...seriously though aside from obvious military tactics and not so advanced terror tactics. what other roots or system could actualize a new world order, obviously America can not and should not keep its dominant position as it has done so since the begining of the 20th century. For those who are well educated in geography and history , please share your thoughts.
I don't really understand what you mean.
As for the US that can't last as a superpower. First off, the 'should'-question is meaningless. It doesn't matter if something should or not. Frankly any discussion about 'should' is a hard one to have. I mean, should any country dominate the world? And if so, which one? Even if you can construct some arguments here they are totally irrelevant because no one looks at what 'should be' in the arena of international politics.
You will probably find, due to history, that the dominant position of America has actually benefited the world greatly.
I don't really think so. Imagine the new world as a second Africa with 'free resources' for European multinationals.
Let's start with WWII. I notice you are from London, zheer. The London you know today, albeit plagued by fears of transit bombings,
Uuuh...
...would not be the same if it had not been for American involvement in WWII. You probably were not around for the air raids, nor was I. But the entry of America turned the tide for England, France, and the entire war. And although I would not attribute it entirely to America, the world was brought out of a great recession because of the war. (Wars occur when economics require it, simply.)
You can never know what would have happened without the US. But before the US battled the USSR by funding Western Europe they also helped bomb Europe to pieces. Actually the US build up Europe so it would be the battle ground of WWIII against the USSR. I don't think how happy we should have been about that. Both parts of Europe would have been nuked to dust because both superpowers put a lot of their missiles on that territory. And then it would also be the main front for a concentional war. At least in the plans that were drawn up on the tables on both sides. And the US risked a nuclear war. They bluffed away the USSR.
Also, there were different ways in which the US tried to get power in Europe. We have the Truman doctrine, which was a military intervention and was disasterous. And we have the Marshall Plan, which was economic intervention, which is defendable. There are many people that critisize the Marshall Plan. Both from the economic perspective and from the imperialistic aspect.
So yes. They funded rebuilding Europe. But the goal was to use Europe as a pawn against the USSR, get power leaverage over Europe.
The destruction of a nuclear war would have outweightened the rebuilding the US helped accomplish. Furtermore, all this was not done out of altruism, of course. That never happens.
And even if it did profit Europe. It costed the rest of the world. When the british imperial power was the last one to withdraw the US started their own imperialism. So the rest of the world suffered 'two Europes'.
The Korean War was not nearly as significant on a global scale. But I wonder what the lives of all the South Koreans would be like if they too bowed down to Kim Jong-Il.
Well, they didn't split the country in two. If Kim Jong-Il tried to conquer S-Korea then he would have a lot of trouble with S-Korea itself. But then also with other countries in the world. N-Korea was backed by the PRC and the USSR in 1950-1953 but if N-Korea invades S-Korea they will not get this support. The cold war is over. The USSR does no longer exist and the PRC has changed in nature as well. For one it is no longer a communist state. If you observe the six-party talks you will be able to understand the postitions China and Russia take in modern times.
So this situation is totally hypothetical. N-Korea could never occupy S-Korea.
As for defending the Korean war. It was a war of two sattelines of the two opposing superpowers, USSR and the US. And then of course the N-Korean government. They are the ones responsible for the war. Not the Korean people. The americans destroyed almost all the buildings in North Korea. And yes I mean this literally. Every building in Pyongyang was destroyed at the end of the war. North Korea, South Korea, China and the US all committed atricities and war crimes against POWs and civilians. American troops were under order to 'neuralise' any Korean civilian they encountered on the battlefield. Both Korean soldiers executed tens of thousands POWs and civilian prisoners.
Most of the Koreans that died were civilians. About 80 to 85% of the Korean casulties were civilian. And 11.1% of the N-Korean population was killed.
When the conflict ended neither side achieved any goals. They just had to stop because of the terrible destruction they had caused.
No, the americans didn't bring any good. It would have been better to have N-Korea invade S-Korea and to have them do their own fighting. Support them with weapons if they needed any if you really need to do something. And of course to try to get peace negociations. The idea that more could be done for the Korean people is an illusion.
Actually, the war was never officially ended. We have a cease fire that has lasted 53 years.
The Vietnam War is commonly viewed as a mistake. Also, it may have marked the solid
beginning of terrorist warfare.
Uuuh? What do you mean? The beginning of terrorist warfare? If we start with the roman empire, there have been many cases of terrorism by and against the roman empire. Then we have the crusades with acts of violence with political motives at both sides. Then the French revolution, then the revolution against Tsarists Russia, often seen as the first case of 'modern day terrorism'. And then there is a long list of more modern uses of terrorism. Even if you actually mean guerullia warfare you are wrong. Most N-Vietnamese leaders got their guerilla warfare strategy out of China where it was used in the civil war. Mao Zhedong even wrote a book on the subject in 1937.
Conventional warfare still existed, at least in Western warfare, until the first Gulf War, which the U.S. became involved in to protect its oil interests. I would note that after this, the U.S. withdrew its troops from the area.
Maybe you should have told this to Osama Bin Laden before 9/11 because he, like the rest of the world, were under the impression that the US had kept part of their forces in Saudi Arabia after the war.
Now, of course, we have entered into civilian warfare,
What's that?
