluster," I thought. No longer a reason to read such a story. But what are those "North Korean threats" he "responded" to? I hadn't seen any of those. Diving into the story I found found this:
President Trump used his harshest language yet to warn North Korea on Tuesday that it will be “met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before,” if it does not stop threatening the United States.
...
It was not immediately clear what Trump was responding to.
Dear Washington Post, please fire your headline writer. Why assert that Trump responded to "threats" when there were none and when you have no ******* clue why he did what he did?
A different shabby news site claims that the reason for Trump's played up nonsense was a Washington Post piece published the day before:
The president was responding to a report in the Washington Post that, according to a confidential U.S. intelligence assessment presented late last month, the North Korean regime has “successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles.”
That report was also more bluster than anything else. The DPRK, North Korea, had said it had build such a miniaturized nuclear device in March 2016. It even published pictures of it.
On July 4th the DPRK launched its first Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. A second test was successfully launched on July 29 under realistic operational conditions. The DPRK successfully tested nuclear devices at least five times - including a hydrogen device with potentially megatons of explosive power. It has enough nuclear material for some 40-60 weapons. All DPRK claims about progress in its missile and nuke programs have, sooner or later, been proven as truthful. There was and is no reason to doubt its March 2016 assertion.
North Korea is for all practical purposes a nuclear weapon state with the ability to deliver nukes onto the continental United States.
All this is not new. Talk about "fire and fury" or an ultimatum to North Korea or of preemptive strikes is all nonsense. Nothing the U.S. can do to North Korea can prevent a response that would nuke and destroy Washington DC or some other U.S. city.
North Korea has good reasons to want nukes and the U.S. missed all chances to remove those reasons. It is way too late to lament about that.
Permalink
Stop the Bluster - North Korea is a Nuclear Weapon State
The Washington Post headlined today: Trump threatens ‘fire and fury’ in response to North Korean threats
"Okay - just another Trump bluster," I thought. No longer a reason to read such a story. But what are those "North Korean threats" he "responded" to? I hadn't seen any of those. Diving into the story I found found this:
President Trump used his harshest language yet to warn North Korea on Tuesday that it will be “met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before,” if it does not stop threatening the United States.
...
It was not immediately clear what Trump was responding to.
Dear Washington Post, please fire your headline writer. Why assert that Trump responded to "threats" when there were none and when you have no ******* clue why he did what he did?
A different shabby news site claims that the reason for Trump's played up nonsense was a Washington Post piece published the day before:
The president was responding to a report in the Washington Post that, according to a confidential U.S. intelligence assessment presented late last month, the North Korean regime has “successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles.”
That report was also more bluster than anything else. The DPRK, North Korea, had said it had build such a miniaturized nuclear device in March 2016. It even published pictures of it.
On July 4th the DPRK launched its first Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. A second test was successfully launched on July 29 under realistic operational conditions. The DPRK successfully tested nuclear devices at least five times - including a hydrogen device with potentially megatons of explosive power. It has enough nuclear material for some 40-60 weapons. All DPRK claims about progress in its missile and nuke programs have, sooner or later, been proven as truthful. There was and is no reason to doubt its March 2016 assertion.
North Korea is for all practical purposes a nuclear weapon state with the ability to deliver nukes onto the continental United States.
All this is not new. Talk about "fire and fury" or an ultimatum to North Korea or of preemptive strikes is all nonsense. Nothing the U.S. can do to North Korea can prevent a response that would nuke and destroy Washington DC or some other U.S. city.
North Korea has good reasons to want nukes and the U.S. missed all chances to remove those reasons. It is way too late to lament about that.
Permalink
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
There is a lot of words but not much substance. The strawman of "look the other way when another country threatens to nuke you" is absurd. What I'm specifically referencing is the "fire and fury like the world has never seen" rhetoric. Do you think Kim Jong Un is quaking at that statement or telling his military establishment "get to nuclear as quickly as possible"? Given their quickening pace the answer is clearly the latter.
To be sure, we were never going to be able to stop NK permanently from going nuclear. There is simply too much desire and self-interest for them to get there. Delaying the inevitable was and continues to be our best hope.
Do us both a favor...don't talk for me because you clearly aren't able to correctly relay my perspectives. You have a stereotype of a "liberal" that you paint anyone left of you with. Based on what I've seen, nobody on this board matches that stereotype.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
