naomi - stupid noob - extra stupid warlighter noob

Lol, America dominates foreign affairs because it is the top country in the world right now. Our navy controls the majority of sea lanes, we have a hand in almost every market, and interests to protect in multiple parts of the globe due to NATO and many other allies. It's not because of haughtiness or some vision of grandeur lol. It's because when you're the top nation, with the top economy, the top military, with allies across the globe, you dominate foreign affairs. Your opinion weighs the most. Just like when Britain pretty much conquered the world, everyone was dominated by British foreign affairs. When Rome conquered the world, everyone was dominated by Roman foreign affairs.

I don't know why I replied though because like Richard Sharpe said: If we intervene, we're thought of negatively. If we don't intervene, people ask why we didn't intervene and we're thought of negatively. Nothing in this thread said by the people that are clearly anti-American disproves this.

About the whole China vs America argument, I would say China survives by manufacturing things for us and investing in us. We're their main market. In a conflict, not only do we shut down our market to them, but we have a large enough Navy that they won't be able to trade overseas without defeating it. Their government is not as stable as most people in here suggest. If it took a major economic hit I don't think the Government could still hold as much sway.

As pointed out a land incursion could be suicide, the war would probably be mostly a naval blockade and constant bombing of ports to completely shut them off. Russia could get as involved as they want, but it probably wouldn't make a difference Navy-wise. Russia has small Navy and lacks great Naval training, whilst the American Navy has been patrolling waters for years fighting off pirates. It may not sound like much but it's better than nothing.

China has a carrier-busting missile, but it only busts carriers if it can land on one. In a standard arrangement of ships, it seems unlikely that the missile wouldn't be caught before it could deal damage. It could work if a carrier was patrolling a Chinese sea lane and China jumped it, but won't work in a blockade.

Economically while America may take a hit, it would not be as drastic as what would happen to the Chinese. I'm not sugarcoating it, I'm comparing the two. The hit would be large for both, but America sustains better footing as our hands are in many more markets than the Chinese and we would never be blockaded so overseas trade keeps flowing.

tl;dr: read it you bitch, I spent time writing it, you spend time reading it.

:O

Well said Lolowut.

well, after that many expertises due to international military capacities and forces Im pretty sure warlight is a collection point for unrecognized military experts. =)
However, the official reason for interventions is most of the time: fighting terrorism and bringing democracy and human rights all over the world.
But I do really not understand how moral values​​, that assume reasonable intellects, credibly wants to be established in the world, when politics devotes itselfs to one of the simplest instinctive laws, namely the law of the first and the law of the strongest to impose such values, that ​​require a complex understanding of the matter. If the output of this clumsy hypocrisy would not be so threatening, the American foreign policy would be a huge joke.

@ Lolowut: What makes America the top country in the world right now, if you dont include economy and military forces in your enumeration?

Edited 6/9/2014 23:07:19

What's america? Never heard of it

USA IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!! and so is UK, France, Germany, and Japan :D

When you say the World vs America you're saying all NATO, Japan, S.Korea, and Israel VS the world. All NATO is US greatest allies.

But if America or America and NATO go against the World, then there will be no winner.

It'll be an end to the world with nothing but wasteland. So NO, America cant and will not try to take over the world.

Thank goodness for mutually assured destruction...

Why does this thread have 68 replies?

Gnulli, das hat weniger mit dem Thema als viel mehr mit dem was die Leute hier schreiben zu tun. Nationale militärische Stärke scheint für einige gleichbedeutend mit persönlichen Statussymbolen zu sein. =)

@Ranek: The capacity to hold such a large military and great economy in itself is a sign that the government is doing well. If you want to rank countries of the world by feelings, then I'm sure America doesn't fit your moral scrutiny as well as others. Our country has effectively solved poverty internally because our economy is so immense that the standard of living is far beyond the normal poverty line seen in many other developed countries. We don't use major socialist policies that tax our rich to insane percentages like the French, so those people constantly generate jobs for our populace. Of course, we've been having a reverse of our status quo policies and now we're in a recession. Go figure.

Yeah, our foreign policy sometimes does more harm than good, but that's how most foreign policies go. Do you think China's foreign policy in Africa benefits the Africans more, or the Chinese more? Do you think Russia's foreign policy in Ukraine benefits the Ukrainians more, or the Russians more? At least what America did in Iraq benefited them much more than it did us (Look at their economic output now, unemployment isn't an issue, government is fairly stable and doesn't go nuts and gas the kurds every once and awhile) At least what America is trying to do in Afghanistan benefits pretty equally. (Northern Alliance gets more sway over the Taliban, the Taliban are reduced significantly so we don't have to worry about them funding other terrorist organizations as much)

It's not all good or equal, blunders are made, but I think you should begin looking at every country's foreign policy before you declare America's is the worst.

Thanks for your reply Lolowut.

I think you should begin looking at every country's foreign policy before you declare America's is the worst.

I wouldnt say american politics is the worst, even if it is, I wouldnt know enough about it to mention such a comparisson. Right now it's just in the focus of the discussion, which might depends on their global impact.
You mentioned Afghanistan. Do the afghanistans have any economically benefits due to the american foreign policy? the economic output of the iraq depends on their trade with oil. To mention that they have stabilized their politics and economy during the american occupation is kind of cynical. Dont forget that there has been a total embargo for twelve years. which destroyed at least massivly the local economie.
It is obviously true that everyone wants to make profits throughout their trades, but that doesnt mean that cruel ruthlessness is necessarily presupposing. In case of the ukraine the deal with the russians would be a lot better for the ukrainians, than with the EU. All they've got right now is nearly a civil war.
anyway, I really appreciate your answer and I would really appreciate a respond due to my question: What makes America the top country in the world right now, if you dont include economy and military forces in your enumeration?

@Ranek: Did I not answer your question well enough in the first paragraph? For now I will provide more detail about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.

Iraq peaked economically in 1980. This was partly due to the rise of Saddam and the production ramped up during the Iran-Iraq war. During and after the Iran-Iraq war, the economy plummeted. It would plummet again in 1990 for Saddam invading Kuwait due to sanctions and embargoes like you suggested. The American occupation was between 2003-2011, it's now 2014 and their economy has spiked higher than before and they're not overrun by terrorist organizations yet. That's a big deal. Their unemployment was down by a lot, so there's not many people to take advantage of for military/terrorist reasons. Had Saddam stayed in power none of this would've been accomplished.

Afghanistan is hard to really call a country, it has a central government of some sort but it is really a lot of tribes who do their own thing. There's a lot of books concerning how Afghanistan works and it's very interesting. I'll give you a break down. There's 3 forces at work in Afghanistan: The Taliban, The Northern Alliance, and neutral tribes who don't participate in either. What America has been doing is essentially helping the Northern Alliance resist the Taliban and trying to convince the neutral tribes to throw their lots in with the Northern Alliance in order to push the Taliban out. The economic benefits? Well if the country is no longer in the hands of a terrorist organization that's a lot of money than can be spent on the betterment of their country. If the Taliban were pushed out, you'd see Afghanistan's economy spike rapidly. Infact, since 2006 Afghanistan's GDP has doubled and the Northern Alliance only has about 30-40% of the country out of Taliban control.

Russia's deal would be better? You've got to be kidding me. Go read some of Putin's speeches on minorities. There are no minorities in Russia and they aren't allowed to speak, because if they do they're thrown in jail, and if loud enough are assassinated. I guess if you're a Russian who lives in Ukraine this isn't that bad, but every Ukrainian that wishes to keep living where they are in the Russian occupied zone is going to have to become a Russian citizen which is a lengthy process with no guarantee of success. So they're stuck in limbo for a couple years. The populace will suffer because of it. A civil war doesn't involve one side that had no control over the Ukrainian military suddenly having large amounts of ammunition, supplies, and Russian tanks. It's a military takeover plain and simple. That's why the Ukrainian military was so quick to begin deserting. No supplies, smaller army, and no support from outside countries. Why would you stay and starve to death?

The full details on why this all happened are this:

When the Soviet Union was around and Ukraine joined as a satellite country, the USSR decided that they would give Ukraine a token of gratitude. This token was the Crimean port, a very important and strategic port on the Black Sea. Since the USSR had no intention of letting Ukraine ever leave, it was really only a symbolic gesture. Forward a couple years and the USSR collapses, but Ukraine retains control over that port. The Russians keep their navy there but have no real access to the port. It's a pretty big deal to Russia, but with the threat of Ukraine joining NATO/EU it's clear they don't have a great chance of just taking it over with brute force. Luckily, the Russians have plenty of people who live in Crimea and are pretty influential despite not being the majority of the population. It's interesting when you see polls in Ukraine showing that only 19% of the people trust the political parties, and for good reason. One has been bought by Russia, and the other is just a little too aggressive about Russians in general. When signs showed true to the people's thoughts, they protested. The army stayed out of it and what we had was a natural revolution brewing, but Putin was worried. Putin has ships docked in Crimea and a pretty good claim on it, so he immediately deployed his army and took the port by force. Now his army just stands freely in Ukraine as the Ukrainian army deserts, looks like Putin will probably get everything, not just a slice.