It is not just the "enemies of America" who fight with this strategy. Hezbollah and Hamas are just two examples. Islamic militants in the Congo and other areas of Africa fight this way too. It is seen by many as cowardly, but I would also argue that it existed 600 years ago.
I really don't see why the tactics that Hezbollah use at the present moment are cowardly. First off, it is totally irrelevant. But Hezbollah is waiting for Israel. But Israel just decide it is more militarily feasable to bomb 'targets' in Libanon.
The fact that only about one-third of all Americans approve of what the government is doing, particularly overseas, means that two-thirds of all Americans do NOT approve of what is going on.
Ooh yes. For example, a majority of the US population has always been opposed to supporting Israel if that means blocking peace, like it has. In other words, the majority of the US people were always opposed to the particular way the US supported Israel.
But both political parties have the same views on the subject. So the voters can think anything they want, they just can't vote on this issue.
As for both attacks on Iraq. In both cases propagandha and even lies were needed to get the population to support the wars.
Needless to say, that doesn't particularly matter, since the country is in the hands of the wealthiest 5% of the population. Note that congressional representatives have about a 90% incumbency rate. Essentially, it could be an aristocracy.
Thomas Jefferson's nightmare. As I said before. The US was founded to be free of the European aristocracy. They failed.
Also, get rid of the presumption that anybody can be president. Even though this is a capitalist nation, or perhaps because of this, only those who have enough money to fund campaigns can think of running for election.
Just make a personality profile of every american president. For one they need to be male, white and christian. If you don't follow this criteria you do not have any chance. Now of course people talk about Condi running for president. And it may happen. But she doesn't really represent the average female black american, does she? So it is still kind of meaningless if it happens. But at least it will be a change.
In a democracy anyone who is average enough could become president. This doesn't happen in the US. The last two presidential elections in the US were really poor. In the last one there were two candidates who were almost clones of each other. Two white male christian rich kids that went to the same elite universitary and joined the same secret society. And then they also agreed with each other on most of the important points. and the election before that was just cheated and awared by the supreme court.
If I may be so bold, the "terror and force and threat that America has forced" upon zheer's oppressed personage is a far lesser evil than that of the terror and threat that would be imposed upon other nations by, say, North Korea, Iran, or China; and towards the less radical but still potently communist and militaristic side of the spectrum, Russia or Venezuala.
I don't agree. N-Korea and Iran have learned 'the Iraqi lesson'. You need to have WMDs so you won't get invaded.
As for China. Look at their history. They have always looked inwards. They only want to oppress their 'own people' which to them, of course, also includes Tibet, which they have been occupying since 1951, and Taiwan. They may challenge other countries in the international arena but that has nothing to do with war.
As for Russia. It's kind of the same. They don't have any imperialist intentions either. Those days are over. They enjoy their energy resources and Putin reformed Russia in a new form of Tsarism. Actually, the same goes for China. China is also governed the same way it has been for the last 2000 years. We had some communism for a short wile but now it has turned to how it was before.
And Venezuela. I think that at this point Chavez is more concerned by a US invasion then planning his own wars. And concerning his military shopping. I guess it is primarily to back his loud mouth.
Instead, perhaps we should be grateful that America is not afraid to get involved,
I think they are more afraid not to get involved.
although we have erred in our reactions. However, think of what could happen if America did not get involved. You can see what is going on in Lebanon and Israel right now.
Yes, the US disrupting any possible cease fire agreement because they want to lend Israel a 'free hand' to do whatever they want, for now. The US has been vetoing away all resolutions the world community has tried to pass that contains anything the Israeli's don't like.
What about Rwanda? Where was the terror and force of America then? What about the Congo? What about Cambodia?
The conflicts in Africa are the result of European imperialism. For US caused conflicts you have to look at Middle and South America. But don't continue to list random conflicts because the US is involved in some way in a lot of them.
Frankly, I believe the government acts in ways that you see as condusive to terror and force because they are trying to protect their best interests.
But what does it mean for the people when the state acts in its own interest?
What, after all, was the invasion of Afghanistan but a byproduct of 9/11?
In a way it was. But what happened it really strange. OBL was rumoured to be behind 9/11. So the US demanded the Taliban handed him over to them. The Taliban requisted evidence. None was given. Actually, at that point they didn't even have any. And then the US attacked Afghanistan. Isn't that kind of a strange way of going?
Iraq was also a direct result of this, not because Iraq harbored al Qaeda (although quite possibly they may have)
They do now. But do you insinuate that Saddam Hussain wasn't such a brutal and efficient killer that he left Al Quaida terrorists alive in his country? Highly unlikely. He would have tortured them to death for sure.
or possessed WMDs (which they also may have), but because of the fear instilled in America by the Arab connection. The same applies to the issue with Saudi Arabia controlling port security.
Of course they still had WMDs, those sold to them by the US after they used WMDs against Iran and the kurds. But the UNSCOM had already found these.
Almost all countries have WMDs of some kind. Actually, it is a miracle they did not find any more of them after the war. Really amazing. Everyone expected them to find some irrelevant weapons and to make a big deal out of it.
Saudi Arabia is the biggest invester inside the US. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from SA. Why didn't anything happen? Are you saying me that US policy is based on irrational fear? Or are you saying we should be soft on the US population because they are just so easily deluded by their own government?
Topic: Haw to wipeout America.