Chinese Submarine beats the US military ....

[Perfectionist]

Looks like the days of America being the World's superpower are coming to an end sooner than we thought !!

China is definitely stretching it's muscles recently ..... they shot down an orbiting satellite not to long ago too .....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

[Soultaker]

And I'll guess who helped the Chinese to build the sub: Russians .

[MaximumPain]

Its a diesel sub and they typically run quiet compared to the nuclear powered attack and ballistic missile subs. The problem they have is that they need to surface fairly often to recharge their batteries this makes them vulnerable in a war time situation. Most nations with any kind of navy at all have a few diesel subs available and would have a chance of pulling this off during peace time. This does not indicate that the Chinese navy will be sinking US carrier battle groups and invading the West coast any time in the near future. But if America wants to play around too close to China we could loose a carrier to such a sub. All in all no big deal and defiantly not the end of US military supremacy.

[Soultaker]

Such a good point, though I forgot the diesel part.

[Ningishiddza]

US military supremacy is a myth. It has an advantage only because of technology, mainly in satellite and aerial reconnaissance. Take away the technology, and they're as helpless as children.

If you thoroughly examine the Vietnam conflict, both the Viet Cong and the NVA held their own against the US, even though the Viet Cong and NVA lacked field artillery, air defense artillery and close air support.

If you war-game some of the major battles, the US always comes out on top, but take away US air power and that isn't so. Take away US artillery, and the US draws or loses. Add even limited close air support and some field artillery to NVA units, and the US draws or loses.

More telling is to study Serbia. The Serbs hid in the mountains and the US could not locate them despite all of their advanced satellite and recon technology. And the loss of US aircraft, especially the vaunted stealth fighters to modified GANEF air defense units was a little frightening to the US.

That's why the US won't invade Iran, except for one small province on the border of Iraq/Kuwait. US units would never make it to Tehran. If the Iranians adopt Serb and Vietnamese tactics, the US would get slaughtered.

The US won't be parking satellites over China. The Chinese will just shoot them down. Not only will the Chinese be shooting down intell/recon satellites, the Chinese will be shooting down GPS satellites, and that will render nearly a dozen US weapons systems totally useless, not to mention air, ground and naval navigation will seriously degraded. Without their GPS devices, US artillery and air defense artillery units won't know what to do. They're so reliant on technology, that if they had to lay a gun/launcher position by hand, it would take hours, and probably have an incorrect lay. You might think it's no big deal, but being off by a few mils means hitting friendly troops, not enemy troops.

[MaximumPain]

US military supremacy is a myth. It has an advantage only because of technology, mainly in satellite and aerial reconnaissance. Take away the technology, and they're as helpless as children.

You are correct that a big part of the US edge lies in space and air superiority. But there is a problem rating a nation's military strength a lot of it is secret. All major players tend to keep a few things under wraps like when the Germans were surprised by the Russian T-34's in the Second World War. The Chinese are very secretive about their military and likely have some capabilities that the US and her allies don't know about. However on the surface the US is several generations ahead in Aircraft technology with some of the stealth aircraft like the F-22 and B-2. America's navy is also several generations ahead especially in nuclear attack submarines and the associated Anti Submarine Warfare technology. The apache helicopter is the finest attack helicopter currently built and the next generation is in the works already. The M1 Main battle tank while a logistical nightmare to keep running in the field is unmatched by non western battle tanks. Any war between major powers like China and the US will involve technology on both sides and America still possesses the edge for now.

If you thoroughly examine the Vietnam conflict, both the Viet Cong and the NVA held their own against the US, even though the Viet Cong and NVA lacked field artillery, air defense artillery and close air support.

According to http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html
58,169 Americans were KIA compared to 1,100,000 NVA/VC KIA If I did the calculations right that's 18/1 I hardly call that holding their own. They got there asses handed to them and only won because America held back from really attacking the North and lost the political will to fight.

If you war-game some of the major battles, the US always comes out on top, but take away US air power and that isn't so. Take away US artillery, and the US draws or loses. Add even limited close air support and some field artillery to NVA units, and the US draws or loses.

I'm sure on the man to man level taking away equipment the NVA fighting man was probably the equal or even slightly superior to the average American draftee given that they had more will to fight and were better suited to the terrain. But war has long moved beyond the man to man level and is about superiority and that does include air and artillery. America chose to develop those aspects and it has proven quite effective especially against a country of limited technological ability such as Vietnam during the 60s and 70s.

