It is inevitable that Canada, the U.S. and Mexico will form a Union like the EU. It has already started with the SPP (The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America).

Yes that makes everything just go away:rolleyes:

I always thought their diminutive military was an asset. When was the last time Canada was stuck with tens of thousands of combat troops half a world away engaged in an futile bloody mess?

Yeah thats true, but I meant more for defensive reasons. I just think that perhaps we could see some eastern countries stranded for resources and deciding that Canada would make a mandatory target. And if Russia gets involved it could be a cold war. Plus Iran is developing nuclear technology. So what can the USA do to defend, and Mexico, lol.

Monroe Doctrine, baby.

Perhaps a wikipedia link would suffice? lol. ... ... no really don't.

I haven't checked, but I imagine wikipedia will give a good account of the Monroe Doctrine.

It's an important part of US history, and really the whole history of the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was outlined by President Monroe in an address to Congress. US interests were two fold - keeping the still young nation out of European political turmoil while protecting the nation's trading interests. Next to this declaration of neutrality in European affairs was a stern warning to European powers not to further colonize the New World or interfere with the political affairs of the emerging nations in the Americas which had recently cast off the imperial rule of Europe. Should European powers attempt to colonize or disrupt the newly formed American governments, the US would consider such action as hostile towards the US. The primary concern of US politicians was the Spanish attempt to regain lost colonies in central and south America - a real threat to American trade given the large south American market (which was seen as far more significant than the market in the US), and the collaboration of France and Russia with the Spanish dream of rebuilding it's vast and now lost empire in the Americas. France and Russia had their own motivations - they were not just being good friends to Spain. France also had an eye for lost territory in the Americas (Napoleon took to selling French interests in the Americas to fund his wars in Europe), and Russia was moving into Alaska having conquered a huge swath of northern Asia.

The Monroe Doctrine has been reinterpreted by different US leaders to suit current needs. Theodore Roosevelt assumed that the US could go so far as to intervene in the affairs of American nations for the sake of economic stability - European powers had loaned many of the small American nations money which they were having trouble repaying.

An even more modern interpretation, which I suggest as a pragmatic response to the fears you have expressed here (though I ultimately oppose the idea), would be that the US is justified in economic and military intervention to stabilize American nations against the potential commercial and military aggression of any world power, such as China or Iran.

Why did the USA go to war against the middle east instead of China. Control over china would make the USA economically much more efficient right?

And in terms of stability it wouldn't differ from the impossibility of controlling Iraq and Afghanistan.

China's society is very much immoral as the way extremist groups in the middle east have associated themselves as.

China has nukes, over one billion people and owns a huge chunk of US national debt.



Right - invading the Middle East and invading China are bad ideas for the US - I say this as an idealist and from a purely pragmatic foreign policy perspective.



China's society is no more immoral the US society, or Canadian society, or any other society.

Lol, I need to watch the news. I didn't know China had nukes yet. And isn't China communist? What is ethical? I'd say Democracy at first glance but I don't really know much about the average Chinese citizen. And it certainly says something that a lot of Chinese immigrants come into America. And the only 'American' thats moving to China is the companies globalizing, which my dad is ticked off about.

The United States Military in Iraq is composed of highly trained and motivated individuals conducting successful missions, while spectacularly meeting the operational goal of destroying the enemy, unlike the futile attempt of underachieving community college students and their related academic goals consisting of educational subsistence.

China has had nukes since at least 1970.
List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WHY THE US INVADED THE MIDDLE EAST INSTEAD OF CHINA

Holiday, you had asked why the US had gone to war with the middle east instead of china. The middle east is one of those specific, strategic areas of the world where everything just seems to converge. If people are astonished by coalition troops in the middle east, then they haven't looked too far back into history. The Macedonians tried in vain to hold onto the region to no prevail after the conquest of Alexander. The ancient Romans had the highest concentration of Legions along the eastern boundaries, the Mongol empire had been cautious when dealing with the middle east, the British had tried to hold Iraq and Afghanistan during the first and second world war (which is why the British occupy Basra today, not because it is just a given position to them, but because it has always been the British area of interest.) It's even a problem for the locals. The people of Ur, the Persians, the Ottoman Turks (whose empire just fell a hundred years ago) have all tried and failed to hold some sort of structure in the region.

People will say "it's for oil" or "Bushes Dad told him to" or "war mongering!" No. The middle east has and will always be the locus of a major conflict every century (as it always has been) because it is a nexus point of civilizations and trade, etc.

UNEASY RELATIONSHIP

Also, the US will not go to war with china because it cannot?and vice versa. It's not because of weaponry, armies, or that kind of thing? its economics. The Chinese government holds more than 70% of all government Treasury Bills and Bonds. Those Bonds pay for everything from the war in Iraq to the school lunches kids eat in the U.S. That is the dynamic of national debt and global credit. If China were to invade the US, they would lose Trillions of dollars in investments (nearly 30% of the contries net worth) because when a country declares war on the US, all foreign assets are seized. It would severely shake the economic health of China.

The US on the other hand is one of China's biggest trade partners. I'm sure you are aware?everything in the US comes from China. So when you hear Lou Dobbes ragging on exporting American and not to buy Chinese things, you are in a sense giving china more of a reason to invade. To tell the truth, this is only one more clue about the dangers of leftists.

ASYMETRIC WEAPONS

But the Chinese also know that the US is a superior aeronautical power. We have something in far greater numbers that they don't? satellites. The Chinese have been on an accelerated fast track to develop their space program? but also their anti-space program. It was in the news for a little while about how the Chinese had launched a missile into space to hit a satellite. They were testing asymmetric weapons to even the field in case a war did break out. (the Chinese rent American satellite's)The US recently tested their own version of this. They have also stepped up their missile defense shield system development.

NUKES

Nuclear weapons are that one chess piece that everyone wishes they did not keep. The nuclear cache is a scare tactic more than an actual option. No responsible culture will ever use a nuclear weapon? especially today. Now I'm sure you say "never say never" but a nuclear weapon is something you can't take back. The world pretty much agrees with this (the big boys club) but the fears are that the newbies to the club (North Korea, Pakistan, and now Iran) will use nuclear weapons irresponsibly. NOW. The US holds what is aptly referred to as the "nuclear umbrella." This umbrella is a protection agreement between different countries and the US. A little less than 40% of the world is covered by this nuclear umbrella, from Japan to Iceland, to Canada (I think) to Puerto Rico, and beyond to place in Malaysia, etc. Now say if Iran nukes Israel, that nuclear umbrella has been punctured and the US is obligated by national treaty to retaliate "in fold." "in fold" is probably the scariest thing you will hear if there is a nuclear war. It is the equivalent of "an eye for an eye." Now say Iran launches a nuclear weapon at Israel and destroys 25% of the country. The US (by obligation and treaty) must retaliate by destroying 25% of Iran. A much bigger distance than Israel, but still 25%. It is proportionate and just (in the terms of the umbrella pact. Will the US do this? The first and formost rule of international law is "all treaties MUST BE OBSERVED" Stay tuned.

Of course the U.S. only observes the treaties when convenient to national policy. As soon as an international agreement stands in the way the U.S. ignores it.

No reason to equate the morality of the government with the morality of Chinese society. Chinese government - brutal and oppressive. Chinese society - rich and beautiful.



You probably want the LSD to ware off before you post on these forums, Ruthless.



Same is true for all countries.

Theaetetus,

Does the US renege on minor treaties? Yes. Do they do it just because? No. But is it in the national interest to do so? Sure. The US assumes a utilitarian approach to these kinds of things. It is vital that "all international treaties be observed," but it is also vital to uphold national interest. If they didn't, we wouldn't be around for very much longer.

I cannot give the government that much credit to assume that they run about like a bully and break any promise they make. You have to ask yourself? if they were indeed like that, don't you think other countries would pause before dealing with the US? Many if not all countries with the rare exception trade and hold assets in the US. So there is at least some credit for the promises the US makes. The US does occasionally bend a promise. But that's their job. Sometimes those promises interfere with the overall good of the community. The government has a fiduciary duty to its citizens to represent their interests (like a lawyer on retainer).

Didymos,

I totally agree with you that the culture of china is spectacular, unfortunately the government is oppressive and ruthless. Its a shame that such a rich culture is suppressed the way it is. But even that is a relativistic statement on my part. Things may not be the way we perceive them because it is not our culture. Also the same is true for most countries that break treaties.

But I have to agree with ruthless on his statement as far as the military is concerned. The US military is very efficient in its own way. It is not perfect, but what military organization is? This rings of Vietnam-istics, but look at what the military is doing. They are put in the middle of an entire theater against them and expected to solve a crisis that couldn't be solved for thousands of years. Furthermore, the army is composed largely of citizen soldiers (reservists)! And further still, and this is a bit morbid, look at the ratio of losses the military is taking. I saw on the news that a military outpost was attacked in Afghanistan and 9 soldiers were killed. But the attackers sustained more than 100 causalities. More than ten to one losses for the enemy. Some of the most decisive wars in history never even came close to that number. The British in Afghanistan lost tens of thousands last time they attempted to hold Afghanistan in less time.

I doubt that - just look what the Chinese government has done to Tibet.



Efficient at what? They did a marvelous job of taking down the previous regime, but that's about it.

The idea that the Middle East crisis is thousands of years old is bull. Sorry to say it. War has been a constant on every continent as long as man has been present. The current crisis in the Middle East is relatively modern stemming from the end of colonialism which began after the French and British split up the area after the Ottoman Empire collapsed under the Young Turk revolution.

The ratio of death is irrelevant - the US maintained an equally impressive ratio in Vietnam. Vietnamese loses regularly approached 200,000 per year, but this didn't matter because the 200,000 North Vietnamese came of military age every year.

The bottom line is that our military strategy in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, does not work. We need to adopt more effective anti-guerrilla tactics if we want to gain a real military advantage in these places - the problem is that this calls for an even more repressive stance towards the citizens of those nations.

The British lost so many more troops in Afghanistan due to the military tactics of the period. That was, what, 160 years ago? And even the British faced constant, that is constant, bloody conflict with rebels - the British, like the US, forced the official government to surrender but never subdued the population. Heck, even the government that surrendered to the British waged constant war against rebels - just as nearly every ruler of Afghanistan has done.

But I think in terms of a war the government are the ones who have the say in what goes down, especially in a communist government. So morality relative to war is about the clashing of governments not of the people who actually work to evoke a wonderful culture.



LSD = lysergic acid diethylamide ? Hallucinogen...

I think that religion stops any possibility of winning the war. The people in the middle east are influenced by religion and the extremists view seizing power through religion. Religion fuels the apparent axiom of war in the middle east. Look at what Bush did with Israel. He advocated for Israel because there are more Jews in Manhattan than there are in Israel.

Also, is it true that the US wants to invade Iran? ( I mean of course the gov.) It seems absurd, and Stephan Dion wants to as well. What kind of reasoning would persuade that. If war on Iran happens then surely the public would not even advocate for that, and for that kind of decision shouldn't there be a referendum? There's a good chance for conscription if it keeps up.

That's sort of my point. We should not criticize the Chinese culture when the Chinese government does something horrendous. The Tibetan example is particularly strong - China has historically defended Tibet of the Lamas (prior to conversion, China trembled before Tibetan military prowess), and looked to those Lamas for spiritual guidance. So, culturally, China and Tibet are close brothers, yet the communist government has done permanent damage to the Tibetan culture. The modern story of Tibet is one of the saddest to be found - and is far from over as the communist government continues to systematically destroy the Tibetan people and Tibetan culture.



Religion has come to play a significant role - initially, this was a marginal influence and the issues were European colonialism. Now, the Middle East is fighting for cultural and religious autonomy - something the West refuses to allow.



Government rhetoric aside, the goal of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions was to pressure and contain Iranian influence. Not terrorism. Pull out a map and you'll see what I mean.

If my government institutes a draft, I might have to crash your sofa for a while. Those bastards are not getting me to fight their war.

One nukes - I wouldn't be so sure that no one wants to use them. Tactical nukes were considered against the Vietnamese some many occasions. First, US military advisers suggested their use against Vietnamese forces surrounding the French at Diem Bien Phu. Once the US became involved with troops on the ground, tactical nukes were regularly considered for use against Hanoi and other major NV positions.

Maybe no one wants to use them, but when politicians and military leaders become blindly pragmatic, considering action on a day by day basis instead of looking at long term issues, nukes become a real option for them. Especially when the target doesn't have any.