Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/25/2006 7:48:11 PM EST
I am not sure if this is the right forum. But I am wondering if anyone else feels the same way. I think the way things are going world wide, that history is about to repeat itself and the USA will end up fucked. Let me paint the picture the way I see it:

Major superpower waining: USA, population losing will to fight
Military build-ups being ignored: North Korea, China, Iran, Pakistan, Tamul Tigers, Lebanon,Syria, Yemen, Libya, South American countries


I think the US is going to become isolationist again and the muslims and communists will probably take full advantage. Somehow I see a WWIII coming our way and getting our ass kicked. Does anyone else see this as a probable situation with in the next 15 years?

If CCW are used to round up guns plus gun sales records and a crack down on businesses, what do you think our chances are? Especially when the Chinese are making our technology for us and stealing what they don't have.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 2:01:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By JoseyWales:
I am not sure if this is the right forum. But I am wondering if anyone else feels the same way. I think the way things are going world wide, that history is about to repeat itself and the USA will end up fucked. Let me paint the picture the way I see it:

Major superpower waining: USA, population losing will to fight
Military build-ups being ignored: North Korea, China, Iran, Pakistan, Tamul Tigers, Lebanon,Syria, Yemen, Libya, South American countries


I think the US is going to become isolationist again and the muslims and communists will probably take full advantage. Somehow I see a WWIII coming our way and getting our ass kicked. Does anyone else see this as a probable situation with in the next 15 years?

If CCW are used to round up guns plus gun sales records and a crack down on businesses, what do you think our chances are? Especially when the Chinese are making our technology for us and stealing what they don't have.
The only Americans loosing their will to fight are the ones listening to the mainstream media and the liberal politicians the rest of them never had the will and the only reason most of most of the Lib's voted to go to War in the first place was because it was an election year and it was useful to do so. The military build up is not being ignored by U.S. only by the U.N. who pass resolution after resolution without the will to enforce it, they don't have the will before they pass one. If you like your CCW you better take every one you can to the polls and vote for your gun friendly candidate. If we could somehow project at least the image of being UNITED we would be much better off, only time will tell, remember what the media and the liberals did to the country during Vietnam. The only way we wont win is if we fall apart from within. Sometimes you have to do what's right for the Country and forget about what you want, to secure Democracy or a Republic. You start thinking like a looser and you will become one!
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 5:14:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 5:36:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By JoseyWales:
I am not sure if this is the right forum. But I am wondering if anyone else feels the same way. I think the way things are going world wide, that history is about to repeat itself and the USA will end up fucked. Let me paint the picture the way I see it:

Major superpower waining: USA, population losing will to fight
Military build-ups being ignored: North Korea, China, Iran, Pakistan, Tamul Tigers, Lebanon,Syria, Yemen, Libya, South American countries


I think the US is going to become isolationist again and the muslims and communists will probably take full advantage. Somehow I see a WWIII coming our way and getting our ass kicked. Does anyone else see this as a probable situation with in the next 15 years?


The best opportunity to doom America was the Counter Culture anti-war Dems in the '70s. What is happening now is just skewed perception. I think America is suffering from a post-Vietnam syndrome where these nutballs grew old and are running academia and media. They are good at discouraging people and challenge our patriotism.

Shok
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 7:12:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 7:34:38 AM EST by DeltaII5]
Book Reccomendation: Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States It's written by a former U.S. Undersecretary of State and a Defense analyst. I just read it and it was very good. Involves all of the countries you mentioned. It's a factual book, that then gives 6 chapters about what a war with China would look like. 3 chapters with a Republican President (McCain?) and 3 chapters with Billiary as president. I won't lie, Hilliary doesn't do well, hell Bill pulled troops outta Somolia, so she isn't much better.

As much as I don't really care for Rumsfield, they quote him a couple times and talk about things the President and Rumsfield have been fighting for. Such as continuing the EU arms ban to China, now forcing Israel to OK all arms sale to China with the U.S. Showing that while the President and Rumsfield may not be doing so well in Iraq they are very vigilant in stunting Chinas military growth.


It speaks about how Clinton alienated India when they were doing nuclear tests, even though they are a democracy and yet tried to bride North Korea while they are a dictatorship ()

The book brings one important fact to light. If they Dems take congresss and the house now and then the Presidency, they will cut defense spending (as we know Bill did) and we will not be able to receover.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 7:13:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 7:13:54 AM EST by DeltaII5]
oops posted it twice by accident
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 7:33:52 AM EST
i agree that a lot of Americans have lost the will to fight anything let alone the war on terror and Asian megalomaniacs.
I do believe however, that there are a lot of Americans such as the ones on this website that will not allow our country to be taken over by the liberals and anybody else that we don't like.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 8:46:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 8:47:52 AM EST by jimb100]

Originally Posted By shotar:
Indeed. Lets focus on this concept of winning and losing for a moment. See, this is really the core of the whole issue. My observation is that the basics of liberal teachings in large part revolve around the core concept that winning and losing are in and of themselves bad. They always seek concensus and cannot fathom that someone seeking to win is fair. As a result, they conclude and project a philosophy that winning in any endevor is simply not possible and if one does actually win, an appology to the looser is in order.

This might work for little league and kids games, but unfortunately, they apply it to real life as well. This is perfectly natural to them. They further become dangerous when they fail to comprehend that our enemies do not share their sense of fundamental fairness and the expectation of a zero sum outcome. They simply cannot comprehend that our enemy is truly seeking to beat us and that anything that they do might affect that outcome. You see, they fully expect any armed or diplomatic conflict to end in a draw. Any other outcome is just incomprehensible to them.

This is why they decry even our modest losses given the scope of the conflict as well as the enemy losses. You see, they expect that they must be proportional and their philosophy ultimately demands that the result will be a zero sum draw anyway, so it is all truly a waste until that point. I hope this look into liberal defeatism has been educational.


Evidently you don't share the viewpoint held by the allied leaders after WWII.

The entire purpose of the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan and Germany was to remove, as much as possible, the economic justifications for war.

Building on their experience after WWI where the might makes right, I win you lose, style of world governance let directly to WWII, allied leader decided that while the US, Britain and Russia had won, we would work to rebuild Germany and Japan. Russia had enough trouble rebuilding themselves.

If you want to think in terms of 'winning and losing' you must realize that eventually, it will be your turn to 'lose'.

Better the human race move forward at a steady pace rather than have to face 100 million dead if 'winning and losing' get out of hand.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 8:58:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 9:05:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 9:24:31 AM EST by shotar]
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 10:17:02 AM EST

The only Americans loosing their will to fight are the ones listening to the mainstream media and the liberal politicians


The only Americans that are loosing the will to fight are those who have lost (or maimed) shildren, or have neighbors with lost/maimed children, or know of someone with a lost/maimed child. And then there are the 50% who never were for the war in the first place. As casualties mount the first number grows rapidly while the second remains constant. With 20K total casualties, there has been a 10% drop in the number of people supporting the war. Another 20K casualties and no politician country wide will be in support of this war.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 11:55:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By MitchAlsup:

The only Americans loosing their will to fight are the ones listening to the mainstream media and the liberal politicians


The only Americans that are loosing the will to fight are those who have lost (or maimed) shildren, or have neighbors with lost/maimed children, or know of someone with a lost/maimed child. And then there are the 50% who never were for the war in the first place. As casualties mount the first number grows rapidly while the second remains constant. With 20K total casualties, there has been a 10% drop in the number of people supporting the war. Another 20K casualties and no politician country wide will be in support of this war.


Thats strange. All the "maimed children" returning from Afghanistan and Iraq that I've heard from haven't lost the will to fight.

And if 50% of Americans never were for the war in the first place why did 100% of the US Senators vote to ratify the resolution to authorize the war? Nothing you said makes any sense.

Shok
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 9:17:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:
Jim:

Your logic is generally correct when dealing with civilized societies, that actually have something to lose and view the various formulae of cost/benefit as valid. What the Marshall plan does not account for though are enemies/savages who do not base benefit on economic grounds, or anything resembling them. That is what we are facing. A fanatical enemy that does not compare to modern world nation states and their various economic goals. If we were attacked by say the Swiss, we could formulate a plan whereby we defeated them and then made the cost of war simply too high and therefore unthinkable. This is not the case though, and our recalcitrant left, is still trying to fight and plan on the basis of zero sum contingencies, which does not account for our current enemy's motivations, which are not in any way shape or form predicated upon economics. Don't you think we would simply buy them off if we could? The clearest example of this is the $25million reward and the fact that Bin Laden's head is not presently in a box at the Smithsonian.

As to winning and losing, well, its not our turn to lose this time. The only thing in the current situation that can cause us to lose is the collective lack of will to win, and take those steps necessary to achieve victory. Much like Vietnam where our wonderful government chose to snatch defeat right from the Jaws of victory.

It could easily and correctly be argued that Tet was the key to the whole war. Had we redoulbled our efforts after that astounding victory, it would have ended the war years sooner and for decades to come not left our will to win in question.


Then we had better do a much better job of protecting our borders than we do today. A small nuclear device in Washington while Congress is in session and the President is in the Whitehouse or the same in New York on most any day would throw the world into chaos starting a chain reaction that would be unimaginable. I'm thinking a Mad Max scenario.

Today, we can be thankful the Islamic Fundamentalists have no bomb but for how much longer will that be true? Will the North Koreans sell Bin Laden a bomb? He could probably raise enough money to buy one.

So as you see, it could well be our turn to 'lose' withing 3-5 years. That's the contingency I don't see us planning for.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 10:08:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 3:22:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:

Originally Posted By jimb100:

Originally Posted By shotar:
Jim:

Your logic is generally correct when dealing with civilized societies, that actually have something to lose and view the various formulae of cost/benefit as valid. What the Marshall plan does not account for though are enemies/savages who do not base benefit on economic grounds, or anything resembling them. That is what we are facing. A fanatical enemy that does not compare to modern world nation states and their various economic goals. If we were attacked by say the Swiss, we could formulate a plan whereby we defeated them and then made the cost of war simply too high and therefore unthinkable. This is not the case though, and our recalcitrant left, is still trying to fight and plan on the basis of zero sum contingencies, which does not account for our current enemy's motivations, which are not in any way shape or form predicated upon economics. Don't you think we would simply buy them off if we could? The clearest example of this is the $25million reward and the fact that Bin Laden's head is not presently in a box at the Smithsonian.

As to winning and losing, well, its not our turn to lose this time. The only thing in the current situation that can cause us to lose is the collective lack of will to win, and take those steps necessary to achieve victory. Much like Vietnam where our wonderful government chose to snatch defeat right from the Jaws of victory.

It could easily and correctly be argued that Tet was the key to the whole war. Had we redoulbled our efforts after that astounding victory, it would have ended the war years sooner and for decades to come not left our will to win in question.


Then we had better do a much better job of protecting our borders than we do today. A small nuclear device in Washington while Congress is in session and the President is in the Whitehouse or the same in New York on most any day would throw the world into chaos starting a chain reaction that would be unimaginable. I'm thinking a Mad Max scenario.

Today, we can be thankful the Islamic Fundamentalists have no bomb but for how much longer will that be true? Will the North Koreans sell Bin Laden a bomb? He could probably raise enough money to buy one.

So as you see, it could well be our turn to 'lose' withing 3-5 years. That's the contingency I don't see us planning for.


But we have planned for it and its integral to our political system. You see, its all severable. The states are completely capable of functioning on their own. The fact is that this is a vast country with decentralized resources. All of washington could be lost and the various remaining state governments are fully capable of reforming into a cohesive national government with redundant infrastructure and resources.
Bravo.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 7:59:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:


But we have planned for it and its integral to our political system. You see, its all severable. The states are completely capable of functioning on their own. The fact is that this is a vast country with decentralized resources. All of washington could be lost and the various remaining state governments are fully capable of reforming into a cohesive national government with redundant infrastructure and resources.


I think you are being a little naive.

What happens when the social security checks stop.

The military no longer gets paid.

The Pentagon ceases to function.

The Federal Reserve ceases function.

And most important, no one enforces the Union. I would guess more than half of this forum would vote for secession!

I see several states taking the opportunity to form their own republics. A new confederacy could arise and this time, I think the north wouldn't argue much.

No, what you are predicting is all to pat and oversimple. The reality wouldn't be nearly as neat as you envision.
Top Top