Iran, Chinese, and Russian Alliance Saves USA

Yes, i believe the above is true. Lets look at the USA, it is an empire the likes of which the world has not known since Rome. It is my belief that a strong allience between Iran, China and Russia actually gives the US empire a purpose and thus saves it from meeting the same fate as Rome (death from within). Well maybe not saves but prolongs the life of the US empire and strength. Sure we as a nation will have our ups and downs but lets face it, being idle is the worste thing that can happen to a nation as large and in charge as we are. Infact if you look at it the infighting of our nation has already begun, however a strong foreign enemy may just infact save us from it. Besides what is the western world best at? Competition that what! what do you think?

Well that is what the neo-conservative philosophy is...

The truth is though, this whole "Iranian, Russian, Chinese" alliance is pretty hyped up. Iran's days are numbered in my opinion, China and the US and EU are too comfortable in their trading relationships, and Russia and China's relationship is a relationship for convenience.

The US will just elect a new president and the infighting will continue among those who always oppose each other. I wouldn't be surprised if a new president was more popular with the general population. More popularity equals more support. Then if things get even worse than they are now, people will start talking about the good ol days that we are in now. The US doesn't need a common enemy.

And don't forget India because what you're thinking about is more than likely the continent of Asia as a whole just like with the board game Risk. I don't think that anything is happening quite yet anywhere outside of the clear economic leader the U.S.A. Japan and all the other truly rich nations out there have so far instinctively isolated themselves as much as they can and it was the same with the Incans, Chinese themselves, and Babylon. Once the three countries you have cited get up to the same levels of efficiency as, say, Singapore, than their progress will stop abruptly if only to plateau because of a sudden collapse of vision and tenacity. JFK made actual ambition in itself look easy, but as the Japan expiriment so proved it isn't as it requires a crazy enough culture. As it stands, the European Union has thus far chosen elegance over craziness so speak and Japan logic.

Originally posted by JackJuice
Yes, i believe the above is true. Lets look at the USA, it is an empire the likes of which the world has not known since Rome.

What? Empire? Lol... I'm sorry, but your opening line has put me off the rest of your post.

Firstly, the USA is/has no Empire.

Secondly, to rank it up there with Rome is just silly. Again, you have no Empire, secondly, the greatest Empire the world has ever seen was the British Empire. It covered 1/4 of the worlds land surface and encompassed 1/4 of the worlds population.

Rome didn't even come close in comparison. They could barely get out of the mediterranian.

Even the Mongol empire was larger than Rome, for crying out loud, although not as technologically advanced.

There's no doubt in my mind that much of our leadership sees the US as the great imperial power of our times, despite public denials. It's simply rephrased with cute phrases like "full spectrum dominance" and the like.

Sad that this country has mutated from a republic "with malice towards none" to a rampaging imperial power, but there is still hope that the people will tell the power hungry fools running things now precisely where they can stick their empire.

Sadly, I'm not at all sure they'll give it up without bloodshed.
Power over others is a very addictive drug - power over the entire species only moreso.

Originally posted by stumason

What? Empire? Lol... I'm sorry, but your opening line has put me off the rest of your post.

Firstly, the USA is/has no Empire.

Secondly, to rank it up there with Rome is just silly. Again, you have no Empire, secondly, the greatest Empire the world has ever seen was the British Empire. It covered 1/4 of the worlds land surface and encompassed 1/4 of the worlds population.

Rome didn't even come close in comparison. They could barely get out of the mediterranian.

Even the Mongol empire was larger than Rome, for crying out loud, although not as technologically advanced.

Here is where you are wrong, while i won't deny the English Empire, having a large amount of land mass under ones control is not the only prerequisite for an empire. I don't see how anyone can not consider the US an empire, sure we may not be as imperialistic as Rome or as your beloved England was however, you can't deny America's economic Empire, and on top of that you can't deny America's cultural Empire. Couple that with the worlds Most powerful military (i know your gonna argue this with me but..) along with America having the largest political sway over the world then i think you will find it an empire much like Rome was. Now i believe many of these things will change in the near future unless America can find a "bad guy" to focus on.