More telling is to study Serbia. The Serbs hid in the mountains and the US could not locate them despite all of their advanced satellite and recon technology. And the loss of US aircraft, especially the vaunted stealth fighters to modified GANEF air defense units was a little frightening to the US.

This is why I don't believe it is truly possible to conquer a nation that has the will to resist and I don't believe the US and NATO wanted to actually conquer Serbia just to cut them down a notch and damage there influence on the other separated Balkan states. With modern weapons such as AK-47s and bombs that can be made in someone's basement an insurgency can last as long as the occupied population is willing to support it. Acts of genocide will only send more young men to the hills ready to kill the invaders with new found hatred.

That's why the US won't invade Iran, except for one small province on the border of Iraq/Kuwait. US units would never make it to Tehran. If the Iranians adopt Serb and Vietnamese tactics, the US would get slaughtered.

Agreed, invading Iran would be a logistical nightmare that would make the cost of the Iraq war look like a family camping trip.

The US won't be parking satellites over China. The Chinese will just shoot them down. Not only will the Chinese be shooting down intell/recon satellites, the Chinese will be shooting down GPS satellites, and that will render nearly a dozen US weapons systems totally useless, not to mention air, ground and naval navigation will seriously degraded. Without their GPS devices, US artillery and air defense artillery units won't know what to do. They're so reliant on technology, that if they had to lay a gun/launcher position by hand, it would take hours, and probably have an incorrect lay. You might think it's no big deal, but being off by a few mils means hitting friendly troops, not enemy troops.

Your point is well taken the US military would be disrupted by an effective attack on our intelligence and technological infrastructure. I wonder how much it costs to build a missile to shoot down a satellite and what kind of counter measures the US has or will develop to counter that threat? In any case any nation wishing to fight against the massive military of the United States of America would need to address the incredible superiority of the air and space assets as a first step. Even doing this would not allow China to project their power very far beyond their borders. Let's hope the leaders of both nations aren't stupid enough to try any of this shit out.

[Ningishiddza]

However on the surface the US is several generations ahead in Aircraft technology with some of the stealth aircraft like the F-22 and B-2.

Not relevant. Those aircraft are not "invisible," they're just more difficult to detect. Better training for radar operators or the use of phased arrays negates the "invisibility" of the aircraft. Higher frequency bands detect them, too, although that makes the location of the radar quite obvious and easier to attack.

The B-2s aren't worth the price, given the extremely limited amount of ordnance they carry, and without GPS they'll have to find some other way to navigate. A B-52 is actually superior with the quantity and variety of ordnance it can carry, especially stand-off weapons.

America's navy is also several generations ahead especially in nuclear attack submarines and the associated Anti Submarine Warfare technology.

That doesn't appear to be a concern of the Chinese navy. It's enough to keep US carrier battle groups from parading around in macho style in the South China Sea threatening the Chinese and other folk.

The apache helicopter is the finest attack helicopter currently built and the next generation is in the works already.

Sure it is. That's why 30 Apaches headed out, got the shit shot out of them by the Serbs so badly they had to return without performing their mission, and all 30 were so badly damaged they were scrapped. The other two aircraft in the squadron crashed in a training exercise a few days earlier.

The M1 Main battle tank while a logistical nightmare to keep running in the field is unmatched by non western battle tanks.

That isn't relevant since the US has no way to move its M1s to China. The US barely has enough LSTs for its marines. If the US wants their M1s to be accompanied by IFVs/CFVs, they'll need even more ships. It ain't in the budget.

58,169 Americans were KIA compared to 1,100,000 NVA/VC KIA If I did the calculations right that's 18/1 I hardly call that holding their own.

You missed the point entirely. That loss ratio was achieved only because the US had close air support and massed field artillery fires, while the Vietnamese had none. Ask General Hal Moore. If he does not have close air support, he and his entire battalion would have died right there in the Ia Drang Valley. If he does not have an entire field artillery battalion firing dedicated support, he and his battalion die. The Vietnamese had neither. A single battery of 75mm could have tipped the balance in favor of the Vietnamese even with US air power and field artillery assets.

The calculations are skewed somewhat. You'd have to factor in ARVN loses with US loses to get the real picture.

