DukeNukeEm

OH SNAP

Yeah the 50 states strategy. Democrats actually would've contested Alaska if it werent for she who will not be named. Even states like Utah and Idaho are getting attention. There's a reason the Dakotas and Montana were so close this year.

Im really confused, I could swear I saw a post that is longer here.

The Australians? If you're talking about the Japanese there might have been that fear in the 80's but that crash in 1990 and the collapse of the Baht in '97 straightened things out.

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1820862

I'd say our relations with Japan were strained at that point, however. I dont think we have ever been at odds with Australia, even when we had a substantial colonial presence in that area.

Like Balta said W helped, but Dean saved the Democratic party.

1943?

The surge isn't working, it's just postponing inevitable violence and another rise in the insurgency. Soxbadger: we have a fundemental disagreement here on conflict. I dont believe that wars start for liberal reasons like religion or crazy dictator, I think in the modern era states have gotten past that because they realize how useless it is. All wars after Napoleon are about maintaining a global and regional balance of power, that's the middle east in a nutshell. It's a large group of countries that are experiencing a major power disparity with Israel and they only way restore a good balance is to defeat Israel, the US wont let Israel lose and that's why this stupid thing will never end. Religion isn't part of it at all, they just use that to recruit support from within their countries.

I was gonna say that sounds like one hell of a party.

I actually know that song from somewhere.

The leaders in the Middle East are ready to make peace with Israel, its just radical elements that are unaffiliated with governments are throwing a wrench in it all. Anwar al Sadat negotiated with Israel after the Yom Kippur War but was assassinated for it. So this realization that bmags is talking about has already taken root amongst the leadership.

Because there were still unsatisfied actors (Germany) who were getting shafted. Europe had the right intentions but France was still angry about 1871 and they couldn't help but revert back to the old ways of going back and forth. When every city on the continent burned* everyone learned to finally bury the hatchet. I'm not even talking about religious wars here, those ended like 300 years prior. *WW2 also had ridiculous civilian casualties, something the earlier European wars never had. See: * Disputes in former colonies is a lot different than Germany and France going after each other again. Europe was peaceful and coalesced after World War 2, there was still conflict (there will always be conflict) but no region is more stable than Europe. The Cold War never turned into WW3 because of the argument I've been making all along. In modern war between great powers the ends never justify the means. 100 years war was not a religious war, the 30 years war definitely was. Read about the Peace of Westphalia and Peace of Augsburg. A lot of people think The English Civil War was the last religious war in Europe but I dont buy that. In fact, I find it pretty similar to the current conflict in the Middle East. Power hungry leaders using religion as a vehicle to rile the population into a bloodlust. The political consequences of the Napoleonic wars gave birth the German Confederation. The German Confederation was easily the strongest country on the planet at that time and they were pretty unhappy with the current landscape. Unsatisfied actors as strong as Germany are bound to go to war eventually, the point is to not let them become so angry. Note this has absolutely nothing to do with religion at all, they got sick of those wars long before. Well then I'd like to know what the hell it is. Because I'm an IR student and if my professor caught me referencing ancient hatreds or some bulls*** like that he'd laugh at me. The s*** was proved wrong in Yugoslavia already.

I fear opening that link.

Have you guys done favorite album yet?

^ There's a reason I'm namedropping the 30 years war in every post.

The Middle East hasn't gone through a war nearly as destructive as World War 1 or World War 2. I dont really care about history going back before 1500 but I dont even think there has been a war in the ME on the level of the Napoleonic, 100 Years or 30 Years wars. WW2 lasted only 6 years but it created the UN and eventually the EU, the kind of IGO that is a sign of a stable region. Length means nothing, it's the severity of the killing. If these wars really are religious, as you claim, it strengthens my point. Religious wars are inherently irrational, meaning there are only two solutions: 1) one side gets annihilated or 2) they get sick of killing each other. Option 1 is hard to pull off so #2 would probably be the best bet. *I'm not falling for your Germany trick either, the United States is older than the German Confederation.

Sorta, I dont think Egypt really wants to even interact with Israel after Sadat got capped for negotiating with them. If countries in the Middle East were solely concerned with existing the wars there would all be over tomorrow. Europe came to this realization in 1946 and how many of the major powers there have gone at it since?

1) If you pay even cursory attention to Iraq you would understand that the conflict there is pretty much a boundary dispute between 3 ethnic (I use the term loosely) groups. Same goes for Israel and Palestine. 2) These countries want each other off the map because they feel each other's existence threatens their ability to expand their own power. It's pretty much the security dilemma except everyone is attacking each other instead of standing off and puffing their chests.

What? I cannot think of a worse way of classifying the nature of the conflicts in the Middle East. Like pretty much every other war since World War 2 the conflicts in the Middle East are the result of a power vacuum left by decolonization. There are lots of countries in the Middle East in a relatively small area and they all want power. If this were about "just existing" Iraq would never even come to being and Syria/Egypt/<insert ME country here> wouldn't have gone to war with Israel every 4 years up until the early 70's. These countries want to expand influence in the region and they all see each other as threats. Throw in a group like Al Queda who really doesn't give a f*** who they bomb (as long as somebody is gettin' bombed) and the whole thing is going to be a bloodbath until they work something out. Let the Middle East burn, Europe got tired of killing each other and so will they.

Dont ever ever ever pregame the pregame. I do this routinely and I always regret it. Beer before liquor you'll never be sicker etc. etc.

Or you could wake up in a hotel room without your pants and a very sore rectum. This hasn't happened to me, I dont hang out at trucker bars.

1) You can take care of that in the morning.

I'm not sure it ever does. If you win you were the good guys, if you lost you were the bad guys... regardless of whatever actually happened.

I'm just going after the whole good vs. evil myth of war which does not exist at all.