OT: Pax Americana? Food for thought...

[HornedFrog Purple]

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

'Constabulary duties'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.


These below are some of my own findings.

This is the piece referred to. Written in November 2000.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

6 contributors to this now hold key positions in President Bush's foreign and defense administration.

Paul Wolfowitz
Political science doctorate from University of Chicago and dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins University during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001

John Bolton
Yale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as an assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the first Bush administration as assistant secretary for international organization affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, May 2001.

Eliot Cohen
Harvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and at the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins and is the author of several books on military strategy. Was on the Defense Department's policy planning staff in the first Bush administration and is now on Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board.

I. Lewis Libby
Law degree from Columbia (Yale undergrad). Held advisory positions in the Reagan State Department. Was a partner in a Washington law firm in the late '80s before becoming deputy undersecretary of defense for policy in the first Bush administration (under Dick Cheney). Now is the vice president's chief of staff.

Dov Zakheim
Doctorate in economics and politics from Oxford University. Worked on policy issues in the Reagan Defense Department and went into private defense consulting during the 1990s. Was foreign policy adviser to the 2000 Bush campaign. Sworn in as undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Pentagon, May 2001.

Stephen Cambone
Political science doctorate from Claremont Graduate School. Was in charge of strategic defense policy at the Defense Department in the first Bush administration. Now heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the Defense Department.

The similarities to the current administration's foreign and defense policy are too eerie to be labeled coincidental. It had all been decided years before something called 9/11 happened. It was just given a cause.

When in Rome...

But of course this will be labeled as anti-war propaganda.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"But of course this will be labeled as anti-war propaganda."

Maybe so, it would seem to qualify.

But it most definitely appears to qualify as a rather lengthy copyright violation.

[Fritz]

Interesting conclusions, but I don't buy them.

[cartman]

Wow, I'd been trying to find words for how I felt on this situation, and this pretty much sums up how I feel, and then some.

The transparency, and ever shifting reasons, for attacking were almost hilarious, if the gravity was not so severe. I always felt that if we were honest about our intentions, that we would have a better response about how we were moving.

But this situation was going to happen one way or another. Who else is going to challenge the US in the current day? I myself always like to do things the popular way, so that's why I have been against how our current administration has been handling international diplomacy. The current admin is taking a the Roman tack (mostly attributed to Caligula) of "Let them hate us, as long as they fear us". In the short term this will foment alot of localized backlash against the US. But these will be squelched, much like the local problems mentioned in the article.

But the $64 trillion dollar question: Will the US (not the current administration, but all future also) be able to steer clear of the pitfalls that befell all previous global powers?

[Ksyrup]

OK, now I know. So what's the point? My family and I won't be vacationing on the Middle Eastern or North Korean beaches any time soon. We'll be living the same lives we always have, in the North American Quadrant of the US of the W.

[Havok]

im with you fritz. Seems like a bunch of left-wing Conspirecy theory crap to me. If we really wanted an "empire" we could take over the entire North and South America in a matter of months. (they'd probally be better off if we did anyway)

[Senator]

Donald Kagan, in whom I have had a longtime respect, says some things in this article, I have yet to hear from him. Thanks for the info.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Jon I did not write any of it. It was emailed to me in its present form which I pasted here. Obviously the part in italics is an opinion piece based on the report of which I don't know where it came from. If you do please tell.

What I thought was interesting about the whole thing was the similarities between this report and what evolved into the National Security Strategy is all so I thought I would throw it out for discussion. They do seem to be similar in concept after reading the report and it is out there for public consumption.

Do with the opinion piece what you will but the report certainly raises an eyebrow as to a possible bigger picture.

If it was a conspiracy, I doubt the report would have ever seen the light of day in my opinion.

[CamEdwards]

If it was a conspiracy, I doubt the report would have ever seen the light of day in my opinion.

Oh no, every good conspiracy has to have a germ of truth. Witness the Illuminati, the Bildenberg Group, Bohemian Grove (have you ever been there Senator? And can you help get me an invite?), the one world Zionist government, etc.

I have no doubt that we'll see US military bases in Iraq. Then again, we'll have a democratic government in Iraq. They'll love us. We'll be the ones that freed them from an oppressive regime.

It doesn't mean we're looking for a Pax Americana. We're looking to protect our national security. There IS a difference.... but we'll have to wait and see if the world can tell what that difference is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"but we'll have to wait and see if the world can tell what that difference is."

From what I've seen from some of the world lately, I'd go ahead and dismiss that as a possiblity so remote that it barely exists.

[cartman]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Bohemian Grove (have you ever been there Senator? And can you help get me an invite?

Actually, I think this is in the redwoods north of San Francisco, and it was a Texan (pretty sure NOT Senator) who made the news a couple of years back about stumbling across the Grove, and escaping with his life.

But all sorts of wierd stuff goes on up in that area, and I'm pretty sure none of it is tied to a global conspiracy group. But hey, I've been proven wrong before!

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by cartman
Actually, I think this is in the redwoods north of San Francisco, and it was a Texan (pretty sure NOT Senator) who made the news a couple of years back about stumbling across the Grove, and escaping with his life.

But all sorts of wierd stuff goes on up in that area, and I'm pretty sure none of it is tied to a global conspiracy group. But hey, I've been proven wrong before!

Yeah, the Texan is a conspiracy nut who hosts his own talk show. The story gets a great treatment in the book "Them" by Jon Ronson. It's actually laugh out loud funny.

I'd still like to go... and I still want Senator to get me an invite.

[Senator]

What is this Grove of which you speak?

[HornedFrog Purple]

No offense Cam, but our track record is not too stellar when it comes to rebuilding. They get fixed for a little while and we forget all about them after whatever purpose has been served.

But who knows maybe this time it will be different. I hope so.

Usually a conspiracy is conjured up after the fact. There is no fact to follow with some rigamaroll as far as I know yet is there?

Call it national security if you want, but it is more of a national security influenced by our country's own world interests. That is what a blanket term such as national security means, like it or not.

Many other things from other countries have been in the name of national security, we just call ours right.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
No offense Cam, but our track record is not too stellar when it comes to rebuilding. They get fixed for a little while and we forget all about them after whatever purpose has been served.

Yeah, Japan and Germany sure are pitiful little Third World countries, aren't they?

I'm curious as to what countries you're referring to.

[CamEdwards]

Dola:

Senator, you know more than you're letting on. I want to go burn the owl and pee in the woods!! Pick me! Pick me! Pick me!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
But who knows maybe this time it will be different. I hope so.

Me too.

The last thing I want (and the thing that I believe could lead to the downfall of a second term for Bush) is to invest time & expense in rebuilding a country that will only be getting a portion of what its leadership brought down upon it.

Go in, do the job of protecting U.S. interest and get the hell out. Anything else is doomed to failure.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I'm curious as to what countries you're referring to.

Well Vietnam hasn't done so well since the war....

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
Well Vietnam hasn't done so well since the war....

I think we have to win to rebuild...

[CamEdwards]

Now, now... the phrase used was "rebuilding". We didn't rebuild Vietnam. We never got the chance.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Bee
I think we have to win to rebuild...

We didn't win?

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
We didn't win?

I'd say at best it was an "Incomplete".

[Fritz]

damn that oliver stone

[astralhaze]

No, we didn't rebuild Vietnam, we knocked them back to the stone age. Damn commies.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Hmmm half of South America and Central America. We have done a bangup job with Mexico without pointing a thing at them eh? Intervention is intervention, it does not require a gun. The US has tried to rebuild many countries in our own image without raising an armed finger in the last 45 years.

Vietnam, Korea, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Panama, the Phillipines need I go on?

Is there any reason at all "Building America's Defenses" mirrors the current National Security Strategy composed on September 20th 2001? Or was it just a wild guess by some pseudo-intellectuals who just happened to be appointed into the administration after this was composed.

No conspiracy at all, it is called "vision".

Take some time and read the document, it is not forged or made up, its been sitting there for 2 1/2 years. It did not require anything to jumpstart it, it was already in motion, simply look at the budget proposals since 2001.

Get any of those fellows listed on your show and simply ask them if they contributed to this report, then you can call it bs. It will not happen.

But all of this does not really matter, I only suggest that if we do liberate Iraq, we do it right and leave it right. That's all. Check back on this in 5 years and a reasonable verdict might be made, for now it's all talk as is this document.

It is all a foregone conclusion though, it is going to happen. The possibility that it was already in motion before you might like to think it was is what might be disturbing.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
Vietnam, Korea, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Panama, the Phillipines need I go on?

We tried to rebuild those countries without lifting an armed finger?

[HornedFrog Purple]

No, those are examples of armed intervention, but as I said above intervention is not mutually exclusive by pointing one at them. Do you consider them success stories?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
No, those are examples of armed intervention, but as I said above intervention is not mutually exclusive by pointing one at them. Do you consider them success stories?

Yes, I think they were successful in what the U.S. government wanted to accomplish. Rebuilding them was not what was meant to be accomplished, IMO.

[HornedFrog Purple]

That is an interesting opinion, usually when a country goes to war, or intervenes otherwise a common goal is to leave a mark or influence its target in the aftermath structurally.

That said, we have with assistance done some good things this way such as with Germany or Japan. But not alone, it required a combined effort. Because Germany was given a choice after guidance, they chose to sell nuclear technology to the "axis of evil", so now they suck. Anyways, I wonder how our newest allies will contribute to the potential rebuilding effort.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
That is an interesting opinion, usually when a country goes to war, or intervenes otherwise a common goal is to leave a mark or influence its target in the aftermath structurally.

That said, we have with assistance done some good things this way such as with Germany or Japan. But not alone, it required a combined effort. Because Germany was given a choice after guidance, they chose to sell nuclear technology to the "axis of evil", so now they suck. Anyways, I wonder how our newest allies will contribute to the potential rebuilding effort.

I think we left the mark we wanted to leave in all those cases. Take Vietnam for example. What was our reasoning for getting involved in that country? It was to prevent the spread of communism correct? Obviously we didn't "win" in the conventional sense as we were unable to prevent Vietnam from becoming unified under communist control, but we did absolutely destroy the entire country from top to bottom, so much so that it has been impossible for them to develop. Instead of looking at Vietnam as an example of development to be followed, surrounding countries look at it and see a horrid economy with little development since the communists took over. In that sense, we won the war and our intervention did leave the mark we wanted it to leave.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Possibly, but another explanation of communism on the decline was internal corruption, abuse of power and expansionism. We simply went in there, blew up a bunch of stuff, left after popular opinion faded with Americans dying and said "hey look what they did".

The USSR had their own Vietnam called Afghanistan.

Korea was a case of "see we win" by claiming we left an anti-communist half-country intact which took many years for it to rebuild itself into what is called South Korea now.

If we go in and win. Win = removing the Hussein regime, establishing a democratic government with no strings attached and the US pays the tab, do we really have any allies? What if a couple of them say "well we don't really like this or that aspect of the rebuilding", we just tell them to shut up because we financed the thing to begin with. That is national security.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
Possibly, but another explanation of communism on the decline was internal corruption, abuse of power and expansionism. We simply went in there, blew up a bunch of stuff, left after popular opinion faded with Americans dying and said "hey look what they did".

In cases such as the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, that is certainly applicable. Not for Vietnam, however. I have no doubt that corruption, etc al went on, but they had no chance after what was done to the country.

[HornedFrog Purple]

The meat of the matter, or at least what I am trying to bring across is what exactly are we and our allies going to do with Iraq assuming it is liberated. Mock the UN, call it an aged, useless body, but the resolution of the aftermath is clearly outlined. There is no doubt what will happen. There is doubt as it stands with the coalition. We have been told by our President we will free the Iraqi people from its heartless dictator, what exactly does that entail?

I do fully support liberation, I have an older brother who is a Corpsman and already over there. I have already served in the Corps, we do what our government tells us to do. I am more concerned with what we do after the liberation/removal of Saddam and hope this document is not the outline is all because in my opinion, I do not like the road it is travelling.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
The meat of the matter, or at least what I am trying to bring across is what exactly are we and our allies going to do with Iraq assuming it is liberated. Mock the UN, call it an aged, useless body, but the resolution of the aftermath is clearly outlined. There is no doubt what will happen. There is doubt as it stands with the coalition. We have been told by our President we will free the Iraqi people from its heartless dictator, what exactly does that entail?

I do fully support liberation, I have an older brother who is a Corpsman and already over there. I have already served in the Corps, we do what our government tells us to do. I am more concerned with what we do after the liberation/removal of Saddam and hope this document is not the outline is all because in my opinion, I do not like the road it is travelling.

I agree with you completely. Maybe not for the same reasons though. The party line is that we are going to rebuild Iraq in to this pillar of democracy in the sea of despotism that is the middle east. This, of course, ignores the fact that this has never been what we do. Okay, okay, JAPAN, GERMANY!!!, but those were the exceptions, not the rule. The list you made earlier is more in line with what we actually do. We generaly restructure them in to a "democracy" only in the cynical sense that it is a great environment for U.S. business interests. Of course, people call that a dirty liberal conspiracy, rather than an obvious deduction based on the historical record. In any case, I expect Iraq to be no different. We will install a dictator who is probably just as repressive as Saddam is but the environment will be much more friendly for oil companies. We may even let him hold cursory elections every few years, so long as it is a sure thing he will be elected.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Hehe I would be careful agreeing with me, you are bound to get the wrath of the crowd in the morning

Most of the guys here always say, "well you want peace but you offer no other plausible solution". I have read it a few times. I offer a solution, simply do what you have told the American people, liberate the people of Iraq: no strings attached.

History just not bode well for this wish, so I hope President Bush sets a new standard and makes Pax Americana mean something on the level.

[sterlingice]

Just wanting to throw in that we did such a great job in Iran. I mean it wasn't as if we dissolved a democratic government and then installed a shah which we later had to depose and leave the country to muslim extremeists? Wait, that's exactly what we did.

SI

[Karim]

This document, the key players, and possible implications made our national news tonight. I was looking for this document.

Thanks for the link HPF.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Yeah, Japan and Germany sure are pitiful little Third World countries, aren't they?

I'm curious as to what countries you're referring to.

See, Vietnam blew it. They won a war against the U.S. The best thing to do when fighting the U.S. is to lose the war because you'll soon be rebuilt into a economic giant.