They got there asses handed to them and only won because America held back from really attacking the North and lost the political will to fight.

The US never had the political will to fight, perhaps because US action was unjust, immoral, contradictory and hypocritical, and the US twice rejected the impassioned pleas from Ho Chi Minh when he was begging the US for help (and the second time he was practically on knees with hat in hand asking America to help).

Strategically, the US acted stupidly, and violated the rules of warfare. Even if the US had taken the proper courses of action, sealing off the Ho Chi Minh Trail and blocking the north, it only puts the US in contact with all of the NVA's assets. The NVA did have air power, air defense and field artillery, but they wisely kept it in the north instead of employing it in the south, in the event the US had a change of policy.

When the US finally withdrew, the NVA won not because the ARVN were inferior, but because they employ their close air support and field artillery against the ARVN in the same way the US used it against the NVA in the south.

But war has long moved beyond the man to man level and is about superiority and that does include air and artillery. America chose to develop those aspects and it has proven quite effective especially against a country of limited technological ability such as Vietnam during the 60s and 70s.

Which leads to a false sense of security, since that advantage exists only because the technology exists. US technology is shielded against EMP, but only to a certain level. And an opponent's technology does not need to be equal to the US or even approach the level of the US, it only needs to be sufficient to inflict enough casualties to affect US morale and the will to fight.

Look at the situation now in Iraq. That isn't even "combat." Light Intensity Combat is defined as 1-3 hours of contact in a 24 hour period. Medium Intensity Combat is 3-6 hours of contact in a 24 hour period. Hight Intensity Combat is more than 6 hours of contact. That's how logistics are scaled as a company/battery/troop has only enough supplies to operate for 1 day at High Intensity.

Those guys aren't even in contact for an hour, and they're whining and crying, and they can't handle a 1 year tour.

So the US is what, going to run 1-year tours in a World War? Riiight. The US would have to draft not an army, but a military 4 times the size of what it'd normally use.

This is why I don't believe it is truly possible to conquer a nation that has the will to resist and I don't believe the US and NATO wanted to actually conquer Serbia just to cut them down a notch and damage there influence on the other separated Balkan states.

It had nothing to do with that. It was necessary to eliminate any potential ally of Russia in the Balkans and to secure military bases for the US in Romania and Bulgaria as a hedge against Turkey's possible defection from NATO and to force US hegemony into the Black Sea region, into Ukraine in particular. The conflict was instigated by the US and directed by Tony Lake in Clinton's national security advisory group. The US provided funding to the Pakistani ISI to purchase weapons from Iran and al-Qaida was used to operate the smuggling operations to get mujhadeen and weapons into Bosnia, then later into Kosovo-Metohia. According to Lake in congressional testimony, Clinton insisted that al-Zawahiri (al-Qaida's number two man) run the operation.

I wonder how much it costs to build a missile to shoot down a satellite and what kind of counter measures the US has or will develop to counter that threat?

It costs nothing, and they've existed for years. The F-15, F-16, and F-18 are all capable of launching ASATs as they're known. I think they were a modified AGM-54 (Phoenix missile). So, the US is just sniveling and whining again. Someone else can do what the US and Russians can do and the US is upset. If the US was a benevolent nation, other countries wouldn't feel the need to exploit technology. The Chinese still remember the very painful episodes of US and British colonization of their country, the rules of extra-territoriality, the abuse of their citizens and the images of huge signs in Chinese parks proclaiming "NO DOGS OR CHINESE ALLOWED" are seared into their minds. They will never allow another country to treat them like second class citizens and animals again.

In any case any nation wishing to fight against the massive military of the United States of America would need to address the incredible superiority of the air and space assets as a first step.

Why, you just have to out-last the US. The US can't even get troops to go to Afghanistan or Iraq to fight, and they snivel and whine about 1 year tours of duty, and Americans don't have the will for a real war. If WW II were fought today, Hitler would win, because the US would give up and go home. Americans today wouldn't tolerate fuel rationing and the rationing of sugar, flour, and a host of other common items, like electricity, and troops aren't going to stay 4 years in a row in a combat zone.

Even doing this would not allow China to project their power very far beyond their borders.

Who says China even wants to project their power?

This is the same bullshit nonsense that led to the Cold War with the USSR, except this time, the US doesn't have the money to play Cold War.

