Sevrin said:
I just think the attitude of invincibility is naive, and a little condescending to imply other nations and cultures will collapse if America goes broke.
Okay, then. I'm not an American, and my country's AAA rating is pretty secure, compared to, say, that of the UK. Which nation will benefit from the economic collapse of the United States? Not mine. Whose life will be made better if that happens? Not mine. Who is ready to take over as the guardian of the world's reserve currency? The Germans? As if anyone would trust them. The Swiss? The Norwegians? Singapore? Isle of Man? Are the people starving in the Horn of Africa snickering at the thought that one of their largest donor countries is going down the tubes? No one is on the sidelines here.
As a point of information: Markets in the Middle East are down 2.5 to 5% this weekend. You'd think they'd be celebrating the humiliation of the infidels in the streets, wouldn't you?
I know you're not American, and I'm not suggesting anyone would benefit from US economic collapse (well some countries probably would) but most people don't take pleasure in the misfortunes of others and by-and-large most people, myself included, consider the US an entity that champions freedom and honour.
Pretty OT but I'm kind of a pre-WW1 German (Prussian) history buff so if you're interested, read on.
As for the Germans though...come on, you can't judge Germany's financial management based on the crazed madman they had in power back in WW2. This is a whole other debate, but it was partly the Treaty of Versailles at the conclusion of WW1 and the fairly outrageous reparations they were forced to make that ended the German Empire and drove the country to its economic knees, paving the way for a charismatic lunatic to re-ignite their pride and outrage, and target a wealthy minority as a political tool.
Germany didn't start WW1 either, it was a series of escalating events that saw them drawn in through treaties with allies.
In fact it's eerily similar to the justifications of the 'war on terror'. A Bosnian Serb freedom-fighter (in today's terms a terrorist) assassinated an Archduke of Austria-Hungary, the heir (who was a strong advocate of better treatment of various ethnic minorities in the empire), and his wife.
The couple were visiting Sarajevo and a grenade was thrown at their car, the prince deflected it but it bounced into a crowd of innocent bystanders. Later that day the couple insisted on visiting the wounded in hospital, and on the way back to the palace afterwards, were shot and killed.
His last words to his wife, also deliberately shot at short range were 'Don't die darling, live for our children.'
The attack was ordered and executed through a chain of command originating from the Serbian military leadership.
Austria issued an ultimatum to the Serbian government (kind of like the US did to Saddam), and if an American head of state and his wife were assassinated while visiting say, Afghanistan on the orders of high officials in the Afghan government, ask yourself if the following ultimatum would be reasonable. Serbia was given one month to comply, they refused, Austria went to war and through a series of treaties just about every major power in Europe involved themselves in something they really had nothing to do with.
This was the ultimatum regarding the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and Duchess Sophie:
The Austro-Hungarian ultimatum demanded from the Serbian state to formally and publicly condemn the "dangerous propaganda" against Austria-Hungary, the ultimate aim of which, it claimed, is to "detach from the Monarchy territories belonging to it". Moreover, Belgrade should "suppress by every means this criminal and terrorist propaganda".
Moreover, the Serbian government should
1. Suppress all publications which "incite hatred and contempt of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy" and are "directed against its territorial integrity".
2. Dissolve the Serbian nationalist organisation "Narodna Odbrana" ("The People's Defense") and all other such societies in Serbia.
3. Eliminate without delay from schoolbooks and public documents all "propaganda against Austria-Hungary".
4. Remove from the Serbian military and civil administration all officers and functionaries whose names the Austro-Hungarian Government will provide.
5. Accept in Serbia "representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government" for the "suppression of subversive movements".
6. Bring to trial all accessories to the Archduke's assassination and allow "Austro-Hungarian delegates" (law enforcement officers) to take part in the investigations.
7. Arrest Major Voja Tankosić and civil servant Milan Ciganović who were named as participants in the assassination plot.
8. Cease the cooperation of the Serbian authorities in the "traffic in arms and explosives across the frontier"; dismiss and punish the officials of the at Shabatz Loznica frontier service, "guilty of having assisted the perpetrators of the Serajevo crime".
9. Provide "explanations" to the Austro-Hungarian Government regarding "Serbian officials" who have expressed themselves in interviews "in terms of hostility to the Austro-Hungarian Government".
10. Notify the Austro-Hungarian Government "without delay" of the execution of the measures comprised in the ultimatum.
Basically they wanted a complete and open investigation of the assassination, thorough trial of those involved, and and removal of anti Austro-Hungarian propaganda. Serbia refused, and so began WW1. Fuck you Serbia.
Ask yourself - would the US act any differently than Austria did? And would their allies stand with them (like Germany and the Ottoman Empire did)? It's lucky for everyone that Iraq and Afghanistan didn't have superpower allies or we might have had WW3.
Sorry for the long post...but I do find it interesting.
