tkhayes 348 #76 June 1, 2004 we will never know if it is 'not pratical' or not, since the government continues to do it, and the world continues to be angry with us. My point is that it might very well be worth trying. Sure a few countries have soldiers over their, but you missed my point. Most countries do not extend their influence to the world, nor do they ask or demand that foreign governments allow them to open military outposts inside their borders. it is this sort of influence that gets groups/countries/people pissed at us. Would our 'way of life' really be threatened if we closed military bases in Korea, Germany and the Phillipines? I doubt it. We might actually have to be good neighbors instead. We will still buy our toasters from China and gas from the middle east. I fail to understand why American influence has be extended at such a high price for only a 'perceived' gain. There is no proof that we actually 'need' overseas bases. TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #77 June 1, 2004 QuoteI'd put money on China taking over as number one in another 50 or so years. Interesting point. I think it is going to be a major problem for the US that the focus is off China. This is a growing giant with a potentially aggressive attitude. The US should worry a little more about them. They are starting to influence a lot of different areas - including the oil price. Major reason for the price increase is actually the huge increase in oil consumption in China due to their continuing double digit economic growth. The chinese are very tough and would not be afraid to use military force if they feel it is important - e.g. in regard to Taiwan.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #78 June 1, 2004 >I think it is going to be a major problem for the US that the focus is off China. Agreed. With a long-term occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq looming, we are going to be very occupied with the Middle East for decades to come. Meanwhile China will be quietly building up both its economy and military - and in the long run their economy is the bigger worry. >The chinese are very tough and would not be afraid to use military >force if they feel it is important - e.g. in regard to Taiwan. Yep. And it wouldn't even have to be direct action - one suborbital low-yield nuclear weapon would destroy 70% of our communications and surveillance satellites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #79 June 1, 2004 Quotegreed. With a long-term occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq looming, we are going to be very occupied with the Middle East for decades to come. Meanwhile China will be quietly building up both its economy and military - and in the long run their economy is the bigger worry. I'm not sure I see how the economy and military of China are both a thread. I see one as the balance to the other, because to a large degree any modern economy is built on the back of international trade. No matter how many people live in China, I have trouble imagining a rival to the big trade blocks (EU, and the Americas, maybe someday Africa and the middle east), without them having strong trade-routes with the outside. China's economy will only prosper if trade is allowed to prosper. China having substancial trade will limit their use of military because the world will not trade with a military threat. China's economy would collapse much like the Soviet one did. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