Make no mistake about it. The US is the aggressor here. It always was. Look at the Cold War. The USSR is not the aggressor, they merely respond to aggressive and hostile action by the US. The Soviets didn't put missiles in Cuba because they thought Cuba was a great place for Soviet sailors to make port calls, they put them there in response to the US deployment of missiles to Turkey that could strike Moscow. And why did the US do that? No reason, it just felt like it because it's a bastard.

China's actions are neither hostile nor aggressive, they're merely a response to continued US harassment, hostility and aggression. The US wouldn't tolerate aircraft violating its airspace and gathering intelligence so why should the Chinese tolerate it? So when a Chinese aircraft attempting to push a US navy intel/recon aircraft out of its airspace collides with the navy aircraft forcing it to land in China, the Chinese are evil? No, the Chinese acted justly, morally, ethically, legally and properly to protect their people.

The US wouldn't tolerate a foreign country's carrier battle group sailing around the Gulf of Mexico, menacing, harassing and threaten Americans living in the gulf states, so why should the Chinese tolerate US carrier battle groups sailing around the South China Sea threatening and menacing the people there? The Chinese don't have to tolerate it, and building aircraft carriers of their own and expanding their navy is a prudent and wise action, not an act of aggression or hostility.

If you all don't learn to understand that, you'll be in for a world of hurt.

[iulian28ti]

So the US is what, going to run 1-year tours in a World War? Riiight. The US would have to draft not an army, but a military 4 times the size of what it'd normally use.

that's why they need NWO/OWG...

i agree with most of what you said, especially the 'aggressor' part.

one add, the B-2 and F-22 were made to be invisible to airborne radar, to other aircraft. F-22 Advanced Air Superiority Fighter. The best mission it can get is Defense. While the B-2 was developed during the Cold War, when radars were quite young, and the advanced techniques weren't known.

And a personal opinion, the US held the Supremacy title for so long because it did not fall like the USSR, and because they had (and still have) nukes. lots of them.

[Traveler]

Bush is going to start a war with Iran. It will be a mistake for the US but he will do it anyway.

I am not looking forward to the next two years.

[DontBeAfraid]

It has an advantage only because of technology, mainly in satellite and aerial reconnaissance. Take away the technology, and they're as helpless as children.

Wow dipshit, Thats amazing. What amazes me though is that you posted this as if it was some kind of an insight into the nature of combat. Technology trumps all else in a battle. The US airforce no longer needs pilots and soon enough it wont even need people to man the remote controls.

[Hashmalau]

Ning saying the U.S. has no will to fight sounds a bit simplistic, given the right "motivation" the U.S. could have 2 million vollunteers tomarrow ready to fight and kill for their country.

Also quote me a marine bitching about his one year tour... don't be a tool babbling nonsense. They're bitching becouse many of them have seen 48 month tours with as little as 2 months at home. Remember they are a volunteer army the overall majority of the U.S. servicemen believe they should be in iraq, many may disagree with why they are there or have different views on why they should be there. The problem with that is many of these opinions are misconstrued and deformed to serve politcal agendas pushed by self promoting fascist news agencies hellbent on manipulating the american people into hating themselves.

America is the only military super power and on a whim she could destroy any country, the only thing we have problems with is this obsession with feeling responsible for the follow up humanitarian efforts if america needs to win a fight she'll simply pull her resources from around the world, remember a few years ago when china got tough on taiwan and the u.s. deployed 7 carrier battle groups to the region?(the largest show of force in the history of the world) Two makes the entire middle east, russia, and china bitch about national security every night.

DBA is correct though, technology is all war has ever depended on. I love how you are always referencing battle statistics, nam carries no merit at all for any sort of depiction of how america would fair in a fight against an enemy. For starters that was a war where america wasn't protecting america it was protecting nam from nam over an idiology hence it wasn't popular (well for many many other reasons it wasn't popular but as a brief generalization). America could never lose a popular war... to say anything else is madness. This is modern warfare and wars last weeks or months not years and decades (a reconstruction is the only thing taking years). An insurgency isn't a war its a babysitting role where you use kiddy gloves and fluffy pillows so your own news agencies won't post burnt babies on the front page every day for the world to see.

