Shock:


I think America's status as a super-power is not just about its military strength but also its ability to shape events in other countries. This could be through civil society, military or economic means. Ironically, it applies to the protests/unrest across the middle east, the toppling of several regimes, and in many cases dictating the foreign policies of individual countries or blocs! Hell, it managed to get 100 countries at the United Nations to condemn Russia's policy on crimea and even forced Europe to impose self-harming sanctions.

Why fight a war with Syria, if you can simply wait for the right opportunity to hijack simple protests and cause massive havoc?

In addition to its large military, It is this ability to influence governments or shape events in other countries that defines its super-power status.

However, how has the average Americans benefited from all these apart from receiving body bags at home with a lot of folks crippled and Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and causing the deaths of millions of people?

Heck, it's looking like it's going to end up as the only super-power with the shortest reign ever.

Missy89:


I only watch those clowns for educational purpose on YouTube. Shymexx has been trying hard to use reverse psychology tactic to discredit what i have been saying. he keeps throwing in one or 2 jabs and setting up minefields in his submission but i can see them and will keep avoiding it

Hannity, O'reilly and all those minions of faux news are comic reliefs for me. I followed the thread all through, no doubt he disagrees with the way you dismissed the chinese strength as a world power today, although they aren't at the lvel of the US but I also disagree with the 3,4 decades timescale you ascribed to them.

Also I reiterate my earlier post, the allies never took Hitler serious, even the germans in the 1920's thought he was a wacko. If they took him serious they'd have easily stopped him in the 30's while the germans were still relaunching their armament industries. Heck the the germans even made him chancellor in order to control him through the normal bureaucratic redtape and inefficiency.

Missy89:


I only watch those clowns for educational purpose on YouTube. Shymexx has been trying hard to use reverse psychology tactic to discredit what i have been saying. he keeps throwing in one or 2 jabs and setting up minefields in his submission but i can see them and will keep avoiding it

Don't get emotional, you're my e-wife.

Er, my approach is somewhat like the African husband, but it's not reverse psychology. I'm just trying to grill you about not underestimating an intellectual property, especially one with surplus wealth - and a great history. And when the premise for your argument is an untested military super-power, that looks more like a paper tiger, with impressive hardware - then my concerns are legitimate.

You also need to understand that military hardware don't win wars, tactics and morale of those fighting does. And the Chinese are warriors. I don't even think the US will ever make any miscalculation about going to war with China, in any capacity. It had its chance during the Korean war, when China was very weak, and it backed away.

I'll post a few things you need to understand about China history in a bit.

^^Is guyfawkes your alt. account? Just noticed the moniker.

This nigga follows shymexx and sirshymex. How can any nigga be that determined to read another man's post? Gaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy

BananaBender:
^^Is guyfawkes your alt. account? Just noticed the moniker.

This nigga follows shymexx and sirshymex. How can any nigg a be that determined to read another man's post? Gaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy

Stop being disrespectful.

That's a cool guy.

You know I don't do alt. acct. I'm the realist on nl, save for those days when I used to get banned like everyday cos most couldn't decipher my posts lol.

I've not been banned for time now.

SirShymex:


Stop being disrespectful.

That's a cool guy.

You know I don't do alt. acct. I'm the realist on nl, save for those days when I used to get banned like everyday cos most couldn't decipher my posts lol.

I've not been banned for time now.

Where have you been for all these times? I can see you haven't stopped your old habit though.

SirShymex:


Still doesn't make sense, and still the same propaganda junk US academics are notorious for, in claiming glory for everything it has nothing to do with. Like it claimed the glory for a world war 2 it joined three years late. And you're now shifting goal post again, from military technology transfer, to economic technology transfer (which is more of normal capitalism for corporations to maximise profits with cheap labour and cheap resources availablity) - and now, it's satellite policy miraculously transferred to missile technology lol.

1). Chinese missile and nuclear programme were built with the help of the Soviets, way before whatever the US transferred to China. And all the improvements were done based on espionage, and rogue arm technology dealers. It tested its first nuclear warhead in 1964.

2). All other military super powers were tested and they excelled, hence they became great. You can start from Alexander the Great, to the Roman Empire, to Mongolia, to Ottoman Empire, to Napoleon, to Great Britain. That's how you can determine how powerful a country is militarily. Thus it's only right that I question your innuendos about an untested military power being insurmountable. How can you even judge how powerful, or great it's without a legit test, by another formidable power? Heck, it backed out of every confrontation with a formidable power, and used economic warfare instead. So, your assertions are basless, and illogical. I want practicality - and since US has refused to go to war with any formidable country, whatever capability it has on paper is inconsequential.

3). What you're alluding to was when Spain was able to put together a modern navy before anyone else, due to the moorish influence. And when it defeated Brittania in 1630, Britannia wasn't a super-power. Heck, it wasn't even united back then. The Kingdom of England and Scotland were united in 1707, and the industrial revolution started in 1790. And subsequently, it became a super-power afterwards. So, argue based on timeline, and not innuendos.

4). At the height of the British empire, there were social unrests all the time. Go read about Charles Dicken's book about poverty in London, especially Oliver Twist, and the class problems in the UK, till the latter part of the 20th century. And there has always been unrest in America. But America is the master at suppressing folks who have legitimate concerns. Heck, the US is not even a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

Also, you seem to be oblivious to Chinese history. Go read its history before making any conclusions. And make sure your source isn't from pseudo-educated American academics who always twist everything. Read from British, or Chinese sources, especially Oxford or Cambridge historians.

4). Where did I assert that Great Britain never wanted to be a major power in Europe? I said it was isolated because its own source of wealth came from India, and it focussed on that, without sharing it with anyone else. However, it had a stake in not letting any other power to become dominant in Europe, thus enabling a competing power to take advantage of the mediterranean - which is the primary route to the source of its wealth. Then you have to examine the tribalism in Europe, and the need to always protect tribal interests.

5). Well, if you don't know Hitler was underestimated, then there's absolutely no point discussing history with you, since a toddler knows he was underestimated. Heck, that was why he was allowed to take over Germany as the Chancellor. They would have stopped him, if they viewed him as a threat. And the Treaty of Versailles brought Germany to its knees, with the country in great depression. And even the Jews threatened the Germans before the war. Yes, the same Jews that ended up in holocaust camps. Go back to your history books again, and this time, come back with something more factual.

1. You are totally wrong and it seems you don't know that a missile technology and nuclear technology are somehow different. Yes the template of the Chinese nuclear program came from the soviets but that wasn't the issue i was talking about. A missile is a delivery system, what makes it unique is how fast them can be and how confusing their trajectory can be calculated. Sophisticated missiles have this unique characteristics and the papers i shared with you (which u probably refuse to read)explains how exporting and using American technology to help china launch satellites might have given them enough information and expertise on how to improve their missile technology (not nuclear technology).

2. You cant really compare American military to those from previous civilizations. After WW2. the international system was set up. countries can be brought to their knees without invading it conventionally. the International financial system made economies interconnected. This systems were set up by the Western powers and China is still an outsider in terms of having her own rules written in the system. Modern warfare has to to with fighting insurgency, among other forms of asymmetric warfare. occupation is now a hard task no matter how strong your military is. If you think the US military capability is not great, then you are just living in denial really. FACT!

3. in the 1970s- onwards because of the french revolution and at the time, they choose align with France (Second Treaty of San Ildefonso ) against Britain. (This is the same point i was making. regional powers between the proximity of a superpower would align or try to reduce their neighbors influence ) After they broke their alliance with France, there was an internal problem with played out till the 19th century. There was a power struggle in Europe when Britain was Rising and Britain came out on top. That China will have to win such battles with her neighbors. So don't say the Spanish military wasn't formidable during its time. It was but has a regional power.

4. Do you know that there was more than one route to India before the Suez opened in 1869? and I said Britain could have stayed out and still achieved its objectives. Afterall, The British pretext for going to war(defending Poland) wasn't achieved. You should read about " The Western Betrayal"

5. Hitler was underestimated yes but not by the allies but by the German ruling establishment. The allies saw the handwriting on the wall since 1935 (when he increased the Army division from 7 and re occupied the Rhineland) but decided to cave. Their long term strategy (Truman even admitted this) was that they would turn a blind eye and let him "fight Stalin till they are both tired". They kept getting signals from the German intelligence but refused to support their coup plan. and when war had been declared, few generals wanted to be involved anymore because it might lead to Germany's military defeat and most of the are from Prussia, and the saw the war as a legitimate one because Danzig was once part of their homeland. Do not overestimate how Hitler was underestimated by the allies (They knew he was going to fight, they probably underestimated him turning west). If you have facts present them and stop telling me to go an read one non existent book. I have read enough. Germany had recovered in 1939 (courtesy American creditors and American companies investing in their economy) and seizing key countries like Czechoslovakia (courtesy Britain) and Austria gave the Nazis more resources they needed.

SirShymex:


Don't get emotional, you're my e-wife.

Er, my approach is somewhat like the African husband, but it's not reverse psychology. I'm just trying to grill you about not underestimating an intellectual property, especially one with surplus wealth - and a great history. And when the premise for your argument is an untested military super-power, that looks more like a paper tiger, with impressive hardware - then my concerns are legitimate.

You also need to understand that military hardware don't win wars, tactics and morale of those fighting does. And the Chinese are warriors. I don't even think the US will ever make any miscalculation about going to war with China, in any capacity. It had its chance during the Korean war, when China was very weak, and it backed away.

I'll post a few things you need to understand about China history in a bit.

I have always said that the US military is not invincible. I even laid out many instances where it wont be possible to invade certain countries conventionally. But calling it a paper tiger has to be some sort of joke.

If you think it is a paper tiger, petition Cameron to leave NATO and break every US alliance and declare war i would probably re enlist and fly few sorties over London starting with your apartment .

Heck, American GIs would not even need deployment. they are already in Suffolk ,Huntingdon,Northamptonshire among other cities inside your "territory"

Murica #1

SirShymex:


Stop being disrespectful.

That's a cool guy.

Shuush, don't tell me what to do.

Let me come to that conclusion myself.

Missy89 that could be MissMeiya has replied. *Back to reading

Missy89:

I have always said that the US military is not invincible. I even laid out many instances where it wont be possible to invade certain countries conventionally. But calling it a paper tiger has to be some sort of joke.

If you think it is a paper tiger, petition Cameron to leave NATO and break every US alliance and declare war i would probably re enlist and fly few sorties over London starting with your apartment .

Heck, American GIs would not even need deployment. they are already in Suffolk ,Huntingdon,Northamptonshire among other cities inside your "territory"

This is funny on so many levels, especially when Americans speak a bootleg version of the English language, and that shows which country birthed the other. Then when you start examining the fact the America never goes to war, even against defenseless countries and stone age Jihadists, without begging for British help. The only time it went on a military adventure by itself without the UK - that was in Vietnam - and we all saw it got beaten blue-black by the Viet Cong, the beating was so bad that it ran out of Vietnam with its tail between its legs. And recently, when the UK pulled out of another US military adventure in Syria, in the Parliament - America developed cold feet. Now, tell me who the boss is? - the paper tiger can never fight alone without British assistance - FACT!

However, UK on the other hand went to war with Argentina, when the country was the pride of South America, over the Falklands, in the Argies territory. Despite warnings from America about an impending defeat - but it was victorious. Also, check how the UK has been putting Spain in check over Gibraltar. The Spaniards know what time is. No more Great Britain - but it's a tested military.

American military is the type of brawn with no brains that will try to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. Thus missing the fly in the process, and end up whacking itself and those standing-by with the sledge hammer. However, the UK military is about brain and professionalism.

You better stay away from flying sorties over the UK before you either get blown to smithereens, or end up blowing yourself up in friendly fire lol. Hitler tried but didn't succeed. Now imagine a colonised country whose claim to fame was based solely on British influence - from language, to military, and even Anglo-Americans still controls the US government. That would be suicidal.

Another classic example of American paper tiger-esque behaviour is the fact that it wasted billions of dollars in building f-22 raptors. Yet the only combat it recorded as a success for the F-22 was against a ragtag ISIS with no air defense system whatsoever. An ISIS that doesn't have any capability of even shooting down attack helicopters - laughable. How about test the F-22 against a formidable country, before recording combat success? Yet you have the audacity to say such a lousy military power is insurmountable - ludicrous I must say.


I'll reply your long post in a bit before I leave for work.

castrogee:
Nice arguments from shymex and missy,

Though it appears missy is so sure of Americas absolute political dominance, that she tends to see other countryies advances as paper tiger. For me I think the points raised by shymex and nairamint show their depth of understanding in the evolving politics of the 21st century.
On a final note I believe we will witness a paradigm shift in the world's political landscape.

Missy89 is right on many points. My own perception are these:

1. Every nation have protecting their own selfish interest as primary to continued existence. China is no different as have been continuosly demonstrated in their history. Jiang Zemin, former Chinese leader once said, "China does what is best for China". China still plays that part till today. Present Chinese lack of military aggression in far lands is only because they yet have no profit for it.

2. China surprised and surpassed the expectations of the whole world by their unique style of internal development before bursting out to the world for one and only one reason; and that is the need for markets for Chinese products. They are not so much interested in world politics except as concerns Chinese interests. They were expected to democratize as fundamental condition for joining world trade, but they have largely refused. When Bill Clinton 'forced' the WTO to accept China, I knew and wrote that it was a tactical error because China would snatch markets from western economies, but yet remain autocratic for long. Now, on the streets of London and New York, I've noticed that many shops, minus the exclusive ones, sell more Made in China than European products. The Chinese are capturing markets with cheaper products at a time when consuming power is dwindling.

3. China will one day seek greater participation in world military politics to find new markets for their expanding products. As of now, in agreement with SirShymex, China is not considered a serious military threat. No nation pretends to be, until they have acquired the capacity for terror. I also agree that there is such antecedent when the world ignored the emerging German machine for decades until Hitler got ambitious. We may be playing out similar script with China. But China's threat is not necessarily directed towards the West, but other lesser military nations.

4. China has now officially been declared as the biggest economy in the world. But Chinese military is not as sophisticated as Western, particularly US machine. It's going to be like this for some more time as China cannot afford to venture too deep into military hardware in neglect of the need to satisfy the economic needs of their large and restless population. Mind you, there are still many US military inventions that have not been unveiled even though they have been effectively tested. I will not therefore attribute military prowess to China over and above the West for now and 21st Century warfare is no longer in troops population nor large arsenals, but tech sophistication.

5. While the US and Russia still have the arctic resources to depend on, China has only external sources to turn to for economic sustenance when their internal resources deplete. The search for markets and resources would lead China into new military coalitions that would adventure into some conflict zones, most especially, the Middle East and Africa.

6. Whoever underrates Chinese flavor for aggression only does so without cinsideration of Chinese antecedents. Be sure of this; the Land of the Rising Sun is yet to fully awaken her dragon.

_______

optimumprimus:
Japan is the land of the rising sun not china. I love the japanese more than Chinese . China will never be a superpower. there'll never be another United States . The USA is the land of the shining sun from the cloudless blue skies .
the United states is not perfect, the world is not perfect ,and there are a lot of changes that need to be made in order to make the world a better place . the major hindrance to this dream of mine is the greed of man .

You are right, Japan is called Land of the Rising Sun. But I've read the Chinese refer to their nation as that when the 21st Century just dawned. That's why I didn't put a quote on it, as Japan is the one usually called.

No nation is perfect, and on that too, we are in agreement. W'all have the 'green eyes monster' in our affairs. It takes attaining power for any nation to truly demonstrate their greed. I have no support for the tactics of either the West or Russia or China or the emerging new world power of Iran or the terrorist ISIS or even the high handed Israel. They are all the same given similar circumstances... selfish and greedy.

SirShymex:


This is funny on so many levels, especially when Americans speak a bootleg version of the English language, and that shows which country birthed the other. Then when you start examining the fact the America never goes to war, even against defenseless countries and stone age Jihadists, without begging for British help. The only time it went on a military adventure by itself without the UK - that was in Vietnam - and we all saw it got beaten blue-black by the Viet Cong, the beating was so bad that it ran out of Vietnam with its tail between its legs. And recently, when the UK pulled out of another US military adventure in Syria, in the Parliament - America developed cold feet. Now, tell me who the boss is? - the paper tiger can never fight alone without British assistance - FACT!

However, UK on the other hand went to war with Argentina, when the country was the pride of South America, over the Falklands, in the Argies territory. Despite warnings from America about an impending defeat - but it was victorious. Also, check how the UK has been putting Spain in check over Gibraltar. The Spaniards know what time is. No more Great Britain - but it's a tested military.

American military is the type of brawn with no brains that will try to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. Thus missing the fly in the process, and end up whacking itself and those standing-by with the sledge hammer. However, the UK military is about brain and professionalism.

You better stay away from flying sorties over the UK before you either get blown to smithereens, or end up blowing yourself up in friendly fire lol. Hitler tried but didn't succeed. Now imagine a colonised country whose claim to fame was based solely on British influence - from language, to military, and even Anglo-Americans still controls the US government. That would be suicidal.

Another classic example of American paper tiger-esque behaviour is the fact that it wasted billions of dollars in building f-22 raptors. Yet the only combat it recorded as a success for the F-22 was against a ragtag ISIS with no air defense system whatsoever. An ISIS that doesn't have any capability of even shooting down attack helicopters - laughable. How about test the F-22 against a formidable country, before recording combat success? Yet you have the audacity to say such a lousy military power is insurmountable - ludicrous I must say.


I'll reply your long post in a bit before I leave for work.

Typical Arrogant Brit trying to downplay America's role in the Falklands war

Here are some excerpts for you

1. The US provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles.

2. President Ronald Reagan approved the Royal Navy's request to borrow the Sea Harrier-capable amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) if the British lost an aircraft carrier.

3. The sophisticated weaponry supplied by the Pentagon, such as the Sidewinder air-to-air missile and the Stinger man-portable surface-to-air missile, helped to minimize British casualties. Especially crucial was US intelligence. That support was all the more surprising as it constituted a near-complete reversal of the centuries-old Monroe Doctrine demarcating the western hemisphere as an entirely American preserve.

4. The OAS(Organization of American states) was quick to denounce the United States’ support for Britain. A spokesman for the Venezuelan embassy accused the U.S. of “siding not with its little brother but with its stepmother.” One Brazilian commenter claimed that it was now clear America had first- and second-class allies. Only the former British colonies in the Caribbean took Washington’s side. But the die was cast, and the United States moved quickly to make good on its promises.

5. The United States provided everything except for manpower. The American base at Ascension Island (ironically, leased from the British) was now the closest one to the combat zone, albeit still 3,800 miles away. Weinberger took steps to cut through the “infamous” Pentagon bureaucracy and deliver materiel to the British as quickly as possible, reducing the usual procurement time of six weeks to about twenty-four hours, with some even arriving within six hours of the initial request. He gives an account of the weapons and equipment being delivered:The first requests were for missiles, particularly our Sidewinders, the AIM 9-L air-to-air missiles, with which the British wreaked such havoc on the Argentines, and aircraft fuel. But initially we had to, and did, add enormously to the facilities at Ascension to receive and deliver the fuel and other supplies to the British task forces’ ships and planes (we also sold them twelve of our F-4 fighter planes at a “bargain basement” price after the war, in order to allow the British to keep a Phantom squadron on the Falklands)

6. The Sidewinders certainly were state-of-the-art; as one of the first all-aspect air-to-air missiles in the world, it allowed RAF pilots to shoot down Argentine planes from any angle in the sky. Between 1 May and 23 June, 27 Sidewinders were launched. 24 hit their targets. No longer were the British confined to trailing behind enemy fighters.

7. The standing of Margaret Thatcher was affirmed in American popular opinion: the ‘Iron Lady’ was now a fixture on the world stage and a major player in the coalition of the west. Her reelection in 1983 came easily, the war having solidified the Tories’ position. British opinion of America did get a boost from the latter’s support, but it was short-lived, shrinking back to prewar levels by winter 1982 and evaporating after the 1983 American invasion of Grenada

And Finally here is a quote from Paul Sharp an associate professor of Political Science who has written many books on Margaret Thatcher

“had the Americans decided to oppose Britain’s recovery of the Islands, then the war would have been impossible and Thatcher’s political demise all but assured".

Sources:

Christopher Chant, Air War in the Falklands, 1982

Caspar Weinberger, In the Arena: A Memoir of the Twentieth Century, with Gretchen Roberts

David Dimbleby and David Reynolds, An Ocean Apart: The Relationship between Britain and America in the Twentieth Century

John Norton Moore, “The Inter-American System Snarls in the Falklands War,”

Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 202.

Jorgen Rasmussen and James M. McCormick, “British Mass Perceptions of the Anglo-American Special Relationship,” Political Science Quarterly

Better don't bring up any war stories. i am kind of obsessed with almost all of them
Enough Banter, Lets get back to the main discussion.

Missy89:

1. You are totally wrong and it seems you don't know that a missile technology and nuclear technology are somehow different. Yes the template of the Chinese nuclear program came from the soviets but that wasn't the issue i was talking about. A missile is a delivery system, what makes it unique is how fast them can be and how confusing their trajectory can be calculated. Sophisticated missiles have this unique characteristics and the papers i shared with you (which u probably refuse to read)explains how exporting and using American technology to help china launch satellites might have given them enough information and expertise on how to improve their missile technology (not nuclear technology).

2. You cant really compare American military to those from previous civilizations. After WW2. the international system was set up. countries can be brought to their knees without invading it conventionally. the International financial system made economies interconnected. This systems were set up by the Western powers and China is still an outsider in terms of having her own rules written in the system. Modern warfare has to to with fighting insurgency, among other forms of asymmetric warfare. occupation is now a hard task no matter how strong your military is. If you think the US military capability is not great, then you are just living in denial really. FACT!

3. in the 1970s- onwards because of the french revolution and at the time, they choose align with France (Second Treaty of San Ildefonso ) against Britain. (This is the same point i was making. regional powers between the proximity of a superpower would align or try to reduce their neighbors influence ) After they broke their alliance with France, there was an internal problem with played out till the 19th century. There was a power struggle in Europe when Britain was Rising and Britain came out on top. That China will have to win such battles with her neighbors. So don't say the Spanish military wasn't formidable during its time. It was but has a regional power.

4. Do you know that there was more than one route to India before the Suez opened in 1869? and I said Britain could have stayed out and still achieved its objectives. Afterall, The British pretext for going to war(defending Poland) wasn't achieved. You should read about " The Western Betrayal"

5. Hitler was underestimated yes but not by the allies but by the German ruling establishment. The allies saw the handwriting on the wall since 1935 (when he increased the Army division from 7 and re occupied the Rhineland) but decided to cave. Their long term strategy (Truman even admitted this) was that they would turn a blind eye and let him "fight Stalin till they are both tired". They kept getting signals from the German intelligence but refused to support their coup plan. and when war had been declared, few generals wanted to be involved anymore because it might lead to Germany's military defeat and most of the are from Prussia, and the saw the war as a legitimate one because Danzig was once part of their homeland. Do not overestimate how Hitler was underestimated by the allies (They knew he was going to fight, they probably underestimated him turning west). If you have facts present them and stop telling me to go an read one non existent book. I have read enough. Germany had recovered in 1939 (courtesy American creditors and American companies investing in their economy) and seizing key countries like Czechoslovakia (courtesy Britain) and Austria gave the Nazis more resources they needed.

I see you're back again in shifting goal post after your assertions have been proven to be totally wrong and illogical.

1). To be a nuclear power, you need to have an advanced missile technology for the deployment of the warheads. Both are intertwined, hence I referenced Chinese nuclear power status that started in 1964. Way before whatever the capitalism induced and inconsequential US technology was transferred, for profit making and cheap labour for American corporations.

I don't need to remind you that the Chinese nuclear programme started as a result of what the Chinese termed as, "American Nuclear Blackmail." Go to your history books for confirmation. And it built its land based nuclear ballistic missiles during the same period. So, pray tell the US technological influence in something that was built against US nuclear blackmail? Still waiting for the US technology transfer for Chinese air force, navy, and marine hardware lol.

Credibility of your assertion = 0/zero/nil/zilch a la epic fail!

2). Oh now there's an international set-up, yet the same country has been invading all kinds of defenseless countries with impunity, no? - laughable. Call a spade a spade, it's all bark and no bite. It backed out of a confrontation with China during the Korean war. Backed out of confrontation with the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis. Ranted and raved during the Russia-Georgian war, but when it saw it had underestimated the Russians, after the decisive victory, and the Russians were marching to Gori - it backed out of its earlier promises to Mikheil Saakashvili etc.. All these are FACTS.

3). You just alluded to my assertion that Spain wasn't a super-power despite its modern navy - it was a mere regional power, and that was in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean. So, my question is: why didn't it transfer its geographical advantage and naval superiority into becoming a super-power like Great Britain?

The Chinese aren't rushing, and they'll win all the battles against their neighbours, with non-aggression against Russia because Russia can never be an economic super-power. So, both countries will always tow the path of non-aggression. And history favours both countries.

4). Again, you need to learn how argue based on the timeline. Suez Canal was built in 1869 and World War 1 started in 1914. So, yes, the Mediterranean sea through the Suez Canal was a vital route for the British super-power status to India. The other route was going around Africa - and that wasn't an option. Evidently, Great Britain had to protect its interests in the Mediterranean sea, coupled with the tribalism and tribal interests in Europe at that time - and there was absolutely no way it would have stayed out of both wars. History lesson for you there.

5). Thank God you have now accepted that Hitler was underestimated after playing to the gallery. We need to drink beer to this one. And please, I don't want to hear what Truman thought/admitted. America was more or less inconsequential in Europe at that time. Use European sources for facts about European history.

Lastly, the biggest miscalculation Americans will ever do is to underestimate China's military power, and decide to engage the country. That would be suicidal. I doubt it though, since the US has always been somewhat wary of China. Hence they will always leave propaganda to folks like you and others in the MSM. Heck, even if China were to attack Japan tomorrow, the US will never join overtly. It'll do so covertly - FACT!

BananaBender:
^^Is guyfawkes your alt. account? Just noticed the moniker.

This nigga follows shymexx and sirshymex. How can any nigga be that determined to read another man's post? Gaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy

Jeez you brought your little spat over from the family section

How can a broad be stalking a nigga all over NL?

SirShymex:


I see you're back again in shifting goal post after your assertions have been proven to be totally wrong and illogical.

1). To be a nuclear power, you need to have an advanced missile technology for the deployment of the warheads. Both are intertwined, hence I referenced Chinese nuclear power status that started in 1964. Way before whatever the capitalism induced and inconsequential US technology was transferred, for profit making and cheap labour for American corporations.

I don't need to remind you that the Chinese nuclear programme started as a result of what the Chinese termed as, "American Nuclear Blackmail." Go to your history books for confirmation. And it built its land based nuclear ballistic missiles during the same period. So, pray tell the US technological influence in something that was built against US nuclear blackmail? Still waiting for the US technology transfer for Chinese air force, navy, and marine hardware lol.

Credibility of your assertion = 0/zero/nil/zilch a la epic fail!

WRONG AGAIN!

1.inconsequential US technology u say? Did you read the 61 page report i sent you or u are just arguing without facts here? I NEVER said China benefited from us nucelar technology overtly in fact, i stated on another thread before that they use the Soviets template to design their weapons. I said the benefited from US technology transfers and are using some of them for military purpose and i sent a DETAILED report for you to read about how that might have happened thru US statlite policies with China.

Few Excerpts from another source:(U.S. Technology Transfer Policies and the Modernization of China's Armed Forces
Larry M. Wortzel)

***Four other agreements were then under negotiation. Including a memorandum of understanding on the provision of a Landsat system, for China and a telecommunications agreement and one between the US Army corps of Engineers and the Nanjing Institute of Hydraulic Research to cooperate on hydraulic engineering.


**in May 1983, Dr George Keyworth, President Reagan's Science adviser, signed other significant agreements while visiting China, including agreements to cooperate in fields as nuclear physics and controlled magnetic fusion and aeronautical science and engineering. Of the agreements to which the state department information papers refers, 13 deal with technological areas that have military applications.


***All of China's neighbors seems to want a strong china but not too strong. India too must scrutinize US arms and technology transfers to the PRC with some trepidation. China and India fought over the disputed territory in the early 60s, and India is still threatened by China's Nuclear forces. (This is the original point i was trying to make)

**Transfer of military technology that affects the balance of air power in the region may be the US provision of avionics equipment to china in a effort to make the F-8 interceptor more effective.

**China will manufacture, with US help, new avionics for its own Y-7 aircraft, a version of soviets AN-24 twin engine turboprop.

**All these manufacturing operations will be controlled with Siemens or IBM computers and china may progress to computer aided design with assistance from IBM


I can keep going. Now you have a paper and a book to read

i will reply the other lines in a minute.

GuyFawkes:


Jeez you brought your little spat over from the family section

How can a broad be stalking a nigga all over NL?

I said it! I know a puccy a*ss nigga when I see one

I have no spat with Shy, he is my son. You on the other hand, are the biggest stalker/crusher NL has ever seen. Following all the accounts of one nigga so you can meticulously read every post he makes on NL?? Jeez

BananaBender:


I said it! I know a puccy a*ss nigga when I see one

I have no spat with Shy, he is my son. You on the other hand, are the biggest stalker/crusher NL have never seen. Following all the accounts of one nigga so you can meticulously read every post he makes on NL?? Jeez

*yawns*
B1tch you're boring try a new line
Aren't you too old for dis sh1t? C'mon its a monday morning, put your welfare check to meaningful use and quit trolling on NL.

I'm not shymexx ok, I'll go e-insurgent on your black a55. .Now you go after all his followers for what? If you're exchanging banter with him then keep it on don't be a vengeful broad about it.

SirShymex:


2). Oh now there's an international set-up, yet the same country has been invading all kinds of defenseless countries with impunity, no? - laughable. Call a spade a spade, it's all bark and no bite. It backed out of a confrontation with China during the Korean war. Backed out of confrontation with the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis. Ranted and raved during the Russia-Georgian war, but when it saw it had underestimated the Russians, after the decisive victory, and the Russians were marching to Tbilisi - it backed out of its earlier promises to Mikheil Saakashvili etc.. All these are FACTS.

3). You just alluded to my assertion that Spain wasn't a super-power despite its modern navy - it was a mere regional power, and that was in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean. So, my question is: why didn't it transferred its geographical advantage and naval superiority into becoming a super-power like Great Britain?

The Chinese aren't rushing, and they'll win all the battles against their neighbours, with non-aggression against Russia because Russia can never be an economic super-power. So, both countries will always tow the path of non-aggression. And history favours both countries.

4). Again, you need to learn how argue based on the timeline. Suez Canal was built in 1869 and World War 1 started in 1914. So, yes, the Mediterranean sea through the Suez Canal was a vital route for the British super-power status to India. The other route was going around Africa - and that wasn't an option. Evidently, Great Britain had to protect its interests in the Mediterranean sea, coupled with the tribalism and tribal interests in Europe at that time - and there was absolutely no way it would have stayed out of both wars. History lesson for you there.

5). Thank God you have now accepted that Hitler was underestimated after playing to the gallery. We need to drink beer to this one. And please, I don't want to hear what Truman thought/admitted. America was more or less inconsequential in Europe at that time. Use European sources for facts about European history.

Lastly, the biggest miscalculation Americans will ever do is to underestimate China's military power, and decide to engage the country. That would be suicidal. I doubt it though, since the US has always been somewhat wary of China. Hence they will always leave propaganda to folks like you and others in the MSM. Heck, even if China were to attack Japan tomorrow, the US will never join overtly. It'll do so covertly - FACT!

2. How did America backed out of the confrontation with the soviets in Cuba? The missile was removed and Khrushchev ran away like a chicken and the cretin was forced out of power because he was weak.Castro wanted him to strike first but he chicken out. and what did he get in return? removal of outdated missiles from Turkey that was scheduled to be removed.

Now lets talk Georgia. This is the point i have been making from the beginning of the thread that nation states are pragmatic and not emotional (apart from maybe Russia?) at all.Russia was a bigger strategic partner and had just helped America with a base in Tajikistan, Germany and France had made promises to Russia that Georgia wont be allowed to join NATO. When they meet in Bucharest, The french refused to adopt MAP(membership action plan to add Ukraine and Georgia to NATO)even after many midnight meetings and the Germans stood firm too. It was clear to the Americans that Russia had leverage with Sarkosy and Merkel. so what is the point of helping tiny Georgia? besides, Bush saved Saakashvili seat at least and signaled the Russians to stop advancing when they got to Gori.

The Victory might have been decisive but it exposed Russia's military a weak and outdated force. (I can go into details if you want me to). so there is nothing to be proud of here. But that has been addressed by Putin and in 2020 they should be strong as ever.

and on China,
That as to do with policy failures on the part of Truman and his rift with Douglas MacArthur. It wasn't because the Chinese were formidable. The only tactic they used were human waves. and besides, it was the United nations not really the United states. the Brits has over 13,000 troops there so it was a general failure


3.Yes i agreed that Spain wasn't a superpower. That is the point i was making. In every geopolitical area there can only be one superpower (that's what the word super implies) but when it is surrounded by great powers, the Super power status wont come without a fight. (The reason why i said China has many regional power beside it and she would have to fight to gain a superpower status). Britain fought the French, Germans, and the Spanish among others to attain that status.

4. If the India route is what was important to Britain, why did she declare war on Germany for crossing thru Belgium even thou Germany had sent signals to London to ask for their intentions without getting any straight response? why not attack the Ottomans directly to secure the route then or wait till the war spill over to the Mediterranean? care to explain?

5.U don't want to hear about what Truman (one of the most important figures in the war) had to say in his memoirs? how about what General Maurice Gamelin and Hans Oster (French general and who was in charge when Germany invaded France and German military intelligence officer) had to say about the prelude to war then? i made references to those u kind of ignored them didn't ya?

I do not think US is underestimating Chinese military capability. But it is clear to every military expert or analyst that it is still behind Russia not to talk of America. China wont even dare attack Japan. there is a US-Japan pact. and that will lead to the destruction of China.

I have to keep saying this.

I am not pro any nation.. I am just pro reality

GuyFawkes:

Aren't you too old for dis sh1t? C'mon its a monday morning, put your welfare check to meaningful use and quit trolling on NL.

I'm not shymexx ok, I'll go e-insurgent on your black a55. .Now you go after all his followers for what? If you're exchanging banter with him then keep it on don't be a vengeful broad about it.

Dumb a*ss! I'm not going after those that follow Shy. Liked one of your threads, wanted to gauge your intelligence.

This is just to get a reaction; you're not smart after all and you have puccy tendencies.

*Trust me, I'll whoop your gay a*Ss so bad, you would deactivate your account.

BananaBender:


Dumb a*ss! I'm not going after those that follow Shy. Liked one of your threads, wanted to gauge your intelligence.

This is just to get a reaction; you're not smart after all and you have puccy tendencies.

*Trust me, I'll whoop your gay a*Ss so bad, you would deactivate your account.

you cracking me up this morning laffin at 'gauge your intelligence'. Is it #JokeMonday or what?

Bring it on b1tch I'm a veteran of many e-wars on NL and I always come out unscathed.

GuyFawkes:

you cracking me up this morning laffin at 'gauge your intelligence'. Is it #JokeMonday or what?

Bring it on b1tch I'm a veteran of many e-wars on NL and I always come out unscathed.

I lost interest. I'm not attracted to puccies.

Good day.

BananaBender:


Shuush, don't tell me what to do.

Let me come to that conclusion myself.

Missy89 that could be MissMeiya has replied. *Back to reading

*bored*

Who are you

MissMeiya:


*bored*

Who are you

*In the mood to tolerate b1tchassness*

Your God!

What a dumb question.

@ Missy89
Was Truman really one of the most important figues in the war? Seriously aside from giving the GO for the dropping of the bomb I think you give him too much credit. He was an inconsequential senator from Missouri foistered on Roosevelt as his VP , he only spoke to Roosevelt twice in his 82 days as VP. His tough man acts only served to infuriate the Russians hence building the distrust leading up to the cold war.

As for Maurice Gamelein his glory days were gone and he was the very cause of the defeat the french suffered, don't know what you read about him though, history has a way of being kind to some incompetent generals. He was a gutless commander no different from the french clowns parading themselves as politicians in those turbulent times. He never even stepped foot at the frontlines to raise the morale of his troops, his HQ was a french chateau on the outskirts of Paris , it had no communication with any other HQ in the field and messages were sent out by the hour on motorcycle.

BananaBender:


*In the mood to tolerate b1tchassness*

Your God!

What a dumb question.

*too bored to respond*

MissMeiya:


*too bored to respond*

This is a response dumb a*ss. SMH.

GuyFawkes:
@ Missy89
Was Truman really one of the most important figues in the war? Seriously aside from giving the GO for the dropping of the bomb I think you give him too much credit. He was an inconsequential senator from Missouri foistered on Roosevelt as his VP , he only spoke to Roosevelt twice in his 82 days as VP. His tough man acts only served to infuriate the Russians hence building the distrust leading up to the cold war.

As for Maurice Gamelein his glory days were gone and he was the very cause of the defeat the french suffered, don't know what you read about him though, history has a way of being kind to some incompetent generals. He was a gutless commander no different from the french clowns parading themselves as politicians in those turbulent times. He never even stepped foot at the frontlines to raise the morale of his troops, his HQ was a french chateau on the outskirts of Paris , it had no communication with any other HQ in the field and messages were sent out by the hour on motorcycle.

you are seeing it from another perspective.

You are looking at their actions but i was more concerned about their position (which would have gave him insider information) so what they say in their memoirs should be considered as facts or close to what originally happened,

But yeah Gamelein was a failure and Truman didn't even know about the bomb till he was sworn in

Shymexx

This is the Reality for China in Asia. and the stronger it gets, her neighbors would keep arming.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JS4VZbCWj8

Missy89:


you are seeing it from another perspective.

You are looking at their actions but i was more concerned about their position (which would have gave him insider information) so what they say in their memoirs should be considered as facts or close to what originally happened,

But yeah Gamelein was a failure and Truman didn't even know about the bomb till he was sworn in

I agree but people who publish their memoirs have a way of dignifying themselves even when they were part of the system. I've read quite a few though. I read Erich Von Manstein's Lost Victories couple of years back. Great reading if you lay your hands on it.

GuyFawkes:


I agree but people who publish their memoirs have a way of dignifying themselves even when they were part of the system. I've read quite a few though. I read Erich Von Manstein's Lost Victories couple of years back. Great reading if you lay your hands on it.

Thats one of my favorite all time German generals!!!, Along with Rommel and Heinz Guderian.

Those were the true professional who did their work and kept politics out as much as they can. The 3 of them were highly respected even among the Allies.