Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Just the other day I found a site that claimed not only that bin laden had over 600 nukes but that over 400 of them have been placed in our cities and that 200 of those nukes were megaton class city-buster nukes. The same site also stated that Iran had a nuclear arsenal of over 1,000 nukes and that north korea had an arsenal of over 1,400 nukes. In a final nugget the site claimed that all three of these enemies had chem/bio arsenals many times as large as the arsenal iraq had before 1991 and was proported to have in 2003 plus libya's arsenal combined.

OH SNAP! Let's not try to get on Bin Laden's bad side!

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Just the other day I found a site that claimed not only that bin laden had over 600 nukes but that over 400 of them have been placed in our cities and that 200 of those nukes were megaton class city-buster nukes. The same site also stated that Iran had a nuclear arsenal of over 1,000 nukes and that north korea had an arsenal of over 1,400 nukes. In a final nugget the site claimed that all three of these enemies had chem/bio arsenals many times as large as the arsenal iraq had before 1991 and was proported to have in 2003 plus libya's arsenal combined.

Remember, a site can claim anything ts creators want it to. Some may feel that what I'm about to do is pointless, but I will try reason here.
The problem with having 600 nukes or any other large number of WMD's is that you have to have somewhere to put them. To store weapons entails the risk of contamination if they are not handled properly. al Qaeda has no state, therefore it has not the means to store weapons in large numbers. Here is a recent relavant list of the weapons that various powers have.

My point is look criticly at web sites. If Iran had the kind of arsonel this site that yo saw claims, our intellegence officals would have made noise about it a long time ago. It takes time and money to devolop WMD's. This is a large world full of many things. If you spend your whole life afraid of things that other people cannot prove, you will miss it all.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Remember, a site can claim anything ts creators want it to. Some may feel that what I'm about to do is pointless, but I will try reason here.
The problem with having 600 nukes or any other large number of WMD's is that you have to have somewhere to put them. To store weapons entails the risk of contamination if they are not handled properly. al Qaeda has no state, therefore it has not the means to store weapons in large numbers. Here is a recent relavant list of the weapons that various powers have.

My point is look criticly at web sites. If Iran had the kind of arsonel this site that yo saw claims, our intellegence officals would have made noise about it a long time ago. It takes time and money to devolop WMD's. This is a large world full of many things. If you spend your whole life afraid of things that other people cannot prove, you will miss it all.

Lots of nukes means lots of other risks as well. (Check with the former Soviet republics on this) Which is why we have PAL's and safeties out the wazoo. Note: Nukes need maintenance, as well. Can you say tritium?

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Note: Nukes need maintenance, as well. Can you say tritium?

More importantly, do you know its half-life?

I don't know how many bombs Russia really has that will work anymore. I do know they have plenty of uranium, plutonium, etc. to make shiny new ones if they feel the need. (Pu-239's half-life is longer than most civilizations'.) Al-Qaeda can make dirty bombs, but actual nukes require an industrial infrastructure, and realistically, no one who puts in all the effort to build a nuke will just hand them to someone else.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

More importantly, do you know its half-life?

I don't know how many bombs Russia really has that will work anymore. I do know they have plenty of uranium, plutonium, etc. to make shiny new ones if they feel the need. (Pu-239's half-life is longer than most civilizations'.) Al-Qaeda can make dirty bombs, but actual nukes require an industrial infrastructure, and realistically, no one who puts in all the effort to build a nuke will just hand them to someone else.

According to worldnetdaily and other sites such as newsmax and newprophecy, islamism was manufactured from the kremlin as part of a long-range plan to destroy the US and exterminate the american people, particulary it's minorities. They also claim that 9-11 was planned from moscow and that bin laden and zawahiri were trained by the KGB. They also believe that russia is still communist, that the cold war never ended and that litivenko was killed by putin because he knew too much. They claim that al-qaeda was given nukes by russia and the scientists to maintain them. Finally they claim that axis of russia and muslims will start WW3 and that would be the fulllfillment of the prophecies of the old testament.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

According to worldnetdaily and other sites such as newsmax and newprophecy, islamism was manufactured from the kremlin as part of a long-range plan to destroy the US and exterminate the american people, particulary it's minorities. They also claim that 9-11 was planned from moscow and that bin laden and zawahiri were trained by the KGB. They also believe that russia is still communist, that the cold war never ended and that litivenko was killed by putin because he knew too much. They claim that al-qaeda was given nukes by russia and the scientists to maintain them. Finally they claim that axis of russia and muslims will start WW3 and that would be the fulllfillment of the prophecies of the old testament.

Why are you wasting you time on that garbage? Didn't you see?
Invisible Unicorns!
eating Marmosets!

For goodness' sake, get your priorities straight!

alright enough is enough -

Cynic is either

a) Insane
b) Pulling our collective leg
c) Zilch
d) All of the above

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

According to worldnetdaily and other sites such as newsmax and newprophecy, islamism was manufactured from the kremlin as part of a long-range plan to destroy the US and exterminate the american people, particulary it's minorities. They also claim that 9-11 was planned from moscow and that bin laden and zawahiri were trained by the KGB. They also believe that russia is still communist, that the cold war never ended and that litivenko was killed by putin because he knew too much. They claim that al-qaeda was given nukes by russia and the scientists to maintain them. Finally they claim that axis of russia and muslims will start WW3 and that would be the fulllfillment of the prophecies of the old testament.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! WorldNutDaily?





You've really come under some bad influences my friend...

Originally Posted by salsabob

alright enough is enough -

Cynic is either

a) Insane
b) Pulling our collective leg
c) Zilch
d) All of the above

Reading the above, the name of an old rock band popped into my head...

AC DC

But seriously; our current political alignment as the primary power of unipolar/multipolar world is untenable. Our foreign policy must be oriented toward anticipating the rise of rival centers of power in asia, the mideast, and even europe if the EU is successful. To that end we must reindustrialize and prevent continued outsourcing of our jobs: Self-reliance should be the motto of our policies. This should be accompanied with a movement for the political and cultural union of the english speaking peoples. This union should be followed by the policy toward the integration of the latin american states permanently into the american fold. As a consequence this may have to lead to the forcible satelization of latin america. Finally move should be made to bring the nations of sub-saharan africa into this union and aid in the development of those regions.

Foreign policy regarding rival power centers is simple: we should seek trade with them for resources that are scarce in the western hemisphere or anglo-saxon territories. However a trend toward de-emphasization of trade with the rivals must be implemented. Alternative sources of fuel must be found and exploited; this must be done in order to decrease reliance of the middle east. Also a military buildup should take place in order to deter potiential enemies, doctrine must emphasize the possibility that full-scale warfare may come to pass. The most likely rival center of power would be china (russia would become the sidekick of china, or may possibly embrace an isolationist eurasianist stance.) If conflict does occur the future of anglophone, hispanic and even brazilian civilization may depend on seizing the resources of the vast landmass of china and east asia. The exploitation of those regions would provide great additional wealth for the peoples of the western hemisphere.

Domestically a regeneracy government should ideally preach unification of government policy with the will of the american people. The average american must be instilled once again with faith in good government. The belief in sevice for the good of the community must be preached at every turn and implemented in an honest way. This belief should be complemented with the doctrine of the individual giving their all to the good of the nation. Therefore the big Corporations and the multinats must be reigned in and their assets distributed among the people, small businesses and corporate competition should be encouraged. However it must be clarified to the economic enterprises that their loyalty first and foremost is to the nation. Movement toward a cultural consensus must be achieved in order to steel the unity of the citizenry.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

But seriously; our current political alignment as the primary power of unipolar/multipolar world is untenable. Our foreign policy must be oriented toward anticipating the rise of rival centers of power in asia, the mideast, and even europe if the EU is successful. To that end we must reindustrialize and prevent continued outsourcing of our jobs: Self-reliance should be the motto of our policies. This should be accompanied with a movement for the political and cultural union of the english speaking peoples...

I'm not sure you aren't locked into dated patterns. During the time of muscle power weapons and domesticated animals as the primary source of power, offensive warfare was cost effective. The more militant cultures dominated, suppressing the less militant. There were very real limits, set by communications and transportation, on how big one's empire could get. As roads, horse breeding and ships advanced, empires got bigger. Still, in the areas of the world that produced enough food to support a surplus population, the militant cultures triumphed over the pacifists.

When gunpowder weapons and steam engines arrived, victory did not always go to the most militant culture. In fact, one could make a case for the opposite. The industrial democracies could out produce the monarchies, fascists and communists. While the industrial democracies exploited undeveloped countries with abandon, they preferred to contain the most militant threats, the Napoleons, Hitlers and Stalins. At this point, containment is an accepted doctrine. Anyone with pretensions to expand by force is going to have to deal with defensive alliances and rival powers with nuclear stockpiles.

To most countries, the winning solution is to contribute to defensive alliances, but to avoid any semblance of being a threat to other powers. Most powers are building much smaller militaries than they used to. Even the United States is standing way down in comparison to World War II levels.

The difference now is that insurgency and proxy war makes even colonial imperialism impractical. There was a time when a major western power could go ashore most anywhere in the Third World and take over. Iraq and Vietnam might demonstrate that these days are gone. If attacking other major powers tempts nuclear destruction, and attacking minor powers risks quagmires, is it any wonder that most nations are no longer eager to march their armies around?

I am not saying that all world leaders have figured the above out. Clearly, the Bush 43 administration hasn't. I don't know that China has. Thus, we can't beat the last sword into a plowshare yet. We've more containment to do. There is also a nasty combination of a stateless power using insurgency in the Third World and WMD terror in the First World. I don't have a military solution to that combination. The solution has to be to provide a path that provides the unemployed young men of the Third World more hope than a course of mutual assured destruction. This will involve easing the imbalance of wealth and ecological responsibility, among other things.

You have the old values down pat. You could fight the last war quite well. You just aren't so good on the upcoming war. This is to be expected. There were Royalists during the Revolution, slave holders during the Civil War, and Fascist sympathizers right up till Pearl Harbor. Not everyone wants to grow beyond the previous cycle's value system. The old set of solutions are so comfortable. The question is whether they will work against the new problems.

The Bush 43 administration was peopled at the top by a bunch of the most experienced and educated foreign policy and military teams the United States has ever had. They just tried to fit old solutions to a new problem. They are seriously not doing well. You too are insisting on seeing the new threats as if they were old threats, and are assuming the old solutions will work. I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

You have the old values down pat. You could fight the last war quite well. You just aren't so good on the upcoming war. This is to be expected. There were Royalists during the Revolution, slave holders during the Civil War, and Fascist sympathizers right up till Pearl Harbor. Not everyone wants to grow beyond the previous cycle's value system. The old set of solutions are so comfortable. The question is whether they will work against the new problems.

Actually, he could fight the war before the last one quite well. His game plan is an almost word-for-word transcript of the Old Guard Republicans who dominated the U.S. Senate from the late 1910's until the late 1930's. To hell with the Eastern Hemisphere (except for our bases and the Philippines); dominate the Western Hemisphere and maintain links with the British Empire (as the rest of the Anglosphere was then). We will weather any storms through self-sufficiency.

Except: no. In fact, hell no. Pearl Harbor made it clear that other Great Powers could hit us at home; we were very concerned that a Japanese fleet was going to show up on the West Coast, and U-boats really did patrol the East Coast. And that was before B-52's and ICBM's and using airplanes as fireship-missiles.

We can't hide from the world anymore, and we can't conquer it. On the other hand, we get the same defensive benefits as everyone else and then some. Our enemies can raid; they can even torch a city or two; but America cannot be successfully invaded. So we're going to have to live with the world, and work to make it a better place -- a place where few feel the need to commit genocide, and the many are willing to stop those who do.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Actually, he could fight the war before the last one quite well. His game plan is an almost word-for-word transcript of the Old Guard Republicans who dominated the U.S. Senate from the late 1910's until the late 1930's. To hell with the Eastern Hemisphere (except for our bases and the Philippines); dominate the Western Hemisphere and maintain links with the British Empire (as the rest of the Anglosphere was then). We will weather any storms through self-sufficiency.

Except: no. In fact, hell no. Pearl Harbor made it clear that other Great Powers could hit us at home; we were very concerned that a Japanese fleet was going to show up on the West Coast, and U-boats really did patrol the East Coast. And that was before B-52's and ICBM's and using airplanes as fireship-missiles.

We can't hide from the world anymore, and we can't conquer it. On the other hand, we get the same defensive benefits as everyone else and then some. Our enemies can raid; they can even torch a city or two; but America cannot be successfully invaded. So we're going to have to live with the world, and work to make it a better place -- a place where few feel the need to commit genocide, and the many are willing to stop those who do.