Ning your comment "If WW II were fought today, Hitler would win, because the US would give up and go home." only shows how biased and unrealistic and skewed your view points trully are. Remember even then when america declared war in ww2 she had 1 million volunteers the next day.

America is the greatest country in the world, there is no argueing it. It is the greatest morally, culturally, financially, and militarily. She has bad foriegn policies, domestic law enforment policies, and election policies but in the end no other country has saved more lives than america, you can total all the bullshit anti-american statistics of deaths in her wars and wars that have been entirely funded or caused by american involvment and it will only equal a dismal fraction of the amount of lives saved by its humanitarian efforts as well as its technological contributions to the world. Everyday when you wake up and get out of bed you should only be thankful of the fact such a country exists.

Bitch and whine all you want that america is the evilist place on earth and in a year when bush is gone and never comming back you'll have nothing to base your belief on other than the decisions of a few dead, dying, or self hating americans that only exist as footnotes in history textbooks.

[iulian28ti]

America is the only military super power and on a whim she could destroy any country

Fine, why didn't they attack Russia? they were afraid. Afraid they would get their ass kicked. No one wins in global thermonuclear war.

You should reformulate: "America is not the only military super power and on a whim she could destroy any small country"

Two makes the entire middle east, russia, and china bitch about national security every night.

Not proved yet.

America could never lose a popular war... to say anything else is madness.

Because they have lots of allies and supporters. But what if you lose your allies and supporters.
Your FOBs and other objectives remain undefended, so you need to redirect personnel to defend them, diminishing your offensive force. Also, you won't be able to move navy through the waters of other countries, and use their land routes.

An insurgency isn't a war its a babysitting role where you use kiddy gloves and fluffy pillows so your own news agencies won't post burnt babies on the front page every day for the world to see.

And we still have more and more civilian deaths.

Remember even then when america declared war in ww2 she had 1 million volunteers the next day.

Because of Pearl Harbor, and the Gov was smart enough to blame Japan, who attacked after the US imposed embargoes.

America is the greatest country in the world, there is no argueing it.

it never fails to amaze me how americans stick to "we are the best" idea. there is no such thing.
HERE you can see how i and CT agreed that USA is a mix of nations and it's quite equal to the rest of the world, when it comes to peaceful accomplishments.

It is the greatest morally, culturally, financially, and militarily.

morally, the US? culturally, yes, as i said they're mixed. financially, yes, but the rest of the world is coming fast. and militarily, no.

The US still failed to show superiority in combat, even with all the technology and allies available.
They attacked only small countries, leaving them destabilized and in ruin. They failed to bring real peace in any part of the world. They used wars only as an excuse to continue developing weapons and military technology.

As i said, if they really are superior, they would choose someone of their own size.

[Hashmalau]

Posted twice by accident.

[Hashmalau]

So what? Seven nations out of all of them have the potential for war that "could" end in catastrophe? Don't be so dramatic.

Think about it Russia can sacrifice herself in a nuclear war with the U.S. over what? Only the U.S. directly attacking it. Nuclear war is a very very small possibility. I don't even consider it realistic so I ignore your first comment.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ28Ak03.html
"He also commented on the deployment of the Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower to the Persian Gulf: "This is also one of those things. I say right now that your minds should be at ease. Two aircraft carriers are coming, so what? Now some in Iran are shouting that two carriers are coming ... Actually I believe the fact that they're coming shows that nothing is going to happen. If they leave the area then that is dangerous - that reveals that they have plans."

A quote from Ahmadinejad showing his fear of carrier strength in that article.

American naval and air supiority is enough that they no longer need military allies only economic ones. Keep in mind you don't need an invasion to cripple a country you can do that overnight with thousands of bombs. The nature of real war.

Civilian deaths in Iraq? Save your bleeding river of tears for one of your hippy friends. There will be high civilian deaths there no matter what. If we leave they will multiply by unimaginable numbers and none of your peace bringing imaginery countries will give the aid to make it any better than it is. Its idiotic to complain about things when they are as good as they can be.

Pearl harbor happend becouse of restrictions put on a non-existing threat Japan by the U.S. becouse of its aid to germany. Germany was the cause of the pearl harbor you have to read further into it and understand the mass psyche of the time.