I can tell Lolowut is an American.

Oh well. I think this topic is awesomely controlled in regard to the topic.
I would blame democracy. The west uses it because it treats everybody equal and is somewhat "not evil". But just because it is not bad does not mean it is good or efficient.

Born in Poland, currently living in Germany but also having lived in the US for one year I can only say that I hate all of those governments. In Germany and Poland you can practically have multiple parties but eventually there are always two major opposing powers.

I also blame overpopulation for pretty much everything. Oil is going to run out by the end of this century. Gas in 150 years. Coal will last for much longer.
Other resources are being used without the possibility of ever getting them back

Just look at the smatphone and tablet market. It was not there 10 years ago.


The US, or rather the system which controls it, tries to remain its status and evolve faster than others. It is just about survival. There might not be a world war but the fight for resources has already begun.
In the end nothing matters. Bad and good are just human made constructs. We are lucky if the humanity goes on at all - be it Nazis, Russians or Americans.

Anyone here read "1984" by George Orwell?


Concerning Lolowut's post.
I do not see how peaking economy does any good. The worldwide economy is totally messed up, it goes up and down like a d*mn roller coaster.

It seems like US and Russia are not that different after all with their military involvement and the massive disparity between the poor and rich.
In Germany the Swiss system is regarded as the best, although Germany is recarded as "the most democratic of all democracies" - not perfect, just best. But still any good.

Edited 6/10/2014 23:55:29

I notice that you have patriotic for your own country and I don't judge, me too ;)

Like if I was born in Germany, then I'll be like "GERMANY IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD". I actually think S.Korea or Japan has a better economy and system even though I'm american born.

But other then that I agree with the war on Resources. War is just going to make things worse.

I also blame overpopulation for pretty much everything. Oil is going to run out by the end of this century. Gas in 150 years. Coal will last for much longer.

I dislike it when anyone puts arbitrary timelines on overpopulation and talk about how it's going to ruin everything. Go read papers back during the British Empire talking about how they would literally ruin themselves with overpopulation. The population in London alone dwarfs their estimates and the city and country are fine. The hardest thing to judge is technological advancement and how that will affect things. In regards to energy resources, (I'm studying as a chemical engineer, with some petroleum engineering knowledge, so energy is something I research a lot.) Sure if nothing changes your estimates make sense. However, everyday we're discovering how to reach even deeper pockets of oil, we're learning how to use it more efficiently, and we're starting to understand other sources of energy more. The research budget in Exxon alone is stunning.

I do not see how peaking economy does any good. The worldwide economy is totally messed up, it goes up and down like a d*mn roller coaster.

This may be true for some countries that have crashed really badly like Greece, but it's not a totally messed up roller coaster like you're describing. I have a few sources if you want to take a look at the raw numbers, and a couple graphs if you want to visualize it.

It seems like US and Russia are not that different after all with their military involvement and the massive disparity between the poor and rich.

I'd rather be poor in the US than poor in Russia. Standard of living etc.

I just want a Government to where when I own something, I own it. Tired of the whole idea of ownership being trodded on.

I have respect for Lolowut now.

HE HATH IMPRESSED THE KING OF LAWLZANIA! MAGNUS DOTH LOOK AT SIR LOLOWUT WITH PROPER PRIDE AND JOY!

its ridiculous what lolowut wrote.
a couple of halftruths, some wrong facts, jingoistic propaganda, illogical conclusions and an all in all terrible analysis.

And getting a "well said" from the least mentally capable guy in the forums would give me something to think about if i were him.

Edited 6/11/2014 02:59:27

Oh Yay, the bitchiest person on the forums had returned -_-

its ridiculous what lolowut wrote.
a couple of halftruths, some wrong facts, jingoistic propaganda, illogical conclusions and an all in all terrible analysis.

And getting a "well said" from the least mentally capable guy in the forums would give me something to think about if i were him.

The validity of information and arguments aren't derived from the mental state of the people who agree with them, so I really couldn't give a shit.