I dis not exactly mean a return to traditional isolationism, instead we should seek not merely links with the rest of the anglosphere but an english-speaking political union; a greater anglosphere national polity, an anschluss. This union should consists of america, britain, canada, australia, new zealand and ireland unified into a single nation. Central america, south america, and sub-saharan africa should be our vassals/minor allies. The borders of this bloc should be approximatly those envisioned by orwell when he mentioned oceania. This aforementioned areas must be rendered self-suffiecient so as to not rely on our likely rivals (i.e China, russia, europe, the arab world), for essential resources.

Preferably the unification of the anglosphere should be the first action to take place, This will be followed the vassalization, through diplomacy, alliance, and war, of all latin america, and sub-saharan africa. Since these postulated actions would not directly affect the national interests of rival power centers, china, europe, and russia. They likely would not interfere.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

IThis will be followed the vassalization, through diplomacy, alliance, and war, of all latin america, and sub-saharan africa. Since these postulated actions would not directly affect the national interests of rival power centers, china, europe, and russia. They likely would not interfere.

I almost lead off with, "are you f--king nsane?!?"; but looking over your past posts answered that well enough for me, thanks.

I would just mention, however, one of the many glaring factual inaccuracies in this, your latest salvo against the forces of light and reason -- namely, the fact that both China and Russia have major interests in both sub-saharan Africa and South and Central America. I could name, for example Venezuela's oil deal with China; or the same major power's numerous growing oil and mineral deals with several African nations. Or the fairly enormous amount of well-relationed trade that Russia does with central Africa and the Brazil-Columbia-Ecuador sector of South America.
No; they won't care if the US invades their friends and allies to make herself stronger... not at all...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Preferably the unification of the anglosphere should be the first action to take place, This will be followed the vassalization, through diplomacy, alliance, and war, of all latin america, and sub-saharan africa. Since these postulated actions would not directly affect the national interests of rival power centers, china, europe, and russia. They likely would not interfere.

I almost lead off with, "are you f--king nsane?!?"; but looking over your past posts answered that well enough for me, thanks.

I would just mention, however, one of the many glaring factual inaccuracies in this, your latest salvo against the forces of light and reason -- namely, the fact that both China and Russia have major interests in both sub-saharan Africa and South and Central America. I could name, for example Venezuela's oil deal with China; or the same major power's numerous growing oil and mineral deals with several African nations. Or the fairly enormous amount of well-relationed trade that Russia does with central Africa and the Brazil-Columbia-Ecuador sector of South America.

No; they won't care if the US invades their friends and allies to make herself stronger... not at all...

I'll also add that the military aspect of the above isn't apt to work. We haven't been able to "vassalize" Iraq. With light weapons and materials to ad-lib improvised explosive devises being so common, native insurrection supported by rival powers waging proxy war makes "vassalization" a not cost effective policy. That put it mildly. It has proven not cost effective in Iraq in dollars and cents alone, leaving the cost in blood unmentioned.

Most 'developed' nations have acknowledged this. They spend a far smaller percentage of the GNP on arms, and try to optimize their economies rather than their militaries. Yes, we are far better able to project power than any other nation at the moment. This is not for lack of capability for others to build armies, but out of the rational choice of the other nations. Military force is no longer profitable. It has not been for quite some time. It is an overhead cost that was once necessary for continued survivability. As not all countries have definitively abandoned war of aggression, it is too soon to entirely abandon armed forces. However, the United States is essentially alone is spending the funds necessary to project large forces anywhere on the globe.

And leaving aside the costs in dollars and blood, there are moral and propaganda costs as well. Neither the US public nor the global community will tolerate the sort of violence and terror Saddam used to pacify (or 'vassalize') Iraq. A similar degree of ruthlessness and terror would be required to suppress insurgency if the object is to create vassal states.

That, and the rest of the English speaking world would not go along with it. Most English speaking countries value human rights, democracy, tolerance and the use of force only as a last resort. Most of them were glad to see the Empire become the Commonwealth, and have no desire to see a return of Empire. Heck, some English speaking countries actually fought revolutions to free themselves from foreign domination, and are culturally inhibited against oppressing other peoples. The old idea of "The White Man's Burden," of certain peoples using the spread of their supposedly superior culture to justify the seizure of resources and markets has been rejected by most English speaking nations.

In short, I am not pleased by your proposal.

Jarad Diamond in his book, "Guns Germs and Steel" presents a good summary of how Europe came to dominate the world. There were unusual circumstances that led to Imperialism being highly cost effective over a period of several centuries. The Europeans had better immune systems, and badly decimated native populations on first contact. They had better weapons, and controlled the sailing ships, and thus the profits from trade. At this point, the diseases have been everywhere. The immunities have balanced out to a great degree. Everyone has the same weapons, at least with respect to insurgent combat styles. Finally, the ships are flagged in Third World countries of convenience, to avoid regulation. The ports are open, can be visited by ships of all nations.

