Forums | MacLife

sturner wrote:

Well there is our only leverage, aka the Turkish Air Bases during the Cuban Missle Crisis. We agree to let the missle installations not be installed, they get their butts out of Georgia.

True, that would be a smart thing to do. But no way our supid leaders would do this.

How would that be the smart thing to do?

Once that one and only chip is bargained away, the Russians won't have anything stopping them from doing this again (or worse) in future.

I feel like Moscow has timed this very well. It's happening at a time when the US has zero appetite for foreign adventures (and is being run by a lame duck president).

ShnickyShnack wrote:

How would that be the smart thing to do?

Once that one and only chip is bargained away, the Russians won't have anything stopping them from doing this again (or worse) in future.

I feel like Moscow has timed this very well. It's happening at a time when the US has zero appetite for foreign adventures (and is being run by a lame duck president).

Polen was against this shield, only after this conflict they now agreed.
How so did Moscow timed this? THey did it as a reaction, they where not the first to attack. Of course they did see it coming, and maybe they loved to get in action but maybe they just took the bait?
Sure it was more easy to get involved since what the US did to Iraq, so they can show their might somethimes to feel important as well.. Still I think both sides are just wrong and both makes things worse.

Last edited by Proost (2008-08-14 2:28 pm)

Chickenhawk wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Yes, isolationism worked SO well for us in the past.

Indeed.

There are other countries in this world, France certainly is making motions it wants to be a world leader, Canada is flush with money and all this love around the world just to name two.
Unless you believe in American exceptionalism that is.

Farmerkev wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Yes, isolationism worked SO well for us in the past.

Indeed.

There are other countries in this world, France certainly is making motions it wants to be a world leader, Canada is flush with money and all this love around the world just to name two.
Unless you believe in American exceptionalism that is.

False choices.

American leadership is necessary, no one else can do it.

But it has to be leadership with some modicum of decency.

How about this:

American leadership is necessary.
Even when America smurfs up, Europe has made it clear that they have no desire to do it.

There is nothing the West can do.

Russia is holding all the cards; military, economic, and diplomatic. US forces are over-stretched as they are, and Europe sure isn't going to provoke Russia militarily. Russia provides Europe with a significant and ever increasing amount of its oil and natural gas, in a time of record high fuel prices. Can't use sanctions. And nobody has any nice deals with Russia that they can cancel, while the US needs Russia help it isolate Iran.

Russia has been left by the wayside for the past 20 years, and now they are reminding the world not to smurf with them. Want to influence Russia? Be friendly with them. Thats about the only option anyone has at this point.

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

How about this:

American leadership is necessary.
Even when America smurfs up, Europe has made it clear that they have no desire to do it.

It's only necessary because others take the safe route.
American leadership could also be considered forcing them to take more active roles.

Europe doesn't have the resources to exert the kind of influence America has been holding for years. Canada sure as hell doesn't.

To me, global leadership isn't a choice a country makes, it's a side-effect of just being big and powerful.

It's also worth noting that American military spending far outstrips the military spending of the militaries of the rest of the world combined.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

It's only necessary because others take the safe route.
American leadership could also be considered forcing them to take more active roles.

Europe doesn't have the resources to exert the kind of influence America has been holding for years. Canada sure as hell doesn't.

To me, global leadership isn't a choice a country makes, it's a side-effect of just being big and powerful.

Oh you and the EU have the resources, you just don't want to spend them on a military to back up a leadership role.
It's about choices.

Care to quantify that?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Oh you and the EU have the resources, you just don't want to spend them on a military to back up a leadership role.
It's about choices.

Care to quantify that?

Want me to start with your budget surplus?

Sure, you can include our debt, including as a percentage of GDP.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Want me to start with your budget surplus?

Sure, you can include our debt, including as a percentage of GDP.

Yeah, Lord knows the US doesn't have a debt problem.

Your argument, if there is one, seems lost and wayward. What point are you trying to make?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Yeah, Lord knows the US doesn't have a debt problem.

Your argument, if there is one, seems lost and wayward. What point are you trying to make?

You've got a 14 billion yearly surplus, take half and start taking on more world leadership.
Nobody likes what the US does so do it yourselves.

Most of the world was fine with American leadership before Bush came along.

And how much world leadership can seven billion buy? That won't even get one CVN aircraft carrier.