Quote (Caedus @ Jul 19 2012 10:11pm)

They originated by the British setting up a very powerful and very well funded/supplied state close to their borders.

The American goverment is not the preeminent leader of world affairs, the time has passed that Europe would follow the US's every whim. Where interests allign maybe, but the US's inability to keep their "allies" (Puppet states, Iraq, the Taliban, Libya, Egypt, Vietnam among others) on their side or in power has been obvious over the past 40 years.

Increasing countries wish to stop following American foreign policy and begin relationships with American rivals. Israel and Russia now have a very close military relationship despite Russian support for their enemies. The EU wishes to further incorporate Russia into Europe.

How many Russian allies have the American's elminated? I can't think of any. I can however think of numerous American allies that no longer support the US in the ways they used to (Or are shells of there former self).

American woe's could bring down the entire world (And they nearly did in 2008), Russia's woe's mean a corrupt millitary official sells weapons to a "rouge" state that can't actually do any harm with them, or a childish oil/gas official decides his toy will be spending absurd amounts of (Goverment and public) money on a hockey team.

This isn't the cold war anymore, the US-Russia rivaly is nothing more than a spitting match, nothing will come of it, and I suspect much of it is just for show. American and Russian relations are probably far better than what the public knows. Russia condemn's the US occupation of Afghanistan, the US condemn's Russia's occupation of South Ossetia. Russia bitches about the US, the US bitches about Russia. It's all very predicitble and nothing very serious.



Fascism isn't a bad ideology. Hitler taking Mussolini's original idea's farther then they should have gone (Fasicsm does not need state racism). Almost all instances of fascism the leader loses sight of the goals, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Salazar ect. People forget the Peron and Hirohito (Peron failed because of a coup and Hirohito, who turned Japan in a global power lost a war) didn't have the same "issues".

Quote (bogie160 @ Jul 21 2012 03:52pm)

Franco wasn't really a Fascist (which is why I believe he survived), but that's really beside the point.

-----

The United States is the leading force in a global hegemony. Its influence relative to some growing powers (really only China) is waning, and with the collapse of the USSR the need for Europe to remain tightly bound to the United States is necessarily diminished. This is mutual, though, just look at Obama's proposed cutdowns in the region, and it's just indicative of changing interests which were bound to occur after a significant shift in the balance of power. Remove the threat to Western Europe and the need / desire for strict cooperation will diminish. Many of the Eastern European states, by contrast, still have Russian historical aggression fresh in their minds. It's why Poland desires American assurances against the Eastern threat, and why the Baltic states have remained stolidly in our camp since independence.

The United States has a strong working relationship with key states in Eastern Europe, the Gulf states, a very large part of East and South-East Asia, and the "stan" countries of Central Asia. Significant threats (Russia, China, Iran) are all surrounded by American allies and bases, and barring that, nations which grant the United States access to military facilities.

Smaller nations look to the United States as a counter-balancing force against local regional giants. Take China; Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Indonesia all look, it one way or another, to the United States as a counter-balancing force against Chinese aggression. Burma has even gone so far as to moderate its domestic policy in order to leverage American influence against the Chinese. The United States is a rational actor, sure, and it's perceived as such, but the threat America poses is far less to these states than the threat of a regional power like China, which has historical and contemporary designs on East and South East Asia.

American influence is as strong as ever, it's just taken on a more subtle, that makes sense in a more subtle age.

Quote (Mutantlord @ Jul 21 2012 12:22pm)

you had apologized before and didnt told anything about your mental situation or your family origin (i found it out later you know ) i just felt like you are using the religion tactic again on somebody else so i messaged

Quote (bogie160 @ Jul 22 2012 08:52am)

. Remove the threat to Western Europe and the need / desire for strict cooperation will diminish.

The United States has a strong working relationship with key states in Eastern Europe, the Gulf states, a very large part of East and South-East Asia, and the "stan" countries of Central Asia. Significant threats (Russia, China, Iran) are all surrounded by American allies and bases, and barring that, nations which grant the United States access to military facilities.

Smaller nations look to the United States as a counter-balancing force against local regional giants. Take China; Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Indonesia all look, it one way or another, to the United States as a counter-balancing force against Chinese aggression. Burma has even gone so far as to moderate its domestic policy in order to leverage American influence against the Chinese. The United States is a rational actor, sure, and it's perceived as such, but the threat America poses is far less to these states than the threat of a regional power like China, which has historical and contemporary designs on East and South East Asia.

American influence is as strong as ever, it's just taken on a more subtle, that makes sense in a more subtle age.

Quote (Matao @ Jul 22 2012 08:51am)

which in no way explains the missile shield

that the usa has been able to threaten , cajole and bribe all but the largest and most powerful states is indicative only of the usa's power to threaten , cajole and bribe .....

yet when south american nations look to other nations as a counterbalance against the american giant , all we hear is how justified the usa would be in attacking /neutralizing such counterbalancing help.
when faced with a real and imminent threat , ofc nations will accept help from non friendly nations
survive today , and worry about who your enemies are tomorrow

all in all , the usa is a hegemonic power , whose scope of action is the entire globe , as well as the space around our globe
to perceive the usa as a benign state is to not perceive all the many many power games its involved in , both in the present , and the recent past

it is a leader in world affairs only in as much as it is the preeminent empire of our day
that it must maintain its empire by force , and the threat of force , speaks volumes not only about its so called  leadership
but also of the great tensions in all of its relationships , especially as it is constantly seeking to enlarge the empire

Quote

Syria has said it will not use chemical and biological weapons against Syrians but would use them against foreign "aggression".

At a news conference in Damascus on Monday, foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi said that Syria was in "self defence" mode but ruled out use of the weapons even against rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

"Any stocks of WMD or any unconventional weapons that the Syrian Arab Republic possesses would never, would never be used against civilians or against the Syrian people during this crisis at any circumstances, no matter how the crisis would evolve, no matter how," Makdissi said.

Debate on Syria's chemical weapons and whether it could use them in the ongoing military campaign to crush the rebellion started after a daring rebel attack that killed four members of Assad's inner circle, including the defence minister and his deputy.

Syria had never publicly come out to talk about its chemical weapons, although it is widely believed to have them.

Makdissi stressed later in an email that Syria would "never use chemical and biological weapons during the crisis... and that such weapons, if they exist, it is natural for them to be stored and secured", the AFP news agency reported.