Thus, the window of opportunity for Imperialism is closing or has perhaps closed. The unusual circumstances that led to European dominance are gone. Thus, those who base their political and military understanding of how the world works on the political and martial histories and policies of the last several centuries are apt to create disaster. (See modern Iraq as an example...) This would be more true now than is generally true of people who try to repeat the weapons and tactics of prior generations.

In short, your proposal won't work.

I second the comments from Jared Diamond. Let me add that Paul Colinvaux's "The Fate of Nations" pointed out that in Europe, as long as people were literate, no nation could ever get a technological edge on its rivals because someone could always steal the "secrets" of the latest gadget and publish them back home.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Preferably the unification of the anglosphere should be the first action to take place, This will be followed the vassalization, through diplomacy, alliance, and war, of all latin america, and sub-saharan africa. Since these postulated actions would not directly affect the national interests of rival power centers, china, europe, and russia. They likely would not interfere.

Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that life imitates art. Your proposal is indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

...we should seek not merely links with the rest of the anglosphere but an english-speaking political union; a greater anglosphere national polity, an anschluss.

Do you mean the US should join the British Commonwealth? This would make Queen Elizabeth head of state and allow the president to function as head of government (like a Prime Minister) instead of being both King and Prime Minister as he currently is.

Or do you mean forming an American Empire to replace the British Empire of which all countries you mention were once part? In this case I would point out that I don't think these countries will want to rejoin an empire anymore than we did after 1776.

Central america, south america, and sub-saharan africa should be our vassals/minor allies.

Hmmm, so you wish to reconsititute the British, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch and Belgian Empires in Latin American and Africa under an American aegis. Do you know that most of the Spanish Empire in the New World fought successful wars of independence (following the American example) nearly two centuries ago? They certainly would not be willing to become part of an empire again.

How will you persuade them, or are you simply going to threaten to destroy them with our nukes if they don't submit?

This is no different from what Hitler sought in 1939. For you apparently, Nazi Germany a valid model for how the United States should conduct its affairs. What's next, a final solution for America's enemies?! :-||

You are one evil ignoramus as well as a coward.

Go to hell! You will feel right at home.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Invisible, marmoset-eating unicorns live under your bed. The government is suppressing the information.

You forgot to add that they're waiting for him to fall asleep to steal his kidneys.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

(in response to Cynic Hero '86)...You are one evil ignoramus as well as a coward.

Go to hell! You will feel right at home.

I assume these posts are all trolling, and he(she?) is giggling him/herself silly at the responses his/her drivel is generating. Put him/her on ignore or just use his/her posts as very bad melodrama.

Of course, mental illness is also a possible explanation.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that life imitates art. Your proposal is indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania.

Are you implying that Cynic Hero '86 has a life?

I for one am still way behind this cynic kid. I can't for the life of me find this anglosphere place anywhere on my map which more or less leaves me lost about the rest.

There was this store downtown when I was a kid. It sold stuff from England. You know: ceramic knick knacks in the shape of rabbits, unusual foods (they had those delicious salt and vinegar chips before anyone; this British kid who still had a full blown accent like years after he came over used to bring them to class), soda pop that tasted like bubble gum. No Wimpy burgers but they don't transport well I'd guess.

I used to go there with this mean Jewish girl who had the most hilariously awful things to say about almost everyone as well as strong anglophilic tendencies (the Smiths records, signed Rupert Everett posters, the like; she came back from the UK with some pretty boy Public School boyfriend from Rugby or Eton or one of those places). Her father reminded you of that dad in Clueless. She always wanted to dress me like a small boy.

I gather that place may have been some kind of honorary part of the anglosphere and for all I know she may have been some kind of honorary member of it but I'm a little hazy about the rest.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

In short, your proposal won't work.

The serious advocation of already discredited proposals is practically the definition of parody. CH is the only one not in on the joke.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

The serious advocation of already discredited proposals is practically the definition of parody. CH is the only one not in on the joke.

Are you sure of that? CH86's posts are so over the top that they scream "intentionally provocative".

This is getting really ugly. I guess the Shia are tired of being punching bags.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq