Power causes corruption ?

[LeftEyeNine]

As long as there is an endless conflict between US and others, I asked myself "Would it be the same if it wasn't US, say, was Myanmar or Sweden or Turkey?".

Do you think vast power somehow harms the subject itself or would it be different if the super power was another country ?

You may take the question in psycological terms not only in terms of relationship among countries..

[Al Khalifah]

The USA is possibly the first superpower to adopt a policy of liberating other countries and using its power for (in their perception) the good. Other super powers in America's position might try conquering territory to form an Empire.

[Sjakihata]

USSR 'liberated' many nations as well

[LeftEyeNine]

The USA is possibly the first superpower to adopt a policy of liberating other countries and using its power for (in their perception) the good. Other super powers in America's position might try conquering territory to form an Empire.

Sorry to sound against US but.. There must be a difference between "liberating" and "tearing into pieces".. US has a policy to create 300 diiferent states that consist the Middle East. "Scatter and Manage" is their policy in Middle East. Chaos and conflicting minor factions are what US aims in order to take control in Middle East..

[Al Khalifah]

Arguably Britain didn't do much better with it's "unite and annoy" policy in the Middle East. Uniting the 3 Willayats into Iraq was perhaps not such a great idea.

[LeftEyeNine]

Can you explain the formation of Iraq by Britain historically then ? I do not know..

As to turn back to topic, "unite and annoy" is no different than "scatter and manage" thing. They are ideas both breeded from superpowers. So does that prove our hypothesis ?

[Redleg]

Sorry to sound against US but.. There must be a difference between "liberating" and "tearing into pieces".. US has a policy to create 300 diiferent states that consist the Middle East. "Scatter and Manage" is their policy in Middle East. Chaos and conflicting minor factions are what US aims in order to take control in Middle East..

Now that is funny - a policy to create 300 different states - where in the hell did you pull that little tidbit of fiction from. :book:

Looks like anti-american propaganda - smells like fear mongering in the Middle-East against the United States. :help:

Oh yea - the conspricacy theories must be rampent and believed by the un-educated masses. ~:eek:

Oh by the way - I am in a foul mood when I hear garbage like that. Now does the United States have some conflicting policies and statements concerning the Middle-East, sure. But come on do you honestly believe that garbage about 300 different states to be created.

[Redleg]

As long as there is an endless conflict between US and others, I asked myself "Would it be the same if it wasn't US, say, was Myanmar or Sweden or Turkey?".

Do you think vast power somehow harms the subject itself or would it be different if the super power was another country ?

You may take the question in psycological terms not only in terms of relationship among countries..

Now to answer your question - there is an old adage that states:

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is especially true of individuals. All one has to do is look at individuals throughout history. Just using the last 100 years you can see lots of evidence of that. Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot, Clinton, Nixon, and yes even Bush.

Corruption and abuse comes from gaining power and wanting more.

[Paul Peru]

Sorry to sound against US but.. There must be a difference between "liberating" and "tearing into pieces".. US has a policy to create 300 diiferent states that consist the Middle East. "Scatter and Manage" is their policy in Middle East. Chaos and conflicting minor factions are what US aims in order to take control in Middle East..
I heard it was 301 ~;)

[LeftEyeNine]

It was actually 30, I exaggerated it.. Funny guys..

[Lazul]

its true that power corrupts, but if Sweden on the other hand had US power, we would all live in small red houses in the country, be married to blond women and drink beer every day. We would also sing "Små Grodorna" and jump around the midsommar-cross.

..... ok but seriusly I dont think any Empire has ever managed to "stay good", they all do the same; "liberating" countries and so on.
Must say I prefer the US to the USSR... but as years go by, i grow more and more critical to how the US act in the world arena.

[Al Khalifah]

Can you explain the formation of Iraq by Britain historically then ? I do not know..
Iraq had been part of the Ottoman Empire since the 16th Century. This rule lasted until WW1 when it was invaded by the British Army. The British needed to secure Iraq for the oil and to protect the Anglo-Persian oil pipeline.

According to the Sykes-Picot Agreement most of the territory now known as Iraq became British mandate called "the State Of Iraq." They put a puppet monarchy in place. The territory of Iraq was very poorely chosen because while most nations borders tend to be defined as to coincide with natural barriers, regional and ethnic divides, Iraq was defined under quota. In other words, its frontiers were purely artificial and it's population was too mixed.

The state of Iraq was formed to include the Ottoman Willayats of Mosul (mostly Kurdish), Baghdad (mostly Shi'ite), Basra (mostly Sunni). This annoyed Turkey, since Turkey had legitimate territorially claims to Mosul, but the Kurdish populace wanted to join the new Iraqi nation, since they were promised autonomy - which they didn't get.

