USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[scary 0]

Who was the opposing faction in the arms race and space race? The Soviet Union collapsed in part because of the United States/Western World. Oh, I'm not saying that the United States/Western World single handedly defeated the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union's actions (i.e. the Iron Curtain) and its ideology made that country our "enemy."

There was no opposing faction as such. It was not one side versus the other, but rather two sides playing against themselves. The arms and space races were just dick measuring contests with the two sides trying not to be the first to defeat themselves. The Soviet Union was never going to bring down the USA by throwing a monkey into space and the USA was never going to bring down the Soviet Union by building an aircraft carrier 47 tonnes larger than the last one.

Either side could have pulled out of the race at any time.

The Soviet Union's ideology is irrelevent as to their status as an enemy. The Soviet Union trying to impose its ideology on the US would have made it an enemy but that was never going to happen, nor was the US about to invade the USSR and impose capitalism. Sometimes a country likes to have an enemy and both sides found one where there wasn't.

Quote[/b] ]Religion is a preference like race, at times, in elections. A white person becoming the Mayor of DC is very slim because, simply, he is not black. There are likely places in the South that a black candidate would not receive votes because just of his/her color.

The Shawnee simply has to look for a place in which religion is not a election issue or find a place in which his religion is a election issue that would help him/her. Joseph Lieberman, an orthodox Jew, is a Senator from Connecticut. The majority of Nutmeggers, the people living in Connecticut, are Christian (majority Protestant). Was religion a senatorial election issue in Connecticut? No.

Remember, people tend to vote on preference. Religion can be used to show how similar the candidate is to the voters. Is religion used as a election issue in every election in America? No.

The point is that religion, or race for that matter, should not be a matter of preference, it shouldn't be a matter at all. From a European perspective - countries like Italy and Ireland aside - it is somewhat archaic, a person's religion was an issue in the 19th century, not the 21st. Although I would say that Europe is no different a position than the US on race.

While that Shawnee may be able to get votes at a lower level, perhaps in a Shawnee community, he would never get support at the higher state or national level. I think it's safe to say there'll be a black president long before there'll be a native American president because religion is even more devisive an issue than race in the US.

Connecticut isn't really religiously conservative America, nor is there any great divide between Christians and Jews. A Sikh Senator in a bible belt state would be a step forward.

Personally, I would no more vote for someone for a shared religion than I would for having a comparable pair of socks. If I wanted a candidate similar to myself, I'd vote for myself.

A man will kill you because you ticked him off.

In the real world such a man could find himself out of his depth. Said man should put more energy into finishing puberty, accept the fact that people will poke fun at him, get over it and move on.

Quote[/b] ]one a "Police Action," and the other was a battle, not a war. which BTW was successful.

War (wôr) n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

Vietnam was a war. It was called a war at the time and it is still a war now. All services of the US military fought against another nations military. A nation doesn't resort to conscription for a police action. You cannot change the terms of the conflict just because you lost, even if you do use quotation marks. You lost to some chaps in pyjamas, it happens. Accept it and move on.

Somalia, warlords defeated, humanitarian crisis resolved, democracy restored, job done. Lovely place, I was thinking of wintering there. Jolly good show chaps.

Quote[/b] ]Loose? What Democratic bull shit have you been listening to? Iraq has been progressing quite a bit. Including two (maybe three) provences under the ISF.

Are you questioning my sexual morals, or did you mean lose?

I haven't had the need to listen to any bullshit, Democratic or otherwise. I have been on a whistlestop tour of the place courtesy of Telic holidays, though. Found it very sandy. I may even get to win the grand prize of a return trip, lucky me. Thanks for the sitrep, most informative, clearly someone has been spinning me a dit.

Quote[/b] ]Afhganistan was a place that was a launching point for al Queda. Responceible for attacks abraud NATO member states. it's not just the US's problem there bud, its an international problem.

Quite so. Seems to be getting less and less of a US problem every day.

Quote[/b] ]Pequot War (1637) - Victory

King Philip's War (1675) - Victory

Queen Anne's War (1702-1713) - Victory

French and Indian War (1754-1763) - Victory

War of Independence (1775-1783) - Victory

Northwest Indian War (1785-1795) - Victory

Quasi-War (1798-1800) - Victory

Barbary Wars (1801-1815) - Victory

Tecumseh's War (1811) - Victory

Creek War (1813-1814) - Victory

Peoria War (1813) - Victory

War of 1812 - Draw (with the British Empire)

Seminole Wars (1817-1858) - Victory

Black Hawk War (1832) - Victory

Mexican-American War (1846-1848) - Victory

Utah War (1857-1858) - Victory

Spanish-American War (1898) - Victory

The Philippine-American War (1898-1913) - Victory

Banana Wars (1898-1934) - Victories

World War I (1917-1918) - Victory

World War II (1941-1945) - Victory

Korean War (1950-  ) - Ongoing

Vietnam War (1959-1975) - Military Victory, Political Loss

Operation Eagle Claw (1980) - Failure

Grenada (1983) - Victory

Beirut (1983) - Military Victory, Political Loss

Panama (1989-1990) - Victory

Gulf War (1990-1991) - Military Victory, Political Loss

Battle of Mogadishu (1991) - Military Victory, Political Loss

Kosovo War (1996-1999) - Victory

Afghanistan (2001- ) - Ongoing (Victory)

Philippines (2002- ) - Ongoing (Victory)

Liberia (2003) - Peaceful Victory

Iraq (2003- ) - Ongoing (Victory)

That brings the total to:

27 wins (3 ongoing), 1 draw (4 political losses), and 0 losses

Been reading the Bumper Book of American Revisionist History, haven't you?

Pequot War of 1637, you say. Correct me if I'm wrong but was that not the first war involving time travel?

The War of Independence was technically a civil war and the British only put up a token fight, having bigger fish to fry. The important fighting was done by the French anyway.

The War of 1812 - The war aims of the US were the conquest of Canada. British war aims were the retention of Canada and keeping open trade with New York State. Since I don't see Ottawa as a state of the union, and British trade with NY continued unabated the war was a British Victory. The unpleasantness was swiftly concluded after chasing some of those upstart colonials, the burning of some downtown shebang in Washington DC by a shore party from the besieging RN force and a ship-to-ship clash between HMS Shannon and the USS Chesapeake...which, ahem, the RN naturally won by virtue of superior firepower and the innate unquenchable spirit of Jolly Jack...HUZZAA!! It was also more of a side issue between Britain and France than America.

World War I (1917-1918) - I couldn't help but giggle at those dates. Remind me, how important was the US contribution to that scuffle?

Vietnam - Victory??? So it goes: achieve none of your war aims; retreat; claim victory. Interesting.

Kosovo War - Ahh yes, sunny Kosovo, so many memories, so very few involving the Spams - apart from that wedged HMMWV. It always amuses people around here when Americans take credit for that. You'll find the important stuff had already been done while the American troops were busy posing for the news cameras at the border.

So, your list contains: wars fought by the US before the US existed; wars fought primarily by other countries; internal conflicts, usually with the natives; wins that were losses; some tiffs with banana republics and second-world non-entities; and quite bizarrely, victories in ongoing conflicts - the Allies should have just declared victory in 1940, it would have saved a lot of bother.

You missed the Aroostook War which the US lost without a shot being fired.

Even though you conceeded Eagle Claw a failure you concluded no losses. 27 wins, (3 ongoing) - there are 4, 1 draw and 0 losses from a list of 34. It seems neither maths nor history is your forte. I suggest you recalculate. US wars fought and won alone.

[Baff2 0]

World War 2: The Western-Soviet alliance was more a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" deal. The Allies and the Soviets had mutual enemies and it was best to work together. I would not say they were the United States' greatest ally.  

We supplied them with weapons in their hour of need.

They gave us half of Berlin in tribute

No, according to the Potsdam Agreement, West Berlin was to be under Allied control.

The Soviet Union collapsed because it could. Nato collapsed at the same time.

The Soviet Union and NATO alike could not sustain their level of military spending. Having placed America in more foreign debt than at any other time in it's history with his spending on aircraft carriers and a nuclear submarines, Reagan, Thatcher and Gorbachov negotiated world wide disarmament.

By 1982 NATO was no longer answering it's mutual defence pact.

By the early 1990's the level of threat that we all presented to eachother allowed us all to withdraw from central Europe.

You are a victim of propaganda if you were thinking any strategic or financial collapse wasn't mutual on all sides.

What? Post the facts that made you come to that conclusion.

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Where friend = friend.

Which other friend in WW2 are you suggesting did more to defeat our enemies.

They were our greatest allies because they were our allies and fought on the same side as us against a common enemy and they were great. None were greater in fact.

Hence they were our greatest allies.

The Russians captured Berlin. They agreed to hand some of it over to us and they did. We did not take it from them.

Hence, they gave it to us.

The facts?

Look up Reagans national debt and the cost of the aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.

Look up the military spending figures for our NATO allies at from 1975- 1990.

Look up Reagan, Thatchers and Gorbachov's disarmament treaties.

Look up how many members of NATO honored their mutual defence pact when Argentina invaded the United Kingdom at the Falklands Islands in 1982.

Look up where all the military hardware was redeployed from for the first Gulf war.

And then you will have your facts.

[Baff2 0]

World War I (1917-1918) - I couldn't help but giggle at those dates. Remind me, how important was the US contribution to that scuffle?

Pretty much decisive I would say, the influx of fresh manpower ended the stalemate, was how i understood it.

But I concur with the rest of your appraisal.

[USSRsniper 0]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq (2003- ) - Ongoing (Victory)

I dont see this as victory, victory where? making country more unstable? Actually iraq was more stable with saddam hussein controling it.....

[billybob2002 0]

There was no opposing faction as such. It was not one side versus the other, but rather two sides playing against themselves. The arms and space races were just dick measuring contests with the two sides trying not to be the first to defeat themselves. The Soviet Union was never going to bring down the USA by throwing a monkey into space and the USA was never going to bring down the Soviet Union by building an aircraft carrier 47 tonnes larger than the last one.

Either side could have pulled out of the race at any time.

You are dodging the fact that the West and the Soviet Union opposed each other. It was Team A vs. Team B.

The ideology of both parties are relevent. One was based on captialism and the other was communism. Communism dislikes captialism and captialism dislikes communism. Remember, the House Committee on Un-American Activities? The House Committee on Un-American Activities did not go after suspected capitalist.

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Where friend = friend.

Which other friend in WW2 are you suggesting did more to defeat our enemies.

They were our greatest allies because they were our allies and fought on the same side as us against a common enemy and they were great. None were greater in fact.

Hence they were our greatest allies.

The Russians captured Berlin. They agreed to hand some of it over to us and they did. We did not take it from them.

Hence, they gave it to us.

Interesting usage of "greatest ally" because I thought you meant something else. Let me rethink....ok

The Soviet Union wasn't a "friend" has the United Kingdom, for example, was to the United States during the war. The United Kingdom did not reverse-engineer the B-29 without the permission of the United States. Additionally, I don't remember the United Kingdom being behind an "affair" called the "Gouzenko Affair" which helped triggered something called the "Cold War."

The facts?

Look up Reagans national debt and the cost of the aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.

Look up the military spending figures for our NATO allies at from 1975-1990.

Look up Reagan, Thatchers and Gorbachov's disarmament treaties.

Look up how many members of NATO honored their mutual defence pact when Argentina invaded the United Kingdom at the Falklands Islands in 1982.

Look up where all the military hardware was redeployed from for the first Gulf war.

And then you will have your facts.

-And? The United States did not economically collapse. The cuts in the military did not happen until the mid-90s.

-Can you please provide the figures? Since you looked at that the figures already, can you tell me why there was a decrease in military spending.

- The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty does not provide NATO collasped. Furthermore, INF Treaty did not get rid of all nuclear weapons.

-From Wikipedia section on the Falklands War:

Quote[/b] ]The North Atlantic Treaty only obliges the signatories to support if the attack occurs in Europe or North America north of Tropic of Cancer,....

The Falkland Islands are not in Europe, North America or north of the Tropic of Cancer.

-Can you simply tell me where?

[denoir 0]

Pequot War (1637) - Victory

....

Iraq (2003- ) - Ongoing (Victory)

That brings the total to:

27 wins (3 ongoing), 1 draw (4 political losses), and 0 losses

If you redefine the meaning of "America", "war" and "victory" then yes, you have no problem claiming that America has been victorious in all wars.

Even if one would accept your ludicrously incorrect understanding of history, it hardly lends any support to America being endorsed by the god defined by new testament Christianity. "Blessed are the peacemakers", wasn't that what Jesus said?

I'm guessing though that you are more of an admirer of the old testament genocidal maniac of a god as you are putting forward the notion of god endorsing and supporting the killing of other human beings.

However, by that same argument from military victories, there are more impressive military empires in history. If winning a large number of wars is a measure of divine endorsement, then the Roman gods are better candidates than the Christian one.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]What, a rational, moral being?

try an aggressive jack#$% that has no tolerance to other faiths.

You are confusing respect with tolerance. I don't respect your religion but I don't advocate banning it or persecuting you for those beliefs. Much like I don't care much for your political views but I support your right to have them.

It is telling though that you have been calling me names and coming with insinuations of violent things that might happen to me. Is it your religion talking, or your insecurity about your religion?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I don't need a degree in fairyology to know that fairies don't exist and that people who believe in them are delusional.

seriously, get off it. I'm not here to have my God compared to a fairy.

There are a number of cultures which hold a belief in fairies. Why do you dismiss them? And especially, why are you not respectful of the belief in them? Do you feel the same way about say the Hindu gods? Or about the beliefs of other Christian sects?

billybob2002:

Quote[/b] ]You are dodging the fact that the West and the Soviet Union opposed each other. It was Team A vs. Team B.

The ideology of both parties are relevent. One was based on captialism and the other was communism. Communism dislikes captialism and captialism dislikes communism. Remember, the House Committee on Un-American Activities? The House Committee on Un-American Activities did not go after suspected capitalist.

I'd say it was the other way around. The difference in ideology was highlighted as an excuse for the inevitable friction between two powers with imperialistic ambitions.

America wasn't about spreading democracy through the world, it was about grabbing hold of markets for US products. The Soviet Union wasn't about spreading the proletarian revolution, it was about co-opting natural and industrial resources from satellite states. Of course the ideological differences were relevant, but they weren't the cause of the disagreement.

The fall of the Soviet Union was a consequence of some very flawed assumptions about human nature that the system was built on. It led to an unworkable economic system and periods of blatant abuse of power. It was however ultimately the failure of planned economy that killed off the Soviet Union.

[Baff2 0]

@ Billybob, thanks for the informative reply, that got me doing my homework! This is the best I am currently able to come up with.

I stand corrected over The Falkland islands.

The U.K. began it's disarmament process in 1979. It's conventional forces were first to feel the cuts. By 1982 it had lost it's supersonic carrier capability completely and by 1983 had no long range bomber capability. British political philosphy was to let America pay for the heavy gear.

The Salt treaties began discussion in 1969 and were completed by 1979.

The Start treaties began discussion in 1985 and INF in 87 and were completed by 1993.

The U.S. cut it's military spending simultaneously with the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991, as did all of NATO. We all disarmed and withdrew at the same time. NATO and the U.S.S.R. both.

The Cold War didn't end suddenly, it had been under negotiation for over 20 years.

With the Cold War ended, NATO and the U.S.S.R. no longer have any reason for being. NATO forces in Kosovo have been replaced by a new alliance, EUfor. Our Cold War armies stationed in Germany moved to the Middle East.

The U.S. economy is kept artificially afloat by foreign investment. It collapsed a long time ago.

During the Cold War administration, it became dependant on foreign loans ($2.6 trillion by 1988) to maintian it's military. It still is.

Despite this massive increase in spending, Reagan was unable to match the Soviet military advantage. He broke the bank trying.  

Unlike the U.S., the Russians chose to reform their ailing economy. They are currently in a state of positive equity.

At the end of the Start treaties, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union the Russian nuclear advantage remains 3:2 against NATO. They still have more nuclear submarines than NATO, more tanks and artillery than NATO, have a larger fleet than the U.S., a larger airforce than the U.S., more helicopters than the U.S., (but less infantry).

And the average standard of living in Russia is much higher.

It is a very large conceit indeed to presume the U.S. forced the collapse of the Soviet Union. No one in the world was in any position to force them to do anything. They still aren't.

[Baff2 0]

billybob2002:

Quote[/b] ]You are dodging the fact that the West and the Soviet Union opposed each other. It was Team A vs. Team B.

The ideology of both parties are relevent. One was based on captialism and the other was communism. Communism dislikes captialism and captialism dislikes communism. Remember, the House Committee on Un-American Activities? The House Committee on Un-American Activities did not go after suspected capitalist.

I'd say it was the other way around. The difference in ideology was highlighted as an excuse for the inevitable friction between two powers with imperialistic ambitions.

America wasn't about spreading democracy through the world, it was about grabbing hold of markets for US products. The Soviet Union wasn't about spreading the proletarian revolution, it was about co-opting natural and industrial resources from satellite states. Of course the ideological differences were relevant, but they weren't the cause of the disagreement.

I concur with this assesment.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Vietnam - Victory??? So it goes: achieve none of your war aims; retreat; claim victory. Interesting.

Kosovo War - Ahh yes, sunny Kosovo, so many memories, so very few involving the Spams - apart from that wedged HMMWV. It always amuses people around here when Americans take credit for that. You'll find the important stuff had already been done while the American troops were busy posing for the news cameras at the border.

So, your list contains: wars fought by the US before the US existed; wars fought primarily by other countries; internal conflicts, usually with the natives; wins that were losses; some tiffs with banana republics and second-world non-entities; and quite bizarrely, victories in ongoing conflicts - the Allies should have just declared victory in 1940, it would have saved a lot of bother.

You missed the Aroostook War which the US lost without a shot being fired.

Even though you conceeded Eagle Claw a failure you concluded no losses. 27 wins, (3 ongoing) - there are 4, 1 draw and 0 losses from a list of 34. It seems neither maths nor history is your forte. I suggest you recalculate. US wars fought and won alone.

Quote[/b] ]War (wôr) n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

1) wasn't prolonged, just lost political support

2) wasn't open either, mostly unconventional

3) "Police Action" was a term that discribes what we did. we protected and assisted ARVN troops. Then we got ticked and lashed out and everyone started bitching.

4) If i remember correctly, the US never lost a battle in 'Nam

Quote[/b] ]Are you questioning my sexual morals, or did you mean lose?

got a little key-happy

but realy, take a look at realy is going on now, not what the press shows. they can only show so much in an hour.

Quote[/b] ]Pequot War of 1637, you say. Correct me if I'm wrong but was that not the first war involving time travel?

Nope, American Millitia vs. Pequot Indians.

Quote[/b] ]The war [of 1812] aims of the US were the conquest of Canada.

no, stop British Impressment, establish stronger boarders, repusle the british from mainland US, and gain trade rights.

Quote[/b] ]RN naturally won by virtue of superior firepower

have you ever heard about American Frigates? The Best in the world, HMN was ordered not to engage them.

Quote[/b] ]Remind me, how important was the US contribution to that scuffle?

It showed that the US constitution works

...more later.

[billybob2002 0]

I'd say it was the other way around. The difference in ideology was highlighted as an excuse for the inevitable friction between two powers with imperialistic ambitions.

America wasn't about spreading democracy through the world, it was about grabbing hold of markets for US products. The Soviet Union wasn't about spreading the proletarian revolution, it was about co-opting natural and industrial resources from satellite states. Of course the ideological differences were relevant, but they weren't the cause of the disagreement.

Pretty interesting that you are taking a Marxist view on Cold War history. Anyway, I disagree with your assessment. First, the United States' ambition was not about grabbing hold of markets for US products. The United States did not support right-wing dictatorships because of the market and spreading democracy but the fear of communism. The wars that the United States fought were not about the market but about preventing the spread of communism. I can probably give more examples that counter your assessment.

The United States' foreign policy was never about spreading democracy or the market. The policy was containment in which evolved into détente and then finally starting an arms race that the Soviet Union could not compete with.

The United States was forced to act imperialistic due to the World War 2 and the Soviet Union/communism.

The U.K. began it's disarmament process in 1979. It's conventional forces were first to feel the cuts. By 1982 it had lost it's supersonic carrier capability completely and by 1983 had no long range bomber capability. British political philosphy was to let America pay for the heavy gear.

The U.K. military cuts still does not prove that NATO collasped. What do you consider what is a long range bomber? The British still had the Victor, which could carry a nuclear load and had a range of 1,500 miles, in service until 1993.

They could had still nuked parts of Germany.

The Salt treaties began discussion in 1969 and were completed by 1979.

The Start treaties began discussion in 1985 and INF in 87 and were completed by 1993.

Those treaties do not prove that NATO collasped. The Soviet Union and the United States had plenty of nuclear weapons.

The U.S. cut it's military spending simultaneously with the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991, as did all of NATO. We all disarmed and withdrew at the same time. NATO and the U.S.S.R. both.

The United States thought they did not need a large standing military anymore because the biggest threat, the Soviet Union, was gone and dead. NATO still functions as an military alliance and has expanded to include former Warsaw Pact members.

The U.S. economy is kept artificially afloat by foreign investment. It collapsed a long time ago.

During the Cold War administration, it became dependant on foreign loans ($2.6 trillion by 1988) to maintian it's military. It still is.

Despite this massive increase in spending, Reagan was unable to match the Soviet military advantage. He broke the bank trying.

Unlike the U.S., the Russians chose to reform their ailing economy. They are currently in a state of positive equity.

Reagan's policy was not about parity or superiority. He wanted to break the Soviet Union's piggy bank through an arms race. The Strategic Defense Initiative, aka "Star Wars", was apart of the plan. Did his policy work? In my opinion, it put a nail in the coffin for the Soviet economy.

The Soviets (Russians) had to reform their economy because they needed to. The United States is not in the same economic crisis boat. In my opinion, the United States ecomony simply adapted.

[denoir 0]

Pretty interesting that you are taking a Marxist view on Cold War history. Anyway, I disagree with your assessment. First, the United States' ambition was not about grabbing hold of markets for US products. The United States did not support right-wing dictatorships because of the market and spreading democracy but the fear of communism. The wars that the United States fought were not about the market but about preventing the spread of communism. I can probably give more examples that counter your assessment.

The United States' foreign policy was never about spreading democracy or the market. The policy was containment in which evolved into détente and then finally starting an arms race that the Soviet Union could not compete with.

The United States was forced to act imperialistic due to the World War 2 and the Soviet Union/communism.

It's hardly the Marxist view as I say that the Soviet union failed because of Marxism - i.e an unrealistic economic and by extension political system. While I don't equate a free market to liberty, it sure beats the alternatives. Given a stable political situation the self-optimizing properties of a free market are amazingly efficient.

Now, I do agree with you that America has never been about spreading democracy. There have been lapses of realpolitik and naive utopist movements (such as the neocons) but they have never introduced lasting policies - and certainly not in the early cold war.

America post WW2 returned to its pre-depression practices where were very much of imperialistic nature. What it did in the early 20th century in Latin America it continued doing after WW2. It started with the Monroe doctrine in the 19th century and got a truly military dimension with the Spanish-American war. It got formalized by the Roosevelt Corollary stating that the US has a right to invade Latin American countries at will. Although it was abandoned in the isolationist post-depression US, what followed after WW2 was a natural extension of it. The US view on the world is very much similar to the pre-WW1 European view.

The fear of the "domino effect" and the red scare was never about ideology, but about loyalty in a bipolar world.

Incidentally we can see the same thing today, albeit much weaker as there is no military dimension to it, the economic bitch-slapping between the EU and the US.

I do however believe that the US policy is bound to change relatively soon both as a consequence of the miserable failure in Iraq and the beginning of the end of US economic dominance.

In fact, I suspect that we will see a new European imperialism, but a very different one. The key idea is that the primary reason why a society works is not a top-down hierarchy but simply because the vast majority of the people want it to work.

The EU economy is roughly the size of the US one (actually somewhat larger) and about a third of the world have the EU as their primary trading partner. Yet at anti-globalization rallies you won't see people burning EU flags.

Europe's decentralized structure has allowed it to reverse the concept of balance of power. Due to the low profile, its strength grows, its neighbors want to join it rather than balance it.

While you may change the government by force in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will generate animosity and ultimately the population will hate you and stab you in the back the first chance they get. The EU doesn't threaten with military action. It's threat is withdrawal of support and the prospect of membership.

The key is the law. Every new country that joins the EU must absorb some 100,000 pages of laws and regulations on everything from environmental safety to gay rights. The lure is so strong that countries will completely remodel their constitutions, laws, institutions and political systems to join.

Once in with the law and the institutions the countries are changed forever and never want to get out.

Even bitter enemies like Croats and Serbs are more than willing to put their differences aside to get in. While Serbia has some years to go, Croatia will be joining the EU within the next few years. Slovenia is already in. As a prerequisite for Croatia's entry was for instance normalization of diplomatic and economic relations with Serbia.

The important distinction between this and the American way (or the previous European ways) is based on distributed inclusiveness. Everybody involved in the project has a stake in preserving it. The key for it to work is co-opting countries to uphold the rules themselves - not coercing them into submission or bribing them with handouts.

So far, it has done miracles in the so called "Eurosphere" - the EU's sphere of influence that covers some 1.5 billion in about 80 countries that are tightly linked to the EU.

The European model has however had a strong impact beyond the Eurosphere - other regions are looking for similar arrangements. You today have in South America, Asia and Africa building up similar political structures. And as I said, the key to such organizations are the law, both domestic and international.

One other important characteristic feature of such a construction is the emphatic lack of nationalism. You won't see people burning EU flags because they have no divisive meaning. When European troops deploy, they do so under a flag of the United Nations. It's simply too abstract to hate.

The idea that society is held together by people, institutions and countries who wants things to work out eliminates all need for nationalism and patriotism. It is the anti-thesis of the nation state. You don't need some mythical love for your nation to make it work, self interest is sufficient. It's practical and rational.

So when I say new European "imperialism", I'm not saying that Europe will rule the world, but that the world will become like Europe.

[EiZei 0]

4) If i remember correctly, the US never lost a battle in 'Nam

Do you have any kind basic understanding of the concept of assymmetric warfare?

Quote[/b] ]The EU economy is roughly the size of the US one (actually somewhat larger) and about a third of the world have the EU as their primary trading partner. Yet at anti-globalization rallies you won't see people burning EU flags.

Dont know about the rest of the world but anti-globalization nationalists and communists are fiercely anti-EU here. They view it as an epitome of globalization and danger to the welfare state. One of the main points in of one of the communist parties platform was a big huge red NO to EU (and NATO as well but that's more obvious.. )

[billybob2002 0]

It's hardly the Marxist view as I say that the Soviet union failed because of Marxism - i.e an unrealistic economic and by extension political system. While I don't equate a free market to liberty, it sure beats the alternatives. Given a stable political situation the self-optimizing properties of a free market are amazingly efficient.

There is a Marxist view of history:

http://www.cccb.edu/notes/ghs344/3%20views%20of%20history.pdf

I was expose to it while attending college in a history course.

America post WW2 returned to its pre-depression practices where were very much of imperialistic nature. What it did in the early 20th century in Latin America it continued doing after WW2. It started with the Monroe doctrine in the 19th century and got a truly military dimension with the Spanish-American war. It got formalized by the Roosevelt Corollary stating that the US has a right to invade Latin American countries at will. Although it was abandoned in the isolationist post-depression US, what followed after WW2 was a natural extension of it. The US view on the world is very much similar to the pre-WW1 European view.

I disagree that the United States' post-World War 2 foreign policy was an natural extension of the Roosevelt Corollary. For staters, each President during the Cold War had their own doctrine dealing with communism and foreign policy. The Kennedy Doctrine favored containment and stopping communism in the Western Hemisphere. While, the Carter Doctrine says that any outside force (the Soviet Union) that attacks the Perison Gulf will be responded by military force from the United States. Additionally, Carter's policy was détente and not containment.

So when I say new European "imperialism", I'm not saying that Europe will rule the world, but that the world will become like Europe.

I don't think the world wants the low birthrates. Anyway, only history will tell if you are right.

[Sophion-Black 0]

4) If i remember correctly, the US never lost a battle in 'Nam

Do you have any kind basic understanding of the concept of assymmetric warfare?

I have an understanding of assymetric warfare. but let me tell you, the US never advanced its troops beyond an artillery fan. We had control of the battlefield. But not the brain-washed hippies in the US.

Quote[/b] ]Now, I do agree with you that America has never been about spreading democracy.

<<<<<<<<<<MANIFEST DESTINY>>>>>>>>>>  

Quote[/b] ]I do however believe that the US policy is bound to change relatively soon both as a consequence of the miserable failure in Iraq and the beginning of the end of US economic dominance.

Iraq... failure? far from it. (I hate people who don't know what they're talking about). Iraq isn't even over! The US and allies are going toe-to-toe  with Iran, Syria, and Muslim extremists. So far its a king of the hill match that has the US out on top right now. And the US even looks like its going to get stronger out there with talks of long-awaited reinforcements on the way.

Quote[/b] ]The EU economy is roughly the size of the US one (actually somewhat larger)

but considerably more fragile too. all it takes is a nuclear state to withdraw and the whole thing collapses.

Quote[/b] ]There are a number of cultures which hold a belief in fairies. Why do you dismiss them? And especially, why are you not respectful of the belief in them? Do you feel the same way about say the Hindu gods? Or about the beliefs of other Christian sects?

But not as gods. I have never really conversed with a Hindu. I don't see Hindu's any less or greater as a person than I. But I tolerate their religion because it is a big part of their culture. and offending a persons culture offends the person (underlined for you denoir).

Quote[/b] ]"Blessed are the peacemakers", wasn't that what Jesus said?

"The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." (Exodus 15:3)

"But the LORD is with me like a mighty warrior; so my persecutors will stumble and not prevail. They will fail and be thoroughly disgraced; their dishonor will never be forgotten.(Jeremiah 20:11)

It's starting to get back to a theological debate... Moving on! Oh to put a nail into the US Constitution - Religion debate:

Quote[/b] ]Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

Good luck shaking that off your fur.

[EiZei 0]

4) If i remember correctly, the US never lost a battle in 'Nam

Do you have any kind basic understanding of the concept of assymmetric warfare?

I have an understanding of assymetric warfare. but let me tell you, the US never advanced its troops beyond an artillery fan. We had control of the battlefield. But not the brain-washed hippies in the US.

Oh yeah, that excuse. Blame the hippies.

If you honestly think staying there for years would have made any difference you should check out what happened to the soviets when they decided to.. stay the course in Afghanistan. They did just about everything short of total genocide and anybody complaining about it was liable to end up in a shallow grave.

Quote[/b] ]

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

Good luck shaking that off your fur.

Hey, I recall using the phrase AD once or twice in some english essay I wrote, guess im not an atheist after all.

[Garcia 0]

Iraq... failure? far from it. (I hate people who don't know what they're talking about).

I envy your somewhat (in my opinion) naive optimism...

Quote[/b] ]Iraq isn't even over!

And yet you took the freedom (that you now rob Denoir for) to label Iraq as a victory...

Quote[/b] ]"The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." (Exodus 15:3)

"But the LORD is with me like a mighty warrior; so my persecutors will stumble and not prevail. They will fail and be thoroughly disgraced; their dishonor will never be forgotten.(Jeremiah 20:11)

"Thou shalt not kill" (Somewhere in the bible...)

Quote[/b] ]It's starting to get back to a theological debate... Moving on! Oh to put a nail into the US Constitution - Religion debate:

Quote[/b] ]Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

Good luck shaking that off your fur.

How does that prove that USA was founded on christian values?

[billybob2002 0]

<<<<<<<<<<MANIFEST DESTINY>>>>>>>>>>

I forgot about "Manifest Destiny."

*To clarify*

Denior,

I never meant that the United States has never been about spreading "democracy" during the Cold War because that is incorrect. For example, the United States gave Japan a government based on liberal democracy. There were times in which the United States did spread the ideas of democracy (i.e. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty), protected democracy (i.e. South Korea), and did not protect democracy (i.e. acted against).

Oops, I had a brain fart.

[denoir 0]

It's hardly the Marxist view as I say that the Soviet union failed because of Marxism - i.e an unrealistic economic and by extension political system. While I don't equate a free market to liberty, it sure beats the alternatives. Given a stable political situation the self-optimizing properties of a free market are amazingly efficient.

There is a Marxist view of history:

http://www.cccb.edu/notes/ghs344/3%20views%20of%20history.pdf

I was expose to it while attending college in a history course.

"Central Christian College of the Bible" .. oh dear.

Anyway, the "Marxist view" presented in the PDF is very oversimplified. The Marxist view is based on Hagel's concept of dialectics which is basically a cyclic view of thesis and anti-thesis. Engels added a third stage called "synthesis" where the thesis and the anti-thesis form a conclusion.

It's also known as "Historic materialism" and wikipedia has as usual stuff on it.

Do I believe that historical materialism or dialectic materialism provides an adequate description of history? No, not really, it assumes that every stage is relative to the previous stage. I would argue that there are some absolutes such as our biological nature and the physical reality around us.

While historical materialism may be a relevant theory for describing the past two centuries, it is certainly inadequate to describe early civilization. A typical example would be found in the writing of the Greek historian Herodotus who tells how a solar eclipse led to some very bad military decisions on the part of Sparta which ultimately led to the fall of a dynasty. When we didn't understand nature, our misunderstanding of it led to some odd twists and turns. There were many cultures that for instance thought that the sun was a god and as you can imagine all sorts of decisions were made due to unrelated astronomical phenomena.

A relatively recently studied such thing are the Cargo cults in the South Pacific.

If you are not aware of them:

========

During WW2 US soldiers occupied a number of inhabited islands in the South Pacific that were populated by indigenous people. The islanders were very impressed by all the wondrous possessions of the western immigrants to their islands (administrators, missionaries, soldiers). They also noticed that the westerners who enjoyed these wonders never made them themselves. When things needed to be repairing, they were sent away and more of the wondrous things kept arriving, first by boat and later by planes.

No western man was ever seen to make or repair anything nor did they do anything at all that could be recognized as useful work. Sitting behind a desk shuffling papers, talking to a box was obviously a religious ritual. Evidently, the "cargo" (i.e western manufactured goods) had to be of supernatural origin.

So the natives started building airstrips, airports and radios out of coconuts and straw - hoping that it would please the western god and give them "cargo".

Despite the pleas of the missionaries and attempts at explaining that "cargo" was actually produced and not supernatural were in vain.

On some islands, these cargo cults became mainstream religion. One messianic variety, talks of a saviour called John Frum, who is "the black King of America and who will come and expel all white men from the island and cargo would arrive in great quantity so that everybody would have as much as he wanted." (From David Attenborough's Quest in Paradise from an interview with a follower).

The John Frum cult is actually a mainstream religion on Tanna and one of the major political parties is operated by the John Frum followers.

====

Now, the point of this story, apart from it being amusing, is that you could hardly apply dialectic materialism to explain the development of these islanders. What is interesting with the cargo cults is that they emerged independently in parallel across quite a few regions.

It is not an entirely unreasonable assumption that the rest of the world religions had similar beginnings. The object of awe was not cargo, but natural phenomena. Nature religions developed into tribal religions and later into organized structures. And religion has undeniably shaped history. So you can have a completely unrelated natural event that leads to some form of irrational behaviour in humans that misinterpret it. It gets institutionalized and shapes world history. Dialectic materialism fails completely at describing such a development.

[billybob2002 0]

"Central Christian College of the Bible" .. oh dear.

I pick that site on purpose...

Do I believe that historical materialism or dialectic materialism provides an adequate description of history? No, not really, it assumes that every stage is relative to the previous stage. I would argue that there are some absolutes such as our biological nature and the physical reality around us.

I didn't say that you took a Marxist view on history in general but on the Cold War. The focus on the market and materialism raised some alarms in my mind. Apparently, I was wrong.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq... failure? far from it. (I hate people who don't know what they're talking about). Iraq isn't even over! The US and allies are going toe-to-toe with Iran, Syria, and Muslim extremists. So far its a king of the hill match that has the US out on top right now. And the US even looks like its going to get stronger out there with talks of long-awaited reinforcements on the way.

You are aware that iraq war takes longer than WW 2 right now ?

You are aware that the country IS already in state of civil war ?

You are aware that US troops could do nothing about the highscore slaughters last week ?

You are aware that Iraquis flee the country in 100.000 per month ?

Calling all this a succesfull mission is blatant spitting on the graves of those who had to die in this PR-war.

Yeah, I know you´ll be praying and waiting for the big thunderstruck.

God didn´t waste Iraq, neither did the Dems, god´s chosen messenger Bush and his gang wasted it. Talking about your "reinforcements", nice deal, they can fill the slots of the others who have already decided to leave Iraq and the coaltion of the willing.

Get a grip on reality.

[Baff2 0]

The U.K. military cuts still does not prove that NATO collasped. What do you consider what is a long range bomber? The British still had the Victor, which could carry a nuclear load and had a range of 1,500 miles, in service until 1993.

They could had still nuked parts of Germany.

 

The Salt treaties began discussion in 1969 and were completed by 1979.

The Start treaties began discussion in 1985 and INF in 87 and were completed by 1993.

Those treaties do not prove that NATO collasped. The Soviet Union and the United States had plenty of nuclear weapons.

 

The U.S. cut it's military spending simultaneously with the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991, as did all of NATO. We all disarmed and withdrew at the same time. NATO and the U.S.S.R. both.

The United States thought they did not need a large standing military anymore because the biggest threat, the Soviet Union, was gone and dead. NATO still functions as an military alliance and has expanded to include former Warsaw Pact members.

The U.S. economy is kept artificially afloat by foreign investment. It collapsed a long time ago.

During the Cold War administration, it became dependant on foreign loans ($2.6 trillion by 1988) to maintian it's military. It still is.

Despite this massive increase in spending, Reagan was unable to match the Soviet military advantage. He broke the bank trying.  

Unlike the U.S., the Russians chose to reform their ailing economy. They are currently in a state of positive equity.

Reagan's policy was not about parity or superiority. He wanted to break the Soviet Union's piggy bank through an arms race. The Strategic Defense Initiative, aka "Star Wars", was apart of the plan. Did his policy work? In my opinion, it put a nail in the coffin for the Soviet economy.

The Soviets (Russians) had to reform their economy because they needed to. The United States is not in the same economic crisis boat. In my opinion, the United States ecomony simply adapted.

By 1975 the Victors had all been converted to mid air refueling tankers. The Vulcan was the last British long range bomber.

The Start and INF treaties don't prove that NATO collapsed, but they frame the timeline of central European withdrawl.

The Soviet Union didn't suddenly collapse. Neither did NATO. The Cold War thawed.

Russia, the power behind the U.S.S.R., simply didn't need it any more.

Reagan was trying to achieve military parity with the U.S.S.R., (or rather superiority with the SDI) and win the space race and all the rest. He failed to bankrupt the U.S.S.R. and succeeded in bankrupting the U.S. The Soviets didn't go bankrupt until 13 years after that, and even then they didn't get into debt.

The litmus test is that before the break up of the Soviet Union it outgunned NATO, and after the break up of the Soviet Union, Russia still outguns NATO. It is every bit as much of a military threat now as it was then. Only not such a big political threat.

It's piggy bank even when it was at zero was and is bigger than the U.S. piggy bank. Which is in negative numbers.

0>-$2,600,000,000,000

The U.S. economy has not adapted (enough), it is still bankrupt and entirley dependant on foreign aid to this day.

The Russians reformed, because they needed to and they could. They have the kind of government that is not paralysed by public opinion in quite the same way as ours.

Dysfunctional NATO.

How many of NATO's 42 members are deployed in Afghanistan?

The NATO mission in the Balkans has been renamed a EUfor mission. It has been superceded by a new alliance.

NATO expansion into Eastern Europe comes at the cost of Western Europe.

We are exchanging Poland and the Ukraine for Britain, France, Spain, Italy and Germany. This is a bad deal for NATO.

France and Britain cannot honour an Alliance with Poland. Last time they tried they fought a world war to do so, devastated their own countries, starved and sacrificed their own people on mass; and crippled their economies for decades to come.

They failed to liberate Poland completely.

Poland was beyond their power. Will they be willing to do the same thing again?

Last time Germany formed an alliance with the Ukraine, their country got destroyed. Will they be willing?

NATO expansion into Eastern Europe hasn't strengthened it, it has weakened it. Or rather it is a response to NATO's much weakened ability. The driving force behind the expansion is to replace Western European troops that increasingly have higher priorities deploying in other alliances.

The NATO/Soviet front has moved, leaving many of NATO's most powerful members out of danger. They no longer need it. NATO has swapped two superpowers and the worlds largest economy (Western Europe), for a load of very weak indefensible countries.

[JdB 151]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq... failure? far from it. (I hate people who don't know what they're talking about). Iraq isn't even over! The US and allies are going toe-to-toe with Iran, Syria, and Muslim extremists. So far its a king of the hill match that has the US out on top right now. And the US even looks like its going to get stronger out there with talks of long-awaited reinforcements on the way.

You are aware that iraq war takes longer than WW 2 right now ?

You are aware that the country IS already in state of civil war ?

You are aware that US troops could do nothing about the highscore slaughters last week ?

You are aware that Iraquis flee the country in 100.000 per month ?

Also I'd like to point out that all of the "allies" are backing out as they don't see any way to turn Iraq into a peacefull, democratic country in the long term (stupid to want to form a middle eastern country to your own piece of earth half a world away in the first place). It's just costing money and lives and not producing any results besides rapidly increasing tentions and violence.

The entire US strategy in Iraq has failed. The US military didn't even "win" in the "open" warfare part of the conflict as alot of the soldiers just melted into the civilian population to form part of the insurgency. The US is still fighting (and losing) those same insurgents.

[Sophion-Black 0]

4) If i remember correctly, the US never lost a battle in 'Nam

Do you have any kind basic understanding of the concept of assymmetric warfare?

I have an understanding of assymetric warfare. but let me tell you, the US never advanced its troops beyond an artillery fan. We had control of the battlefield. But not the brain-washed hippies in the US.

Oh yeah, that excuse. Blame the hippies.

If you honestly think staying there for years would have made any difference you should check out what happened to the soviets when they decided to.. stay the course in Afghanistan.

the SU was winding down, internal pressure from political leadrers caused the withdraw. along with talks of the US getting Iran and Pakistan together to repulse the "invasion." But this is tricky too, the "invasion" was actually an armed assistance to Afghanistan. Afghanistan, if you recall, actually favored the SU.

Quote[/b] ]And yet you took the freedom (that you now rob Denoir for) to label Iraq as a victory

We hold the capital, the Iraqis are turning against extremism, the US is exposing what Iran really is the the SCO, and Syria is looking like its cautious about its steps now.

Quote[/b] ]"Thou shalt not kill" (Somewhere in the bible...)

There's an exception, the 20th chapter of Deuteronomy (explains what to do before war).

Quote[/b] ]How does that prove that USA was founded on christian values?

let me review: "OF OUR LORD." and to clarify which one I'll even throw in the nations motto: "IN GOD WE TRUST"

Quote[/b] ]Oops, I had a brain fart.

pheew... I was hoping that's what happened.

Quote[/b] ]You are aware that iraq war takes longer than WW 2 right now ?

You are aware that the country IS already in state of civil war ?

You are aware that US troops could do nothing about the highscore slaughters last week ?

You are aware that Iraquis flee the country in 100.000 per month ?

The combat action of WWII, we still have bases in Germany from WWII remember?

Civil War? I'm yet to find a casus belli. right now its foreign terrorists coming in and hoping to get a civil war started to put more pressure on the US hoping we will leave.

Lets review what happened last leek... Thanksgiving! Those terrorists are getting smarter... -ish.

Where the hell are you getting that number?

Quote[/b] ]Get a grip on reality.

The reality is: we have US soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen over in a country where they feel they're winning. Look at where the cards are at! No politician is out there on a convoy in the lead vehicle with his eyes peeled! No damned hippie is out there on patrol going door-to-door to ask if the Iraqis need anything. And certainly no ignorant ****ing democrat has the God given courtesy to thank our servicemen and women for the sacrifices they give everyday! YOU, SIR, HAVE NO IDEA WHATS GOING ON! IF OUR TROOPS ARE OVER THERE KNOWING THEY CAN WIN THIS WAR THE BY GOD THEY WILL! THIS WAR CAN ONLY BE WON BY THE SHEER DETERMINATION OF TROOPS ON THE GROUND! NOT BY THE B****ING OF BRAINLESS POLITICIANS.

Let me show you this picture and let you decide on whats going on:

EDIT:

Quote[/b] ]The US is still fighting (and losing) those same insurgents.

Let me direct your attention to the above picture, its foreign fighters.

[billybob2002 0]

By 1975 the Victors had all been converted to mid air refueling tankers. The Vulcan was the last British long range bomber.

I stand corrected.

The Start and INF treaties don't prove that NATO collapsed, but they frame the timeline of central European withdrawl.

The Soviet Union didn't suddenly collapse. Neither did NATO. The Cold War thawed.

The United States' support of the Afghani rebels during the Soviet invasion of Afganistan tells me that the Cold War did not thaw. The issue of nuclear weapos was just the soft spot for both parties.

Reagan was trying to achieve military parity with the U.S.S.R., (or rather superiority with the SDI) and win the space race and all the rest. He failed to bankrupt the U.S.S.R. and succeeded in bankrupting the U.S. The Soviets didn't go bankrupt until 13 years after that, and even then they didn't get into debt.

The litmus test is that before the break up of the Soviet Union it outgunned NATO, and after the break up of the Soviet Union, Russia still outguns NATO. It is every bit as much of a military threat now as it was then. Only not such a big political threat.

It's piggy bank even when it was at zero was and is bigger than the U.S. piggy bank. Which is in negative numbers.

0>-$2,600,000,000,000

The U.S. economy has not adapted (enough), it is still bankrupt and entirley dependant on foreign aid to this day.

The Russians reformed, because they needed to and they could. They have the kind of government that is not paralysed by public opinion in quite the same way as ours.

Reagan's goal was not military parity with the Soviet Union.

From Wikipedia:

Quote[/b] ]

Confrontation

Reagan forcefully confronted the Soviet Union, marking a sharp departure from the détente observed by his predecessors Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Under the assumption that the Soviet Union could not then outspend the US government in a renewed arms race, he accelerated increases in defense spending begun during the Carter Administration and strove to make the Cold War economically and rhetorically hot.

The Administration oversaw a military build-up that represented a policy named "peace through strength". The U.S. set a new policy toward the Soviet Union with the goal of winning the Cold War by using a strategy outlined in NSDD-32 (National Security Decisions Directive). The directive outlined Reagan's plan to confront the USSR on three fronts: decrease Soviet access to high technology and diminish their resources, including depressing the value of Soviet commodities on the world market; increase American defense expenditures to strengthen the U.S. negotiating position; and force the Soviets to devote more of their economic resources to defense.

Around the world the U.S. used the Vietnam War example, by financially and diplomatically supporting anticommunist movements trying to overthrow Communist regimes. This included support for the Afghani insurgents and Poland's Solidarity movement.

The Soviet Union did not bankrupt the United States. I do not remember the news reports which informed us that we are a bankrupt nation living off of aid.

Dysfunctional NATO.

How many of NATO's 42 members are deployed in Afghanistan?

NATO has 26 members and all of them contributed troops to ISAF including Luxembourg.

The rest of your post is mubble jumbo...

[Baff2 0]

The Soviet Union did not bankrupt the United States. I do not remember the news reports which informed us that we are a bankrupt nation living off of aid.

I don't think you've been reading the business pages then.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/07/debt.clock/

"The Outstanding Public Debt as of 29 Nov 2006 at 03:46:13 AM GMT is:

$8,629,744,706,718.55

The estimated population of the United States is 300,340,264

so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,733.23

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

$2.03 billion per day since September 29, 2006!"

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The money is predominantly lent by Britain, Japan and China.

The Soviet Union didn't bankrupt the United States, Reagan did.

The U.S. currently spends more than it earns and it's getting worse with no end in sight.

Russia bit the bullet; when Britain, Japan or China pull the plug, the U.S. will be forced to also.

(At which point if you have a bit of cash saved up, you stand to make a serious killing on the stock exchange).