Ahem, thats where your wrong. Exerting some political influence over some countries does not make you an Empire, neither does supreme military might. The USA is completely unable to exert absolute control over any country, without resorting to military action, which to be frank, is not imperial, it's just aggressive and having to resort to military action means that you do not rule those people in the first place.

The definition of Empire is "a group of countries ruled by a single person, government or country". The USA does not control a group of countries, hence, it is not an Empire.

[edit on 15/9/06 by stumason]

Exactly when was Britain able to exert "absolute" control over any nation without it having come from or leading to military confrontation? There have also been plenty of nations that the USA has had control over, perhaps mentioning Hawaii and puerto rico will ring a bell?

"Europeans rationalized their empires as civilizing missions. Today the utopian rhetoric of American exceptionalism masks the primary intent of the United States to create, not actual colonies, but a global market subservient to transnational capital." David Moberg

We conquered them and ruled them. Thats the fundemental difference between having an Empire or not. The USA might have political/economic influence, but at the end of the day, you don't rule over anyone and they can just ignore you if they want. We actually had direct control over 1/4 of the planet and refusal to obey was not an option.

Extraordinarily simple premise to grasp, really.

Tell it how it is stumason.

The definition of empire is very easy to grasp, and america sure as heck doesn't have one.

But judging by Bush and Cheneys actions, they sure as hell think they have...

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Tell it how it is stumason.

I do try. Gets me into trouble sometimes though as I am like it in RL

yeah but the US as been on top for what, 60 years? (joint top with the USSR) so for the last 15 years its been the worlds only superpower!

never the less 60 years in a dot in history compared to how some of the greatest empires ruled (rome, british) for example.

yet after these 60 years theres a massive black cloud already pissing HARD on america, it's monstrous national debt/dying dollar/fighting 2 wars (possibly 3) all = $millions$ everyday.

its a nation that is soon to be overtaken by china (a country the US borrows HEAVLY from to support its economy).

so to say the american empire is the greatest since rome is rather (how can i put it), silly?





[edit on 15-9-2006 by st3ve_o]

stumason you act as if the USA has never conquered any land before. your forget we started as 13 states and not all of the current 50 were taken peacefully. Now just because we are better at incorporating and holding our conquered land doesn't mean we are a lesser empire, sure we may not compare to rome in all ways but we do in area's such as technologically, or atleast we have in the past couple of decades. Also we compare very much to Rome culturally.

Originally posted by stumason
The USA is completely unable to exert absolute control over any country, without resorting to military action, which to be frank, is not imperial, it's just aggressive and having to resort to military action means that you do not rule those people in the first place.

Originally posted by stumason
We conquered them and ruled them. Thats the fundemental difference between having an Empire or not.

This sound contradictory to me, perhaps you just can't admit how powerful the colonies have become. I can forgive this..

Haha, you think my objections to you calling the USA an Empire stem from some deeply held resentment over a war we couldn't be arsed to fight 200 years ago?

Not likely.

You may be interested to know that the War of Independence actually kick started the formation of what is now known as the British Empire. It was the lessons learnt in N. America that allowed us to form the largest, most powerful Empire the World had ever seen. Thanks

Put simply, the very definition of Empire as found in the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries completely refutes your claim of the USA being one.

The USA does not rule over anyone apart from it's own people. Simple. On the flip side, using your logic, we could argue that the UK is an Empire now as we are effectively 4 countries united under a single ruler.

But, we're not an Empire, we're a Union, as you are, as each has a voice within that arrangement.

In an Empire, the dominant culture/country rules over other peoples. This, the USA does not do. End of.

I think this thread actually stems not from any resentment I may have about the colonies splitting 200 years ago, but rather your desire to build the USA into something that it is not. No matter how hard you wish, this is not going to be the case until the day comes when America conquers other people and subjegates them under it's rule.

EDIT: To add, the other 50 states? So you have 63 states? I am sure you mean the other 37? And they most certainly weren't taken peacefully, your forgetting the genocide of the Native Americans.

It is true that prior to WW2, the USA did try it's hand at colonisation and proto-Empire building, but that lasted about as long as a chocolate cake in a fat persons convention, but that doesn't take away from the fact that, here and now, the USA is not an Empire.

[edit on 15/9/06 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
Haha, you think my objections to you calling the USA an Empire stem from some deeply held resentment over a war we couldn't be arsed to fight 200 years ago?

No not really haha but i couldn't resist

Additionally, one can compare physical empires with potentially more abstract or less formally structured hegemonies, in which a culturally unified area is politically or militarily unified by the sphere of influence of a single political member, such as a city-state. Empires have also been compared with superpowers.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by stumason
I think this thread actually stems not from any resentment I may have about the colonies splitting 200 years ago, but rather your desire to build the USA into something that it is not. No matter how hard you wish, this is not going to be the case until the day comes when America conquers other people and subjegates them under it's rule.

This would never happen nor as a citizen of the US would i willfully allow this. This thread was started to hear others views on the rise on devisiveness in America today and to wonder if a strong external threat would quell that devisiveness. This thread was NOT started to get into a pissing contest over who had the biggest baddest empire in history, which would of been Rome anyhow.

Originally posted by stumason
EDIT: To add, the other 50 states? So you have 63 states? I am sure you mean the other 37? And they most certainly weren't taken peacefully, your forgetting the genocide of the Native Americans.

[edit on 15/9/06 by stumason]

no i said exactly what i meant i said not all of the CURRENT 50 were taken peacefully, never did i say OTHER, the original 13 were certainly not taken peacefully.

EDIT: oh and i am not forgetting the genocide of the Native Americans if you read my post more carefully you will find that i said they were NOT taken peacefully.

[edit on 9/15/2006 by JackJuice]

Originally posted by JackJuice

Originally posted by stumason
EDIT: To add, the other 50 states? So you have 63 states? I am sure you mean the other 37? And they most certainly weren't taken peacefully, your forgetting the genocide of the Native Americans.

[edit on 15/9/06 by stumason]

no i said exactly what i meant i said not all of the CURRENT 50 were taken peacefully, never did i say OTHER, the original 13 were certainly not taken peacefully.

Yeah, my bad. I'm tired and misread that .. It's 0443 here atm...

Anyhoo, I am not going to derail this one any further. I do have more questions, but I will u2U you

Originally posted by stumason
I think this thread actually stems not from any resentment I may have about the colonies splitting 200 years ago, but rather your desire to build the USA into something that it is not. No matter how hard you wish, this is not going to be the case until the day comes when America conquers other people and subjegates them under it's rule.
[edit on 15/9/06 by stumason]

Well we did subjegate the Native Americans, Mexicans, and Native Hawaiians among others. We also currently still rule over Puerto Ricans, Somoans, and the people native to the U.S virgin islands. But a lot of these people simply decided that it would be better to join then fight.

Wow what a pissing contest we have here Who's empire was greater Rome's or Briton's. Is America an empire? Yes it is! No it isn't! Everybody read the title of the thread! And with that here's my $0.02

A tri-partite alliance between Iran, PRC and the Russian Federation that is aimed at challenging America's global hegemony is IMO highly unlikely. Quite simply no alliance of nations could challenge the America's military supremacy. The US is on the verge of attaining nuclear supremacy for the first time since the 1950's.

US Nuclear Primacy

Our conventional forces are unmatched. Yeah our Army my be taxed in Iraq and Afghanistan but our Air Force and Navy are still undisputably the most powerful and available.

Each of these Nations may support each other in the UN and other global forums. But thats about all they could do for each other. China is focused on regional issues inparticular Taiwan. But the US has an allie there in Japan(which possess a more powerful military than China at the moment). China's economic power ov er the US is very overstated. Yes they finance our debt. But they're not doing it out of generosity. They're doing it to prop up the dollar relative to the yuan. To keep their products cheap and thus keep Americans buying them. If the Chinese stop buying US Treasury bonds the Yuan will rise in value. Then Americans will stop buying Chinese goods. Chinese firms will start to lose money then begin laying people off. I think you can figure out the rest.

Russia 's military while it may have received a recent influx of cash has been neglected for the past 15yrs and would fare in a fight against the US about as well as Saddam's did in either of his scraps with us. And it shows its taken the Russian "Army" two wars and a cumulative 15yrs to "pacify" Chechnya. Russia faces argueably the worst demographic nightmare in the world.

And Iran who's newest fighter plane is based on the F-5E. Its a 2nd generation design The mullahs that run Iran aren't much more popular with common Iranians than the Taliban were with the Afghanis.