What happens with the next Axis Of Evil target?
-
Ok sorry, more war and terrorist talk. At least I put it in the Soapbox :) Very simple question: Everyone agrees that something must be done about Iraq. The what and how though is a bit more contentious. But still the target and the need for war can be argued for. My question though is what happens when the US turns to someone that no other country agrees is a threat? Hypothetically, what if the US just decides and starts invading some country without any support from anyone else, not even Blair? What can the rest of us do? Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Just curious.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaOk we are in the soapbox now. Paul Watson wrote: Everyone agrees that something must be done about Iraq. I actually have to ask does everyone? I ask this because very few apparently care enough to find (offer) solutions other than bitching and moaning about it. IMO that means we as a general group do not really care. So what message are we (you) sending the US leaders? I think that answer answers Pauls question. I honestly feel we are back to what I feel is a common human trait. Everything is someone else’s fault and I as an individual have no responsibility. Those that sit back and do nothing (i.e. do not offer other solutions or compromises) have as much responsibility as the individual who promotes the path we are going down. This is the soapbox and the lack of personal responsibility that people show is one of mine. And to Paul, thanks for trying. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Simple - we stop buying their goods. America has always been about money, stop giving them ours. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002Christian Graus wrote: America has always been about money, stop giving them ours. Then explain why the US gives billions to aid disaster victims. Then explain why the US pays 25% of the UN budget. Explain why the US gave away billions in goods to the allies in WW2? I do not have figures for Lend Lease to the UK, but to the Soviet Union alone it was over 20 billion (in 1945 US dollars.) What would you call the US if we stopped? "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Simple - we stop buying their goods. America has always been about money, stop giving them ours. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002A trade war? I don't think this would work - it would harm the countries that were taking part in the boycott as much as it would the US. No-one can oppose the US militarily/economically at the moment - and perhaps not for decades to come. The only handbrake that can be applied will come from the US electorate.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Ok sorry, more war and terrorist talk. At least I put it in the Soapbox :) Very simple question: Everyone agrees that something must be done about Iraq. The what and how though is a bit more contentious. But still the target and the need for war can be argued for. My question though is what happens when the US turns to someone that no other country agrees is a threat? Hypothetically, what if the US just decides and starts invading some country without any support from anyone else, not even Blair? What can the rest of us do? Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Just curious.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: What can the rest of us do? Nothing. The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate. We can whine, bitch, slag off the USA until we're blue in the face - but it wouldn't do us any good. I recently read a very well written book on this subject called "Why do people hate America?" - and it described America as the first "Hyperpower". Certainly no-one will be able to touch them militarily for a long, long time. Perhaps China will be in a position to challenge them in a few decades, but even this is unlikely.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Yep. And the UK will be getting second dabs on all those juicy post-Saddam oil/construction contracts... ;)
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
I don't consider it enough reason to go to war The tigress is here :-D
-
Paul Watson wrote: What can the rest of us do? Nothing. The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate. We can whine, bitch, slag off the USA until we're blue in the face - but it wouldn't do us any good. I recently read a very well written book on this subject called "Why do people hate America?" - and it described America as the first "Hyperpower". Certainly no-one will be able to touch them militarily for a long, long time. Perhaps China will be in a position to challenge them in a few decades, but even this is unlikely.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Perhaps China will be in a position to challenge them in a few decades, but even this is unlikely Interesting point: Would the US let China get anywhere near the level to challenge the US militarily? Last time I checked the US still did not like China that much. They could easily spin up a fuss about China and validate an invasion to bring "democracy" to China. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate Would the electorate do this though? How far would the leaders have to push before the electorate rebelled? Already with Iraq there have been massive rallies, but nothing has actually changed.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
I don't consider it enough reason to go to war The tigress is here :-D
So? Either do I, but since when has the opinion of the UK electorate actually mattered? My point is that there will be spoils for the victors - and that has certainly been taken into consideration by the UK government, though they'd never admit this publically. Cheap oil is a very powerful incentive to go to war... :(
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Perhaps China will be in a position to challenge them in a few decades, but even this is unlikely Interesting point: Would the US let China get anywhere near the level to challenge the US militarily? Last time I checked the US still did not like China that much. They could easily spin up a fuss about China and validate an invasion to bring "democracy" to China. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate Would the electorate do this though? How far would the leaders have to push before the electorate rebelled? Already with Iraq there have been massive rallies, but nothing has actually changed.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: Would the US let China get anywhere near the level to challenge the US militarily? Perhaps not. Unless things change in China, we may one day see a US-Sino confrontation over Taiwan - and I'm sure that if this were to happen, the US would knock the Chinese military back to the stoneage. However, China has nukes aimed at the US - so, just like North Korea, you'd find the US reluctant to go to war unless they had both a VERY good reason (a Chinese invasion of Taiwan) and international support. Even then, it would be a very bloody affair indeed. Of couse, Chinese Communism may fall and then the US would have even less reason to dislike them. That would be a thorny one. Once communism has gone, a pro-Western (but anti-US) China would probably modernise very quickly - including it's armed forces. So, even now, the idea of the US invading China is hard to swallow - if it turned nuclear, the US would lose the entire West Coast. They wouldn't take that risk unless they actually get Son Of Star Wars working and how likely is that? Paul Watson wrote: Would the electorate do this though? How far would the leaders have to push before the electorate rebelled? You'd have to ask an American. Plenty of Americans on CP have said that the US is overdue for a revolution :eek:, so I wouldn't rule out a popular uprising if the government went all Nazi on them :mad:. Paul Watson wrote: Already with Iraq there have been massive rallies, but nothing has actually changed. Yeh, but the polls still claim that the majority will support a war in Iraq - and with UN support, those polls indicate something like 80% support. Those rallies haven't been anywhere near the size of the Anit-Vietnam ones, so the doves in the US have a LONG way to go before they'll change GWBs opinion I'm afraid :(.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Wait till the war starts, then watch Tonys popularity shoot up. This is exactly what happened for all prime ministers concerned during The Falklands, The Gulf and Kosovo. Once the fighting starts, public opinion will swing around. Also, with UN approval, there is still a majority in favour of military action in the UK - granted it is only ~60%, but it's still a majority. However, without UN approval this figure drops to 15%! Tony should be very careful here - UN approval is crucial IMHO.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
I read somewhere (sorry, a while ago, while the troops were still in Afghanistan), that Bush Snr actually warned his son about basing his term on war, as he believed that was the reason he was back out again so quickly after the Gulf War. That is why this seems so strange to me. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: UN approval is crucial IMHO I don't see how they can go ahead and still call themselves civilized without this. In fact, if they do, surely the UN would be obliged to intervene against them? The UN, not the US/UK combined is supposed to be the worlds peacekeeping force.
A pack of geeks, pale and skinny, feeling a bit pumped and macho after a morning of strenuous mouse clicking and dragging, arriving en masse at the gym. They carefully reset the machines to the lowest settings, offer to spot for each other on the 5 lb dumbells, and rediscover the art of macrame while attempting to jump rope. -Roger Wright on my colleagues and I going to gym each day at lunch
-
Paul Watson wrote: What can the rest of us do? Nothing. The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate. We can whine, bitch, slag off the USA until we're blue in the face - but it wouldn't do us any good. I recently read a very well written book on this subject called "Why do people hate America?" - and it described America as the first "Hyperpower". Certainly no-one will be able to touch them militarily for a long, long time. Perhaps China will be in a position to challenge them in a few decades, but even this is unlikely.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nothing. The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate. And you can discuss the issue with US citizens who can change the focus of their electorate. So I do not buy "Nothing" as an answer. It may very well seem small but it is not nothing, I will not accept hopeless as an answer. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
KaЯl wrote: We could ask for economical sanctions against the US This and your following question is why I asked my question. Economic sanctions won't work IMO. We are too dependant on them (and they on us.) Cut out the US consumer market from most countries exports and just watch the chaos. And the US knows this. One more reason for them to not give a toss what we think.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: And the US knows this. One more reason for them to not give a toss what we think. Reminds me of something I saw on a site David Stone recommended to me yesterday (nothing to do with war however). It had this quote at the top - "The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote." :|
A pack of geeks, pale and skinny, feeling a bit pumped and macho after a morning of strenuous mouse clicking and dragging, arriving en masse at the gym. They carefully reset the machines to the lowest settings, offer to spot for each other on the 5 lb dumbells, and rediscover the art of macrame while attempting to jump rope. -Roger Wright on my colleagues and I going to gym each day at lunch
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nothing. The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate. And you can discuss the issue with US citizens who can change the focus of their electorate. So I do not buy "Nothing" as an answer. It may very well seem small but it is not nothing, I will not accept hopeless as an answer. "I will find a new sig someday."
You have more faith than I do then. Since when has the rest of the worlds opinion made a big difference to the average US voter??? I didn't say is was hopeless though Michael. Paul questioned what could be done if the US starting taking out anyone it didn't like, and in a situation like that I have every faith US voters would stand up and be heard.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
I read somewhere (sorry, a while ago, while the troops were still in Afghanistan), that Bush Snr actually warned his son about basing his term on war, as he believed that was the reason he was back out again so quickly after the Gulf War. That is why this seems so strange to me. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: UN approval is crucial IMHO I don't see how they can go ahead and still call themselves civilized without this. In fact, if they do, surely the UN would be obliged to intervene against them? The UN, not the US/UK combined is supposed to be the worlds peacekeeping force.
A pack of geeks, pale and skinny, feeling a bit pumped and macho after a morning of strenuous mouse clicking and dragging, arriving en masse at the gym. They carefully reset the machines to the lowest settings, offer to spot for each other on the 5 lb dumbells, and rediscover the art of macrame while attempting to jump rope. -Roger Wright on my colleagues and I going to gym each day at lunch
-
Paul Watson wrote: And the US knows this. One more reason for them to not give a toss what we think. Reminds me of something I saw on a site David Stone recommended to me yesterday (nothing to do with war however). It had this quote at the top - "The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote." :|
A pack of geeks, pale and skinny, feeling a bit pumped and macho after a morning of strenuous mouse clicking and dragging, arriving en masse at the gym. They carefully reset the machines to the lowest settings, offer to spot for each other on the 5 lb dumbells, and rediscover the art of macrame while attempting to jump rope. -Roger Wright on my colleagues and I going to gym each day at lunch
Megan Forbes wrote: "The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote." How charming. :| Thanks for the quote though.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
Ok sorry, more war and terrorist talk. At least I put it in the Soapbox :) Very simple question: Everyone agrees that something must be done about Iraq. The what and how though is a bit more contentious. But still the target and the need for war can be argued for. My question though is what happens when the US turns to someone that no other country agrees is a threat? Hypothetically, what if the US just decides and starts invading some country without any support from anyone else, not even Blair? What can the rest of us do? Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Just curious.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Does the U.N. have teeth or not, Paul? If it doesn't, than it should just shut-up and get out of the way and let a country that does have teeth deal with the worlds problems. If it does, than it should damn well stand up and bite somebody. That is up to you guys to decide. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
You have more faith than I do then. Since when has the rest of the worlds opinion made a big difference to the average US voter??? I didn't say is was hopeless though Michael. Paul questioned what could be done if the US starting taking out anyone it didn't like, and in a situation like that I have every faith US voters would stand up and be heard.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Paul questioned what could be done if the US starting taking out anyone it didn't like, and in a situation like that I have every faith US voters would stand up and be heard. Understand, I was a bit on the quick side. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: You have more faith than I do then. I will gladly agree on being an optimist for this. As I said I can not accept other options. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Since when has the rest of the worlds opinion made a big difference to the average US voter??? Agreed, but here is the plus, the average voter also does not take the time to be heard. So by taking that time you can make more of a difference than the average voter. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Paul Watson wrote: Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Does the U.N. have teeth or not, Paul? If it doesn't, than it should just shut-up and get out of the way and let a country that does have teeth deal with the worlds problems. If it does, than it should damn well stand up and bite somebody. That is up to you guys to decide. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan you are obviously angry about the whole situation and not being your usual well thought out self.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
So? Either do I, but since when has the opinion of the UK electorate actually mattered? My point is that there will be spoils for the victors - and that has certainly been taken into consideration by the UK government, though they'd never admit this publically. Cheap oil is a very powerful incentive to go to war... :(
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
It worked for Thatcher. X| Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
Christian Graus wrote: Simple - we stop buying their goods. America has always been about money, stop giving them ours. Hmmm. But for instance a lot of our exports go to the US, and our exports are big money. If we boycotted US goods you can be sure they would boycott ours. The US is a massive consumer, we take lots of their money too. Also apart from entertainment and IT related goods we buy hardly any US made goods, too expensive. We get European or far east goods mainly. I don't think we can cut the US out economically and survive. They depend on us and we depend on them.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: I don't think we can cut the US out economically and survive. They depend on us and we depend on them I'm not so sure it would be the same for the European Union. For example, France make 60% of its trade with other countries of the EU. Germany is our first partner, as client and as supplier Seen the US trade deficit, it wouldn't be long before a boycott began to have major effect.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop