View Single Post
Old 07-06-2010, 12:55 AM   #61
Darth Avlectus
@Darth Avlectus
I'd buy that for a dollar
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: My pervert mansion
Posts: 4,397
Current Game: A dirty old man.
Originally Posted by Roller123 View Post
I didnt say Europe is weak. It has everything it needs thus it is fairy passive. Understandable.
That's not the impression you gave.
Originally Posted by Roller123 View Post
Europe.. its a total mess, already actually. One thing is sure, w/o US money all those "small independent democracies" aka puppet states immediately go broke and back under Russian influence.
Hm. That to me implies you mean to say they can't stand on their own.

Originally Posted by Roller123 View Post
All the points in your post though are based on a well nurtured myth of USA being the good guys, protecting the world from the so called evil. Needless to say reality is nowhere near that. Its a country like any other, only interested in profit and new markets. Killing others for the greater good, its own. (Which is ok really, im not making any kind of accusation).
Not received as any kind of accusation. However, I had hoped you'd elaborate on your position, you know points of view economically, politically, etc. instead of resorting to patronizing; You don't know any more what I'm thinking than I do what you're thinking.

The assumption you're making is that I
1) am a subscriber to the "USA can do no wrong, opposition to it is all bad" belief
2) am naive to the reality that countries ultimately are out for their own

I am neither. So your condescension is misdirected.

1) Anyone who subscribes to such a belief is short sighted and narrow minded.

Now I can see why you'd draw that conclusion, perhaps I did not clarify some things:
-There are many in europe who among other things, desire the same rights Americans have. There's something to be said for this and this does not mean USA is never wrong.
-China's relationship with the USA of recent has caused it to embrace free market and capitalism after such a long time of communism. There is something to be said for this and it does not mean that USA is never wrong.
-Exchange students from asian and european continents that come to America seem more curious than wary and leave with a bit of respect, and perhaps envy. There is something to be said for this and it does not mean that USA is never wrong.
-Russia and USA once used to be friendlier as nations. The people of each country love the people of the other country, their reservations towards each others' governments notwithstanding. There is something to be said for this and it does not mean that USA is never wrong.

2) this reality is what I referring to and even one better:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
it would have to come down to who'd make the sweetest sounding bribes/payoffs
If there is a gain, a country will go for it and often times offers for such gains come from more than one side in a conflict. The nations deciding this are like alligators: They will go for whichever payoff looks bigger and better in short and long runs.

Maybe I'm underestimating Russia's ire, which I'll grant you. Still, you have not convinced me of such.

Originally Posted by Roller123 View Post
Thus, quote: "Well, maybe it would if Russia did some things to anger the U.S. but I can't really say I see that happening, tbh." is dreamland, if they see a gain, they will strike.
Yes however that makes assumptions that have yet to be proven. The Georgia incident surely doesn't bode well for US and Russia relations. Still, I'd think Russia would try to buy itself time and perhaps rapport to get othrs to convince China to back off instead of "striking" militarily or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Roller123 View Post
Observing recent history, Georgia was using US navigation system (recon planes ect) to target things in South Ossetia, both civilian and later russian military. Same can happen in a China/US-Russia/EU conflict, especially if things go nuclear. Same applies to Europe "not wanting" to ally itself with Russia. They will if there is a gain, and there is. (and in our scenario even more so, because China getting Siberia, will certainly not want to share, it would make the landgrab pointless in the first place)
Granted you have a good point or two, if vague.

Still, do you really think China is just going to sit idle like an idiot while Russia tries to rally as many european nations to its aid as it can? If China is looking to become more of a world power, it would reach out to European nations in need as well. Also, if USA doesn't necessarily support China's action, so China will probably have to think very hard about this situation. Europe is also interested in the abatement of conflict and those strongly with USA would assist.

I grant you Europe largely might have nations that would want to join Russia given certain circumstances. But not all of them, as you made it sound.

Again, assuming world being in a bad shape, else this thread is pointless.
Well this is a thread for conjecture. I was curious because your position was a new one and wanted you to elaborate more on it. But whatever.

As seen in the above example with Georgia, even today, it doesnt take military might to start a war,
only a delusional leader. 2 terms of McCain and USA is there.
*facepalm* You are certainly welcome to your opinions. I'll point to Tommycat's reply to this and add: McCain has undeniably fought in a war, whereas Bush can only really claim to have served in the military. McCain is much more well versed in war than Bush.

That's right, Bixby Snyder folks.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,