Text 21930, 97 rader
Skriven 2008-10-15 11:47:22 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
  Kommentar till text 21888 av Michiel Van Der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Socialism in the US o 1/
================================
Hello Michiel,

>MVDV>Hmmm... Maybe for the citizens of the USA. Others may see it
>MVDV>different.

>LL>Well, certainly the Taliban and al-Qaeda do see it differently.
>LL>As well as the former regime in Iraq.  Not to mention the dictator
>LL>of North Korea.  And the madcap president of Iran.

MVDV>It isn't limited to those Lee. Not by far....

You right.  We're bringing democracy and freedom to the whole world,
at the point of a gun!  Isn't that great?

>MVDV>The outcome of WWII was decided with the battle of Stalingrad in
>MVDV>1942. By then it was clear that Germany would lose the war. That
>MVDV>was before the US got involved.

>LL>While it is true the bulk of the fighting was between Germany and
>LL>Russia over Eastern Europe, had it not been for the USA, England woul
>LL>have fallen to the Germans.

MVDV>No. The battle of Britain was settled before the US got involved.

Not as settled as you might think.

MVDV>Go back in the thread an d read Ward's messages, he expleined
MVDV>it very well.

That is only one POV.  Another POV is the Nazis came very close to
succeeding in controlling the whole world.

>MVDV>without the US, the war might have lasted longer, the eventual
>MVDV>emerging balance of power might have been different, but the Nazis
>MVDV>would not have won. They already lost in 1942 against the Russians

>LL>Had the USA not intervened, Nazi Germany would have remained firmly
>LL>in control of Western Europe, as well as in Eastern Europe,

MVDV>The Nazis would have lost no matter what. By 1942 they had
MVDV>run out of resources needed to complete it.

Most of the fighting was between Germany and Russia over Eastern
Europe.  The fighting in Western Europe was very limited, over a
400-mile stretch.  Why was Germany so interested in Eastern Europe?
Germany needed mineral resources which it did not have.  And Russia
had oil.  Lots of oil.  Especially the area around Stalingrad.

>LL>If the United States would cease to be, what country would then
>LL>become the dominant power in the world?

>MVDV>why would there have to be a dominant power?

>LL>Historically there has always been a dominant power.  Whether it be
>LL>the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Spanish, the French, the
>LL>British, or the Americans, there has always been a dominant power.

MVDV>The Persians, the Greek and the Romans never ruled the world.

They ruled the world they lived in, having created an empire of
their own.  China was a different world, a world unto itself.

MVDV>Their influence did not exend beyond Europe, Northern Africa
MVDV>and The Middle East.

Did not have to.  The civilized world of that time was more
limited than it is today.

MVDV>The Spanish end the French (and the Portugese and the
MVDV>Dutch) were formidable powers, but they never were a
MVDV>dominant power.

The Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch, and others, were all
dominant powers within their spheres of influence.

MVDV>There always were several players on the field and no one
MVDV>was stronger than all the others together.

No country has ever been so dominant as to control the entire world.
An empire is not one that has to be a one-world government.  The
Greeks under Alexander the Great never had a one-world government.
Neither did the Romans under the Emperors.  But that does not mean
they were not dominant powers.  Each was the dominant power of its
time.  And there was only one dominant power at any given time.

MVDV>Until the end of the cold war...

Even during the cold war there was only one truly dominant power.
That is why throughout the world people preferred spending dollars
rather than rubles.

>>> Continued to next message

 * SLMR 2.1a * Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.thebbs.org (3:800/432)