[LeftEyeNine]

Mosul was Ataturk's one of the highest priority issues to solve. But it ended in a failure iwth Sheikh Said rebellion so that the attention was lead towards the rebellion instead of a military touch to Mosul..

Thank you..

[Del Arroyo]

Americans and other peoples of Northern European cultural heritage, compared with peoples from many other heritages, are innately more reliable and less corrupt in their dealings with fellow citizens. It is a feature of the culture. This does not mean, however, that there is not corruption, and it does not mean that it will never change (just look at what happened to Roman culture over time).

DA

[master of the puppets]

you may be critical about what the U.S. is doing but can you honestly say that the middle east has gotten any worse since we took the role of "liberator". it is a fractured region and will remain fractured until someone can take the initiative and whip these middle-eastern fools into line.

and i believe that power does corrupt.

[LeftEyeNine]

Ottoman Empire of 600 years can prove it wrong, I think..

By the way, what are the superpowers of the medieval times and modern times. I think we should make it clear first. Yes, Roman Empire was a superpower and UK was once and it still is a quasi-superpower. US is the superpower, USSR was once. I can not see any other super powers of the Northern European culture in both medieval aor modern times. Is there any I miss ?

[LeftEyeNine]

it is a fractured region and will remain fractured until someone can take the initiative and whip these middle-eastern fools into line

Let's take Middle East off topic or at least going offensive off, and move towards the point.

I could agree with you about things getting worse in Middle East after US getting into action. But, whether it may be a native or a foreign one, they do not deserve to be whipped, do they ? Actually this is a confliction of democratic Western way of thought.

[Aenlic]

Speaking of power and corruption...

Here's the statement of principles of a group formed in 1997, called the Project for a New American Century. Their stated goal is to formulate U.S. policy since it is the only superpower left in the world.

PNAC Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)

This document forms the basis for our entire foreign policy. Why, you ask? What does a document on the internet from 1997 have to do with current U.S. foreign policy? Just scroll down and read the list of signatories to the statement. Then read the rest of the web site. Among other things, the organization sent a letter in 1998 to President Clinton (signed by the same people), recommending the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Among the people signing the PNAC statementof principles, those below are now actually in the government - officially:

Dick Cheney - current U.S. VP

Donald Rumsfeld - current U.S. Secretary of Defense

I. Lewis Libby - Cheney's chief advisor (and one of the players in the Plame leak)

Paul Wolfowitz - formerly U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and now president of the World Bank

Elliott Abrams - Deputy National Security Advisor, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North Africa on the National Security Council. He is also believed to have had, at least, prior knowledge of the 2002 failed Venezuelan military coup against Hugo Chavez. Along with Otto Reich, there is some evidence that he knew in exact detail the entire plan for the coup, approved it and documents show he claimed it would succeed. He also pled guilty to two misdemeanor charges for his role in the Iran-Contra affair.

Paula Dobriansky - U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs.

Peter W. Rodman - U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.

and finally (my personal favorite)

Zalmay Khalilzad - Special Envoy to Afghanistan after the invasion in 2001 and now U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. He was also, during the mid-1990's, an advisor to Unocal during it's negotiations with the Taliban to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

The others are all professors or politicians, most of them members of other conservative groups such as the Aspen Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Heritage Foundation.

[Al Khalifah]

By the way, what are the superpowers of the medieval times and modern times. I think we should make it clear first. Yes, Roman Empire was a superpower and UK was once and it still is a quasi-superpower. US is the superpower, USSR was once. I can not see any other super powers of the Northern European culture in both medieval aor modern times. Is there any I miss ?

In truth there were few pre-industrial superpowers whose supremacy lasted very long. The strength of the nation was tied totally to the life of the ruler of the nation, without a strong ruler and with no peaceful mechanism to guarentee a worthy sucessor, a nation was doomed to ignomony until another good ruler could emerge. Also, before the Age of European Conquest (post c.1492) nations did not know all the world and could not claim superiority over other peoples, because the two cultures never encountered one another.

For example, Alexander the Great made Macedon a world superpower, but following his death his Empire collapsed because he failed to name a sucessor. Also, Alexander never encountered the Zhou Dynasty Chinese. The Roman Repbulic Empire could be argued to be a superpower, although again they never encountered the Qin\Han Dynasty Chinese who possesed a ruthlessly efficient military machine.

The first true superpower was England, but when its superpower status begins is open to debate, because it has enjoyed many periods of relative success.

The modern superpowers are America, China and Russia, because they are the countries with the power to destroy the world (several times over). Britain and France are powers and Israel, India, Pakistan, Germany and North Korea are lesser powers.

[Red Harvest]

Sorry to sound against US but.. There must be a difference between "liberating" and "tearing into pieces".. US has a policy to create 300 diiferent states that consist the Middle East. "Scatter and Manage" is their policy in Middle East. Chaos and conflicting minor factions are what US aims in order to take control in Middle East..

You are pretty far off base. Arguably the worst mistakes we have made come from not recognizing early enough when nations should be allowed to go their own way.

The U.S. did not create the nations of today. Empires of the past did that and we (the world) are still picking up the pieces. In many cases, groups were combined that seem none too happy about being forced together. And absent the U.S., the USSR would run all of Europe, while the Chinese would have Korea, Taiwan, etc.

A guiding principle of U.S. international policy for the past 100 years or so has been "self determination" rather than empire or colonialism. That doesn't mean we've always honored the principle as we should have. Certainly the Cold War got in the way of that...

"Self determination" presents some big problems though: If a country develops dictatorial or single party rule through election...then future "self determination" can become impossible, creating a dilemna. It also presents problems where there major and hostile divisions in ethnicity within a nation, but not in any readily separable regions.

The U.S. has repeatedly tried to be more isolationist, but it usually backfires on us in a big way. So you'll have to understand and perhaps forgive us for attempting to be more pro-active as a result. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[Al Khalifah]

"Self determination" presents some big problems though: If a country develops dictatorial or single party rule through election...then future "self determination" can become impossible, creating a dilemna.
On occassion though, the US will prop-up a dictatorial regime because it is in the best interests of the United States rather than the people of that nation, which is the typical behaviour of an empire rather than a world policeman.

[Red Harvest]

On occassion though, the US will prop-up a dictatorial regime because it is in the best interests of the United States rather than the people of that nation, which is the typical behaviour of an empire rather than a world policeman.

True, and I did make allowance for that in the sentence immediately following it...so the selective quoting is misconstruing what I said.

[Al Khalifah]

OK then no selective quoting:

"Self determination" presents some big problems though: If a country develops dictatorial or single party rule through election...then future "self determination" can become impossible, creating a dilemna. It also presents problems where there major and hostile divisions in ethnicity within a nation, but not in any readily separable regions.
Even with the sentance that follows, what I said remains valid. I don't see how the next sentance accounts for what I said.

[Red Harvest]

OK then no selective quoting:

Even with the sentance that follows, what I said remains valid. I don't see how the next sentance accounts for what I said.

Sorry, it was the preceeding sentence

quoting myself

A guiding principle of U.S. international policy for the past 100 years or so has been "self determination" rather than empire or colonialism. That doesn't mean we've always honored the principle as we should have. Certainly the Cold War got in the way of that...

[yesdachi]

Two things…

1. Absolute power does corrupt. But we don’t have absolute anything in the US. We have a system of checks and balances that spreads our power all over the place (often too spread out in my opinion, it takes a very long time to get some things accomplished). The President has a hefty amount but so does congress, senate, supreme court, the media, etc. (putting our presidents in the same category as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot I hope was in fun Redleg). No individual or even group has absolute power here, however as a nation the US is the only remaining super power and definitely has the power to manhandle many smaller countries.

2. The US often uses its power to try and help others; both for our personal gain and sometimes to strengthen a relationship, which is also self-serving but may not directly effect us. Now, many people are quick to criticize the efforts but offer little in the way of constructive criticism or ways to handle the situations better. To them I say, Don’t b!tch, unless you have something helpful to add.

There are many factors in making a decision to “police” another country but it would be ridiculous to decide to do anything if there were no potential for gain. IMO the world is lucky that the US is only policing rather than conquering. With the right combination of payoffs and sneaky agreements I can think of at least several “states” that could be added to the union with little military action and another dozen with force.

Other countries should be happy that there is a country like the US around that can help others. And if by helping others it increases the strength of the US, good. The stronger the US is the more it can help.

To say that the US should keep its nose out of other countries business is silly. The US is giant and already has its nose in every other countries business in the form of trade, alliances, US owned businesses in other countries, relatives in other countries, etc. mostly for the better of that country. Think of a country that doesn’t trade with the US, I cant. That means a major event in almost any country has the potential to affect the US. If the US is affected than the US has a right to insert its nose.

I have no delusions; the US is not perfect but come on, stop complaining unless you have something helpful to offer. Complaining for the sake of complaining just makes you look jealous, and there’s no reason for that. It’s really not that difficult for you to become a citizen too. ~;)

[Meneldil]

The modern superpowers are America, China and Russia, because they are the countries with the power to destroy the world (several times over). Britain and France are powers and Israel, India, Pakistan, Germany and North Korea are lesser powers.

Not really related, but I think UK and France have roughly the same destructive power as China. Actually, UK might even have more nuclear weapons than China.

[PanzerJaeger]

The original question in its description of America is so innaccurate and biased its impossible to address it. I would not want to give an ounce of legitimacy to what amounts to anti-american propaganda by taking this thread seriously.

I did like this bit though, possibly the most.. outrageous... of a very outrageous thread.


Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is especially true of individuals. All one has to do is look at individuals throughout history. Just using the last 100 years you can see lots of evidence of that. Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot, Clinton, Nixon, and yes even Bush.

Yes Bush, Clinton, and Nixon are to be lumped in with Hitler and Stalin. Thats quite a concession to make simply for some common ground, Red. :dizzy2:

[Aenlic]

Yes Bush, Clinton, and Nixon are to be lumped in with Hitler and Stalin. Thats quite a concession to make simply for some common ground, Red. :dizzy2:

Well, Bush's good buddy the Reverend Sun Myung Moon is on record as proclaiming that Hitler, Stalin and Jesus have all met in the afterlife and proclaimed Moon the new Messiah. So it's not all that much of a leap.

[PanzerJaeger]

I dont know if you understand exactly who Hitler and Stalin were, and what they did. Do you want me to provide some links?

Also, this is the first ive heard GWB and Moon are "good buddies".

[Aenlic]

Learn something new every day, don't you?

And after your thread regarding WWII, I'm not sure you understand what Hitler did.

[PanzerJaeger]

Learn something new every day, don't you?

Can you provide some links that show GWB playing golf, having lunch, or doing anything else that "good buddies" do with Moon?


And after your thread regarding WWII, I'm not sure you understand what Hitler did.

You obviously didnt thoroughly read the thread... which is not a suprise. :drunk:

[Redleg]

The original question in its description of America is so innaccurate and biased its impossible to address it. I would not want to give an ounce of legitimacy to what amounts to anti-american propaganda by taking this thread seriously.

I did like this bit though, possibly the most.. outrageous... of a very outrageous thread.



Yes Bush, Clinton, and Nixon are to be lumped in with Hitler and Stalin. Thats quite a concession to make simply for some common ground, Red. :dizzy2:

You might want to try to place it into context verus assuming you know what my point is. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. The common ground is corruption - and power. Not in attempting to find a middle ground in the discussion.

Now go back and review and see how the power of being President corrupted Nixon, see how it corrupted Clinton, and see how it is corrupting Bush.

Did there corruption have the same impact on their populations in scale as as Stalin, Hilter, and Pol Pot - nope the corruption of each individual is not based upon how the curruption effect the world - but how the power caused the man to become corrupted - and that yes indeed each individual was corrupted by their power.

With the checks and balances in the United States systems - the ability for the corruption to reach the scale of Hilter, Stalin, and Pol Pot was not achievable - but the fact remains that the power corrupted them.

[LeftEyeNine]

PJ,

It's been two pages here and people are agreeing with my thread starter. You may agree or disagree. And this forum's patrons are intelligent enough to decide what is worth discussing and what is not.

If you may be taking this thread as an anti-American propaganda, you may be feeling quite comfortable with US propaganda ongoing in other threads. Do you think it would be beneficial for some purpose to make an anti-US propaganda here? Actually I am a Business administration dept. graduate student in an university with a serious population of anti-US propagandist students. They are no more than rubbish, wanting a Bhutan-like isolated country. I keep myself updated with how things are going around, not a demonstration kid like them flocking thorugh the campus with meaningless teen enthusiasm..

I think you should try "looking into face" instead of "looking down on".

[PanzerJaeger]

You might want to try to place it into context verus assuming you know what my point is. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. The common ground is corruption - and power. Not in attempting to find a middle ground in the discussion.


That makes the comment even more outrageous as you were not even trying to garner some level of agreement with the original anti-american poster.

I see no instance where any US president can be considered in the same vein as those dictators. That kind of rhetoric only promotes the kind of relativism that people like the original poster try and draw between America and such empires as the Nazis and Soviets.

[PanzerJaeger]

I think you should try "looking into face" instead of "looking down on".

This is not conducive to a reasonable discussion. I believe the term is "strawman". You're starting the discussion with extremely biased, if not propagandistic, "information".

In the best case, you stated completely innaccurate information and expected to have an honest discussion based on it.


As long as there is an endless conflict between US and others, I asked myself "Would it be the same if it wasn't US, say, was Myanmar or Sweden or Turkey?".


Sorry to sound against US but.. There must be a difference between "liberating" and "tearing into pieces".. US has a policy to create 300 diiferent states that consist the Middle East. "Scatter and Manage" is their policy in Middle East. Chaos and conflicting minor factions are what US aims in order to take control in Middle East..

It would be like me saying "Since we all know Turkish people are idiots, is it the water that makes the dumb, or the way their education system is set up?"

[Redleg]

That makes the comment even more outrageous as you were not even trying to garner some level of agreement with the original anti-american poster.

Now that is funny - are you so idealogical blinded that you can not see how yes indeed certain aspects of the American government leads to individuals becoming corrupt because of the power involved? That we have had leaders who for the most part went into office with all good intentions - who have become corrupt because of the power.

Hell no I wasn't trying to find a level of agreement with the orginial poster - because his question is correct and while his perception is slightly skewed because of his views - notice how I called him on the 300 countries comments. Which he admitted he was incorrect. - the premise of his question and the premise of his answer are correct.

Do you think vast power somehow harms the subject itself or would it be different if the super power was another country ?

The answer to this question is simple - power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.



I see no instance where any US president can be considered in the same vein as those dictators. That kind of rhetoric only promotes the kind of relativism that people like the original poster try and draw between America and such empires as the Nazis and Soviets.

Again your placing values on things that are not there.

Corruption is corruption regardless of who the individual is or what the individual does. The Relative value of the impact of the crime on certain individuals is far greater then others - but they all fell for the oldest adage of them all - which is always shown to be true regardless of what level you look at.

[Aenlic]

Can you provide some links that show GWB playing golf, having lunch, or doing anything else that "good buddies" do with Moon?

Okie-dokie!

First some links to Daddy's association with Reverend Moon:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon1.html


Given the controversy, Argentina's elected president, Carlos Menem, did decide to reject Moon's invitation. But Moon had a trump card to play in his bid for South American respectability: the endorsement of an ex-president of the United States, George Bush. Agreeing to speak at the newspaper's launch, Bush flew aboard a private plane, arriving in Buenos Aires on Nov. 22. Bush stayed at Menem's official residence, the Olivos. But Bush failed to change the Argentine president's mind.

Still, Moon's followers gushed that Bush had saved the day, as he stepped before about 900 Moon guests at the Sheraton Hotel. "Mr. Bush's presence as keynote speaker gave the event invaluable prestige," wrote the Unification News. "Father [Moon] and Mother [Mrs. Moon] sat with several of the True Children [Moon's offspring] just a few feet from the podium."

Bush lavished praise on Moon and his journalistic enterprises. "I want to salute Reverend Moon, who is the founder of The Washington Times and also of Tiempos del Mundo," Bush declared. "A lot of my friends in South America don't know about The Washington Times, but it is an independent voice. The editors of The Washington Times tell me that never once has the man with the vision interfered with the running of the paper, a paper that in my view brings sanity to Washington, D.C. I am convinced that Tiempos del Mundo is going to do the same thing" in Latin America.

That's just one of many examples, by the way.

For Dubya? He certainly knows how to repay the unwavering editorial support he receives from Moon's newspaper - the Washinton Times.

In 2003, Bush appointed former Washington Times managing editor and Unification Church member, Josette Shiner, to be Deputy U.S. Trade Representative. Among her jobs there? Enforcing free trade agreements in East Asia, including Korea (snicker, care to guess where Rev. Moon's empire is headquartered, or do I need to spell it out for you?) http://www.ustr.gov/Who_We_Are/Bios/Ambassador_Josette_Sheeran_Shiner.html?ht=

In 2003, Bush appointed David Caprara to be head of AmeriCorps(VISTA). Caprara is another Unification Church member and was formerly head of the Moonie front organization, American Family Coalition. http://www.americore.gov/about/newsroom/releases_detail.asp?tbl_pr_id=117

I'm afraid I don't have any links to Dubya accepting large cash remunerations for speaking at Moonie gatherings, yet. Dubya, like his father, will have to wait until he's out of office before taking those $1 million plus paychecks from Moon per speech. ~D


You obviously didnt thoroughly read the thread... which is not a suprise. :drunk:

Oh, but I did. And as soon as you specified that the thread must separate out any such minimally important political things such as, oh... Hitler, from a discussion on whether or not Germany was wronged in WWII, it wasn't too difficult to see where you were going with the thread.

[PanzerJaeger]

Now that is funny - are you so idealogical blinded that you can not see how yes indeed certain aspects of the American government leads to individuals becoming corrupt because of the power involved? That we have had leaders who for the most part went into office with all good intentions - who have become corrupt because of the power.

I guess im too ideologically blinded to see any sort of comparison between Clinton and Stalin..

And truly, I have a hard time coming up with any Presidents who went into office as boy scouts and came out as corrupted. Being corrupt is in itself a characteristic. Stalins absolute power didnt corrupt him, he was always a bad person..


Corruption is corruption regardless of who the individual is or what the individual does. The Relative value of the impact of the crime on certain individuals is far greater then others - but they all fell for the oldest adage of them all - which is always shown to be true regardless of what level you look at.

I really dont agree. There are degrees of corruption. Skimming a little off the top is certainly not the same as genocide. In that light, I cannot see how even the worst, most corrupt US president can be mentioned in the same vein as the dictators of WW2.

Just my opinion though.. ~:handball:

[PanzerJaeger]

Aenlic,

Is that it? Do you have any evidence of GWB and Moon even talking? Yea, good buddies my a.. ~:rolleyes:

I didnt think you were telling the truth.

[Al Khalifah]

Not really related, but I think UK and France have roughly the same destructive power as China. Actually, UK might even have more nuclear weapons than China.
You think very wrong.

Though reliable figures for the strengths of the PLA are always going to be sketchy due to the system in place in China, it is believed that China has in excess of 20 DF-5 ICBMs in addition to an unknown quantity of the newer DF-31s. These are liquid-fueled and solid-fueled missiles capable of hitting anywhere on the globe. China also has 5 nuclear weapon equiped submarines and an (estimated) excess of 200 heavy bombers for the delivery of tactical nuclear weapons.
Compare this to the UK's four Vanguard class submarines equipped with Trident missiles capable of striking at targets within 5000 miles, of which only one is on active service at once during peace time.

China is a big boy along with Russia and the United States. Britain and France's nuclear detterants are, in reality, effective against little more than insuring that these nations are not invaded by a hostile power. Russia and the US have excellent strategic programs in place to hunt for an opposing power's submarines in the event of nuclear war - its reasonable to assume that China would have developed a similar program.

[Aenlic]

Aenlic,

Is that it? Do you have any evidence of GWB and Moon even talking? Yea, good buddies my a.. ~:rolleyes:

I didnt think you were telling the truth.

Now I'm a liar? Wow. Is the weather nice on your planet?

[Aenlic]

China is a big boy along with Russia and the United States. Britain and France's nuclear detterants are, in reality, effective against little more than insuring that these nations are not invaded by a hostile power. Russia and the US have excellent strategic programs in place to hunt for an opposing power's submarines in the event of nuclear war - its reasonable to assume that China would have developed a similar program.

I believe you're correct about China's nuclear ICBM arsenal, Al Khalifa. About 20 of the DF-5's and maybe 120 altogether counting the older 3's and the newer 21's. Best place to check is www.fas.org. They keep a pretty accurate accounting of all countries' forces, nuclear and non-nuclear, at least as far as they can discern from available unclassified records, some not intended to reveal as much as they do. ~;)

I'm not so sure about the Chinese strategic submarine capabilities. To date, they still only have the one functional (and functional is giving it a lot of credit, considering its history of problems) nuclear powered SSBN called the Xia, and a project they call the Type-94 to develop more. The Type-93 SSNs they are still in the process of developing , they claim will be as capable as a U.S. Los Angeles class SSN. That's probably stretching the truth. Really stretching it. Other than the program for the Type-93's, of which there is not yet a prototype, they have about 20 Ming class SSN's which are derivatives of the old Soviet Romeo class. Hardly a challenge for our own SSNs. They also have a bunch of Kilo class non-nuclear subs and some of the old Soviet Romeo's which they copied for the Mings.

The Soviet capabilities were quite a ways behind our own in attack subs, and the post-Soviet economy has ended almost all research beyond that. The closest the Soviets came to our abilities underwater were the very latest generations of their subs, like the Schuka-B which we call the Akula and the possible but not proven in unclassified documents Yasen which was given the designation Graney. About 2/3 of the entire former Soviet sub fleet lies waiting for scrapping across the bay from Petropavlosk-Kamchatskiy, which is one reason many Russian generals were upset about having U.S. military personnel there during the recent rescue of their research sub.

[Louis VI the Fat]

As long as there is an endless conflict between US and others, I asked myself "Would it be the same if it wasn't US, say, was Myanmar or Sweden or Turkey?".

Do you think vast power somehow harms the subject itself or would it be different if the super power was another country ?

You may take the question in psycological terms not only in terms of relationship among countries..'Would it be the same?' I take it that by 'it' you mean the use and abuse of power by a single superpower, and the conflict that that creates between that sole superpower and the rest of the world.

Well, a large part would be the same. The simple status of the 'worlds only superpower' explains a lot of America's behaviour. The top dog allways abuses his power. Redleg already aptly quoted 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

Reversly, he will allways be hated by those lower in the pecking order just for being on top. Remember how people spoke of 'perfid Albion' when Britannia ruled. And look at worldwide reactions whenever a disaster or war strikes - if America intervenes, it gets acused of abusing it's power. If it doesn't intervene, it gets thrown abuse at it for that.


But yes, it would be different if it was another country. You cannot discuss America's power, and the way in which America wields it without taking the nature of America itself into account.

It wouldn't be the same if it wasn't US, but, say, Myanmar or Sweden or Turkey. Frankly, with the exception of one, options like those remind me why I actually don't lose any sleep over America having the power it has. ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Aenlic,

Is that it? Do you have any evidence of GWB and Moon even talking? Yea, good buddies my a..

I didnt think you were telling the truth.



Now I'm a liar? Wow. Is the weather nice on your planet?

Can you back up what you said? /"Good buddies"/ If not, figure out what that makes you. ~;)

[Strike For The South]

You guys are just jealous we are the best so get on you're knees!you heard me now say it with me I Pledge aleigance... ~D

[Ironside]

When it comes to the US, the record in Latin-America pre-WWII is quite telling when it comes to show that you don't need to be a super-power to be abusive. We have actually seen an improvment since that.

And power certainly causes corruption, but isn't a straight path as many factors plays a part.

That saying that a Myanmar, Sweden or Turkey superpower would behave quite different from the US, but power abuse would problably occur anyway.

[LeftEyeNine]

Well, I personally believe in coruption occured by vast or absolute power too. I need to tell this in order to cover any more claims being this thread to be biased somehow..

I can not actually imagine what I would be doing if I had a superpower's president chair. (not a genocide, relax.. )

Actually, may be the headline of another topic tough, but watching your own country's favors in every step outside, somehow hurts another one. And that's the rule of the nature. So that as long as US is considered to be the best of the corrupted ones, for example a strategic partnership (I hate the word..It means "we are targeting another, we have other plans") always showed up in a destructive manner.


Reversly, he will allways be hated by those lower in the pecking order just for being on top.

That is an excellent assertion - the absolute truth. But I have to repeat that I am not talking in a "downsider" way here although am I (a citizen of the country - Turkey). I opened the topic in a true demand of debate.

[Aenlic]

Can you back up what you said? /"Good buddies"/ If not, figure out what that makes you. ~;)

PJ, you really need to chill. Are you not familiar with the concept of euphemisms and figures of speech? Or is this due to language translation and we're dealing with idiomatic problems?

If I said that the Bush family and the Saudi royal family were in bed together, most people would understand the point. You, on the other hand, would apparently insist on proof of an orgy and want pictures for proof or you would reject the premise of the entire statment. And that is rather sad, if you do indeed understand the concept of figures of speech. ~D

[JimBob]

Americans and other peoples of Northern European cultural heritage, compared with peoples from many other heritages, are innately more reliable and less corrupt in their dealings with fellow citizens. It is a feature of the culture. This does not mean, however, that there is not corruption, and it does not mean that it will never change (just look at what happened to Roman culture over time).
Where did you get this? Westerners are as corruptable as anyone else. We have a culture that is all about stuff.

[Byzantine Prince]

Here's what I think of power. It'm on signature, but since I'm not allowed to have it shown in my posts I'll just copy and paste it.

1. Not necessity, not desire - no, the love of power is the demon of men. Let them have everything - health, food, a place to live, entertainment - they are and remain unhappy and low-spirited: for the demon waits and waits and will be satisfied. - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

and more importantly:

2. The strategic adversary is fascism... the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us. - Michel Foucault (1926 - 1984)



so you see to the wise man power is a burden. But then again power is a total illusion. Much like the rest of our made concepts. Maybe even you and I don't really exist. Why does it matter, why do I care, why am posting? :dizzy2:

[Redleg]

edit: to remove comment.

[Soulforged]

Where did you get this? Westerners are as corruptable as anyone else. We have a culture that is all about stuff.

Yeh. You should take a look on the descendant of the europeans here on the South.

[bmolsson]

Power and corruption goes hand in hand. US being a superpower is a rough test of the democratic process as well as the democratically elected leaders.
Any other country would have faced similar problems. On thing though, US is a rather fundamentalistic nation these days and the fanatic approach on the "American model is the best", has started to create problems around the world. The strong militaristic tradition that today is the basis for US nationalism and patriotism, might in the near future create unbearable situations for US as a super power when it stretches itself to thin around the world.

[Azi Tohak]

Back to topic, of course power causes corruption. There is a reason it is an old truism. Because it's true!

I think the endless conflict between other countries and the US comes from the same reason the Hapsburgs (another super-power), British, Russians, Chinese and Ottomans have all been hated. The Superpowers of their day were not afraid to throw their weight around to accomplish selfish goals. Because of the long history of that kind of abuse of power (call it corruption if you would like), any modern 'Empire' is seen in the same light. I don't think it is true of the USA, but I know many people here do think it is true. Yes, if Sweden, Myanmar, Turkey were Superpowers, and they threw their weight around, there would be the same backlash.

Azi

[Del Arroyo]

Where did you get this? Westerners are as corruptible as anyone else. We have a culture that is all about stuff.

I got it from living it. Go, live and work in a country such as Mexico for a year, and THEN come and try to tell me that there are no cultural or attitude issues that are holding these societies back from being all they can be.

The simple fact is that things function SO much more smoothly on a day-to-day basis in the US and developed European countries that it's not even funny.

A good example-- go to Mexico. Rent an apartment. At the end of the lease, try and get your deposit back. Just go ahead and TRY. It won't happen. Ever.

The only way to get your deposit back in Mexico is to deduct it from what you pay for your last month's rent. And tell the landlord to go to hell if he complains.

Similarly, the only way to get a landlord to fix anything or to keep your apartment in a state of liveability is to with-hold rent. If you pay your rent every month, he will never fix anything. If you don't pay him, one of two things will happen-- if he's reasonable, he'll realize his error and come and fix the problem. If he's an obstinate character, he will try to find other ways to make your life difficult.

..

I'm not saying that there is no corruption in Western countries, but until you see the other side of things, you don't really realize how comparitively clean most things are here.

Honesty and efficiency are values which are uncommon outside of the developed, Western world.

DA

[bmolsson]

Honesty and efficiency are values which are uncommon outside of the developed, Western world.


I have done business in several countries in the world, both western nations and third world countries. The largest difference is the cost for corruption, not the fact that it's there or not. Also note that the western world have a social corruption which is very hard to root out. With the wrong name, color, sexual orientation etc you won't get anywhere in the west.

[Del Arroyo]

I have done business in several countries in the world, both western nations and third world countries. The largest difference is the cost for corruption, not the fact that it's there or not. Also note that the western world have a social corruption which is very hard to root out. With the wrong name, color, sexual orientation etc you won't get anywhere in the west.

Finagelling and kick-backs in making business connections is a different matter and honestly one I don't know much about. But I can tell you this-- in the US, if you don't damage your apartment, you'll get your deposit back 90% of the time. This is because it is the right thing to do, and easier in the long run.

In Mexico, you WON'T get your deposit back 90% of the time, unless you with-hold it from rent.

Western societies have cultural advantages which allow them to function more efficiently. This does not mean that they are necessarily wonderful, kind people, or that there is no corruption.

DA

[Del Arroyo]

There are, on the other hand, alot of things I like about Mexican culture-- they tend to be more social and group-oriented. They celebrate more often, and are generally more conscious of trying to make sure that everyone gets an invitation and that everyone is having fun. They are a lot more patient with things like waiting in line, and are generally more modest in public situations.

DA

[LeftEyeNine]

@ Azi

My words were directed towards Del Arroyo's post, here : https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=900768&postcount=14

He told that Northern European Cultures were more reliable about the control of power and I forwarded Ottoman Empire which lasted for 600 years. Please try to get my post first.


Disgusting organization that only lasted as long as it did because there were no foes able to conquer it in the region.

USA is a disgusting organization that is still alive because there were no foes able to conquer it in the region.

Rome was a disgusting organization that lasted for so long because there were no foes able to conquer it in the region.

United Kingd... Ok, I gotta stop, that is ridiculous..

What do you expect to be ? Aliens landing in Istanbul with an army of spaceships and help the foes that were not able to conquer it in the region ?

You are sounding not to claim something rational, only to vomit out your hatred. And what's more, I am sick of being involved in such conversations recently..

[Azi Tohak]

Okay LeftEye, I apologize. I did not know what you were referring to about the corruption. You are quite right about the Ottomans lasting 600 years.

I am curious now about the Chinese empires... how long did the longest one last? Not 600 years I am quite sure. Only Rome, Byzantium (yes yes, Eastern Rome) and the Ottomans were over 500 I think.

Azi

[LeftEyeNine]

Maybe it's my foul not to include a related quote referring. No problem.. ;)