Yeah and we're all the same Jimbob in the backrow can be a nueral surgeon. If your measure of equality is good will towards your fellow human then yes the U.S. is equal to "some" countries. However even in that respect lets start crunching numbers and stack americas billions to the rest of the worlds chump change. Who would feed the starving africans? Who would give the 10's of billions to useless countries that don't do jack for it. By the numbers and america has no equal, america is an idiology and an institution it isn't the world look at your free speach laws in these imaginery equal countries. Show me a country with an identical constitution and I'll call them an equal of the U.S.

How can you question the morallity of the U.S. it is a country that hates its own president simply on moral grounds... play me another sad song on your tiny violin. Many amazing things derived from military technology:microwaves, silly puddy, jets, gps, satellites, even space flight imagine that! The U.S. has brought peace to dozens of nations watch some educational television sometime. They've stabilized dozens of economies through massive financial aid. We're talking 10+ billion a year to single countries.

Finally "if they really are superior, they would choose someone of their own size."
this comparison of how a military works makes me laugh. Take on russia and cripple europe and asia economy? Attack china and cripple the worlds economy... I think not. There is no one americas size that wouldn't be an attack on americas money lets not joke its religion. Anyway... do you really think the war with Iraq happend becouse america was bigger and gets some sort of sick laugh from picking on the little guy? Get out of those diapers.

[Sandstorm]

So why do you think the war on Iraq happened Hashmalau?

[Hashmalau]

Does it matter why it happend? I can reitterate several conspiracy theories you could have your pick at. I can tell you the presidents reason. I can tell you congresses reason. There is no reason why the Iraq war happend it just did, thats the only answer I can give you and not feel like a phony. Unless your the most selfish person in the world hiding the time machine in your ass for your own personal amusement then there is no reason to ask why it happend. I don't mean to offend anyone but 99% of the discussion about Iraq shouldn't be about why it happend or who is to blame. Be a little more current unless like I said you have a time machine.

Debating it could only result in one thing, the possible punishment of someone responsible for something illegally done. If you would want Bush or cheney to be punished the case would take longer than the year before he is out of office. So you want him to get a spanking? Sit in time out in a prison for the rest of his life? Pay a billion dollars to the gates foundation? I can't really stress how pointless such a topic is. Do you want america to pay a fine? How about the 2 billion dollars a day. Want it to fix it? Its trying with everyone saying she can't. Want more money spent on it? Lets push the dollar even lower and when the U.S. economy crashes and millions die from starvation from massive depression then it will be halarious that the whole time it could of been avoided everyone was concerned with why Iraq was invaded and what a bad boy Bush was. I feel like this little rant bares more weight than all the howcome whodidit discussions on the web put together.

[iulian28ti]

A quote from Ahmadinejad showing his fear of carrier strength in that article.

LOL! this is a stupid affirmation.

Who would feed the starving africans?

but they still starve.
they send or buy and send food, nothing more. if they would want to do a good job, they would care about their infrastructure. But that's costly. You need to hire engineers, send materials, send workers, send more food to cover the personnel there, send security, provide effective transportation back to US and Europe etc.

Anyway... do you really think the war with Iraq happend becouse america was bigger and gets some sort of sick laugh from picking on the little guy? Get out of those diapers.

here:

an excuse to continue developing weapons and military technology.

it's about profit. they would have got damaged very very bad even nuked attacking china, russia, canada, or europe, in the quest to find an excuse for development.

instead, no problem losing a relatively few troops and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans (small countries, almost forgot by the West and Europe) to make profit and gain military superiority (for a short time, until others catch up). Attack the little guy, no one gives a damn. Where's the moral superiority?

[Hashmalau]

Stupid affirmation alright... who do you want a quote from? China? Russia? It was merely a point that this oh so powerful country his terrified of just 2 carriers. So what about nuclear strength you have to get missles to where they are going and as I've said america will not attack china or russia ever. No matter how much shit either of them talk they would never kill themselves to help another country being attacked by the U.S. Stop talking about impossible imaginery situations. Nuclear war is impossible and it needs to stop being your only basis for your beliefs on what govern american military doctrine and foriegn policy lest you wish to remain a joke.

But they still starve... goes back to what I said about not complaining about things when they are as good as they can be. You obviously are ignorant about this part of american policies as well. Billions and billions go into africa from america every year some countries even recieve as much as 50% or more of their food from leftovers america gives them. If america stopped being the largest non-stop charity maybe I could of gone to a school with air-conditioning or not grown up in a single parent 4 child household recieving less than 10k a year from the government for my disabled parent. Please don't make such ignorant statements. Show me one of your imaginery countries doing anything better? All you can possibly do is list a couple handfuls of things america does that has lead to the deaths of civilians directly and use them to demonize it. How about every country that doesn't give atleast 25% of the amount america gives to charity each year be branded as evil for not helping these useless barbarian machete wielding africans? Oh wait I'm sure that makes wherever you live evil??? Strange how that would work.

America needs no justification for its spending or are you ignorant of this as well? Since when has the world ever changed what america wanted to do. I've said it several times america is not the world. Before Afghan and Iraq there was still over 120 million dollars a day disappearing in military black projects... and thats what the pentagon admits to. Make a profit? Your very wrong there, war does many things for a countries economy, it can stimulate growth and thats why many presidents tend to like a war economy however when the costs reach 2 billion a day there is no profit only liabilities (I'm sure a few defense contractors are making money but lets all speak of them as though they are only a handful of people.. oh wait another realistic viewpoint) About getting nuked your still being even more ignorant. The world isn't some giant schoolyard playground with the american bully flipping a coin to see who gets a wedgy. Your statements are the same kind of insulting unfounded misinformation plaguing american foriegn policy that I see everywhere comming from misguided tools of the anti-american agenda.

[iulian28ti]

Does it matter why it happend?

who's ignorant and finds excuses for what his government does?

[Hashmalau]

Who can take a sentence out of a paragragh and use it out of context like all the real anti-whateveryouwant journalists? What is ignorant about that statement? You think when they find the world ending asteroid heading for earth we should spend all of our time discussing where it came from?

Why it happend is merely a comfirmation of semantics. The whole world wants to talk about how america can be a better non-stop charity and do nothing themselves. The whole world can talk about what started Iraq and do nothing to help the dieing civilians. Punishing whodidit doesn't help anyone. It might make a lot of people feel better or fall asleep a little faster at night but at the end of the day it doesn't matter in relation to the solution. The solution is the troops that are there and they have so little global support its baffling. The whole world wants a better Iraq with no troop involvment. So without troops how can you help the situation? This isn't dc and superman isn't comming to save the day.

[iulian28ti]

What is ignorant about that statement?

you don't care about the facts, you ignore the facts, you are ignorant.

You think when they find the world ending asteroid heading for earth we should spend all of our time discussing where it came from?

maybe.

The whole world wants a better Iraq with no troop involvment. So without troops how can you help the situation? This isn't marvel and superman isn't comming to save the day.

They use no diplomacy. Try diplomacy. Of course, the US gov is too full of itself to admit that "We don't negotiate with terrorists" policy was wrong.

[Hashmalau]

Wow... really wow. This is how far it has come. Ignoring facts that are unimportant to a solution is called efficiency not ignorance.

Then we would all be dead? With a world view as cynical as your I can appreciate such an expectation.

No diplomacy... really. Last I checked if we didn't negotiate with terrorists there wouldn't even be a debate over Irans nuclear ambitions we would have already annihilated that dream. Make no mistake that country is the greatest supporter of evil in this world. With all of americas evil it still does unprecidented humanitarian efforts. Where is Irans good deeds to justify hamas or hezbollah. Lets all ignore that north korea has and is disarming its nuclear abilities. You can't have diplomacy without troop involvment in Iraq. Do you really require the reasoning for that? How about becouse the military isn't the one negotiating, its babysitting like I said, generals don't decide its domestic policy.

[iulian28ti]

Make no mistake that country is the greatest supporter of evil in this world.

time to wake up. the whole east is laughing at america. not because you didn't impeach bush yet or hung other politicians.

it's because you fail to realize that for the last decades the US has imposed a wartime policy and an imperialistic regime, that for the last decades they have continuously imposed their own policies around the world, under the cover of "freedom and security", that your government is simply driving your nation to war, in the quest to expand the empire.

In this war you are a faction, and they use propaganda (because you are at war) to make you believe the US is the "Guardian of the world" and others which don't agree are evil. There is no such thing as evil nation. Only hate and greedy politicians.

[Nu Kua]

it's because you fail to realize that for the last decades the US has imposed a wartime policy and an imperialistic regime, that for the last decades they have continuously imposed their own policies around the world, under the cover of "freedom and security", that your government is simply driving your nation to war, in the quest to expand the empire.

In this war you are a faction, and they use propaganda (because you are at war) to make you believe the US is the "Guardian of the world" and others which don't agree are evil. There is no such thing as evil nation. Only hate and greedy politicians.

The truth is bright. For some who haven't been able to view it in awhile, it may be uncomfortable to the eyes.

[Hashmalau]

I realize many things, I realize war is not inherently evil for starters. I realize that yes for about 50 years the U.S. leadership has followed a slightly more hawkish approach to most problems than much of the world feels it should. Every nation with the military might to impose its will onto another has always done so I can cite examples of every nation doing this. (many are doing it now, russia/chechnya, china/tibet) Imposing ones will needs to be accepted as not inherently evil not everyones existing will is acceptable at any level (think darfur). In a massive pile of crap you can't just pick on the biggest turd.

"Every" country tries to aquire recourses through expansion both diplomatically and militarily but to claim that the country as pushed for war only to gain new territories and influence is a mockery. Freedom and security? All freedom throughout the entire history of mankind as been taken by force thats fact live with it becouse its human nature.

What the hell propaganda are you talking about? The only propaganda I see anywhere from yahoo, to google, to the NY times and every other major news outlet is only anti-american propaganda. Show me an article in the last 12 months citing a positive accomplishment of american foriegn policy or an article on the front pages of these hate mongerers show the endless charity work and I'll show you an honest reporter. Only example is North Korea but that was preceeded by years of shit talkers bashing americas policy on them.

Evil is a nation of fundamentalist muslims ready to die so that they can live forever with their gift of virgins. Evil is a country with an army core of suicide bombers ready to explode in the most populated area they can find. Evil is a country that activly gives money to groups that do not discrimate against the targets they believe have no right to live becouse they don't believe in the same imaginery friend. Evil is a country thats only positive contribution to the world is its entire history of barbarism and violance.

Good is a country that bombs a city and uses every ounce of its technology to hit as few civilians as possible. Evil is a nation that puts its civilians in its buildings as human shields so they won't be targeted. Good is a nation that tries for years to rebuild a country it destroyed. When has any other nation ever done this. Everyone says they failed at it but show me the shining examples of anyone else succeeding with a population that begs to live in poverty, ignorance, and blind faith. For that matter just show me one succeeding.

The united states only uses its military when diplomacy is not possible, remember diplomacy takes both sides. The U.S. has always used diplomacy first not everyone is willing to talk though but then what do you do? When diplomacy is impossible then physical action is the "only" option possible especially if your negotiating to make a country feel it shouldn't kill innocent people or aquire weapons to kill innoccent people that it feels need to die becouse of a different idiology. If you don't accept this then tell me what else there is. If I say you shouldn't kick puppies in the face and you put your fingers in your ears saying "la la la" I feel a little obligated to punch you in the gut so you can hear me. Or do you not accept that not every country is open minded to the ideas of equality, human rights, and the general sanctity of life?

The U.S. though it claims it will has never actually shot first and asked questions later in regards to its foriegn policy (don't bother mentioning conspiracy theories or false flag operations if you believe one conspiracy you believe them all). There is a few domestic examples but the world needs to realize america treats its own people like dirt compared to the compassion and patience it shows to nations that generally want to see its people suffer and die.

You still have yet to ever mention that without the U.S. there would be more people starve to death in one year than all the civilians that have died in the gulf wars, nam, korea and its numerous other small wars combined. Such a bad place america is. If you believe that every person is equally important, that the guy that just went into a restaurant and killed 12 innoccent people has the same value as the tax paying, charity giving, doctor then yeah all war is bad. If you believe that someone that only wishes to take life doesn't deserve to live then you need to get off your high horse and accept the simple truth that its ok for some people to die.

As for the east your talking about a large group of people that refer to the crusades like they were a year ago. A group of people that without oil would descend into absolute suicidal chaos becouse they can't even support their uncontrolled population growth. A group of people that contribute nothing to the global quality of life. As if anyone in america should care what they think. Sadly though... they do and that is the reason for so many problems. Not that america doesn't care but that it cares to much especially about the opinions of unimportant uneducated barbaric nations. Hell look at baghdad they're so ignorant they can't even accept that they require a wall like dogs to keep them from killing each other.