Friday, June 24, 2005

The Rest of the World Hates America, Even Traditional Allies

But, that makes sense, doesn't it? The United States has a single common denominator that no other nation has: it is the only nation on earth that is a direct military threat to every other nation. That does not mean that we will attack every other nation, but even a country like Britian that is our closest ally has to know that we don't invade and occupy because we choose not to, not because we can't.

On the other hand, Britian does not have to worry about any other nation doing that, because it can defend itself against an invasion against the rest of the world. Even China is no threat to Britian, because it has no lift capacity to go half way across the world. The only direct military threat to Britian is the US.

Since the end of the Cold War (when presumably half of the world thought it was good we were militarily strong) is it any wonder that the rest of the world is uncomfortable with our power, particularly when we use it? The fact is that the entire world combined would not have been able to attack Iraq like we did, and with such ease dispatch its army. They seemed like boy scouts to us, but they were formidable to the rest of the world.

This is why the rest of the world is so keen on getting us to only use force when the UN agrees. They have no way to counter us militarily, and it makes them frightened to see how easily we can dispatch mass formations halfway across the world, and they want to have the power of our military with out having to pay for it themselves.

And they hate us because we won't acquiesce.

So, I am not sure it is a bad thing that they hate us. Because the alternative (being weak or subservient) would be worse.

7 Comments:

At 9:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And I was afraid I wasn't going to meet my quota for false dicotomies this week. Thanks.

 
At 10:26 AM, Blogger Jrudkis said...

What does that mean?

 
At 1:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, that's "dichotomies." Does that clear it up, or do I have to go into the choice between a) being weak or subservient and b)unilateral, heedless aggression?

 
At 2:11 PM, Blogger Jrudkis said...

I wasn't spell checking you, just didn't know where the reference point was.

But sure, lets get into the heedless aggression.

 
At 11:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe "heedless aggression" is too strong. Perhaps "bumbling attempts at nation building under false pretenses" is more accurate.

 
At 1:19 PM, Blogger Jrudkis said...

I would agree that heedless aggression was too strong. And I do not beleive that they were lying about WMD's (because I think they beleived they were there), but it is undeniable at this time that itwas false, so I suppose false pretense is accurate.

And I am not so sure about the bumbling part either, because in every instance where they could have done something different, alternative scenarios would have shown those moves to be a mistake as well.

 
At 6:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least those alternative scenarios up for willing consideration would have.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Links
The Antagonist's Reserve Drill Payment Calculator
 
 The Antagonist's 2005 Reserve Drill Payment Calculator

What is your pay grade?


What is your minimum Time in Service?

Enter the number of drill periods.

 Bible Search
Translation :



Search For :
Powered by : Antagonism on the Web
I'm poor.
It's official.
There are 39,597,565 richer people on earth!



How rich are you? >>