Pragmatically Speaking...

[John Kilduff]

Scenario:

U.S. POSITION:

- Ever-rising oil costs with ever-expanding world population which will add to energy pressures

- Increased threat from widening Islamic radicalism

- Future oil supply competition from China; future potential military threat from China (a few decades perhaps)

- Growing frictions with Russia


RUSSIAN POSITION:

- Increased worry over U.S. missile defense shield

- Increased problems with Islamic radicalism

- Internal political difficulties

- Economic challenges

NOW IMAGINE...this is back in the days of Rome perhaps, before such concepts as "today's morality and ethics" became popular.

The obvious self-interested solution would be for the USA and Russia to ALLY and take over key parts of the Middle East and claim its oil and brutally squelch all centres and manifestations of Islamic radicalism.

-The USA could also shield Russia (as was actually once officially offered) under its missile defense shield.

Practically speaking, all of the above would solve many problems:

- Future energy costs: solved for a long time

- Islamic radicalism: slaughtered and crushed except for a few weak and inconsequential sporadic suicidal demonstrations. The coffers of the corrupt oil sheiks and evil mullahs emptied and transferred to better purpose. No longer would the West's money be used against it. No longer would trillions of dollars fund anti-Western jihadism and the spread of jihadi ideology. No longer would corrupt sheikhs import prostitutes to their lavish parties in Europe, all paid for with oil money of the West and stolen from their own Arab constituents. No longer would Mahdi Armies shout their belligerence because as soon as they did a MOAB (or the new Russian version, 4 times as powerful as the American version) would fall on their heads.
No more Hamas, Hezbollah, Mad Mullahs, or any of that other troublesome riff-raff: all MOAB-ed right into oblivion. No longer would the U.S. tell Russias to "take it easy" on the Chechens. Think of the Ancient Romans: they knew how to crush dissent and insurrection.

- The future challenge from China: sharply lessened by the joint shared empire of the USA and Russia

- Europe's security could be assured by the shared empire of USA/Russia, and security is all the Euros really seem to care about anyhow, so they'd cluck disapprovingly a little bit, but deep down they'd be relieved and grateful.

- Internal political difficulties in Russia: reduced, by becoming an even more prominent world power. When Russia does better, Russians smile on the street and in the Kafe-shops [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

- The USA could more openly embrace the Russian model of power-seeking and drop pretenses of being "so concerned" about everyone else in the world. U.S. health care costs would become manageable due to much greater prosperity and cheap fuel and gasoline. The federal deficit could be eliminated in fairly short order.

Sound crazy? Sound barbaric? Sound like a pragmatic idea maybe?

What would the two most powerful nations do in ancient times if confronted by such shared challenges as the USA and Russia are facing today (and in the future)? They'd probably ally, wouldn't they?

Is what seems the moral/ethical path always "right"?

Is it wrong to admit you are facing foes and future challenges and decide to try to win even if it conflicts with how you were raised up to think?

The Roman Empire lasted ~600 years. The way things are going, the U.S. empire won't last nearly that long. Even another 200 years would seem a bargain from where things stand now.

Maybe the Ancients knew something we don't, or that we may have forgotten in our easy lives and speculative philosophies?

You've heard the question, "What would Jesus do?" It's a worthwhile question to ponder sometimes.

Maybe another worthwhile question, at other times, would be to ask: What would Caesar do?

I'm not 100% serious but I'm not 100% kidding, either. I actually think that with the way things are shaping up in the world, the above might at some point (maybe soon) become worth considering.

I'd really like to have Caesar's analysis, or Hannibal's, but for now I'll settle for a few thoughts from you guys. And please leave morals and ethics out of it. I want to know what will be best for us.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
What would the two most powerful nations do in ancient times if confronted by such shared challenges as the USA and Russia are facing today (and in the future)? They'd probably ally, wouldn't they?

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like how Athens and Sparta allied to dominate ancient Greece? And Rome and Carthage allied to dominate the Mediterranean? And Rome and Parthia allied to dominate the Near East? And Rome and the Germans allied to dominate the Rhine (this actually happened and led directly to the downfall of the Western Roman Empire)? And Constantinople and various Muslim/Turkish empires allied to dominate the Near East? And how the Franks and the Magyars allied to dominate Central Europe? ... And how the British and the Nazis allied to control the world?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The obvious self-interested solution would be for the USA and Russia to ALLY and take over key parts of the Middle East and claim its oil and brutally squelch all centres and manifestations of Islamic radicalism.

...

- Future energy costs: solved for a long time

[/ QUOTE ]

HOW? OPEC is already pumping as fast as they can. Are you suggesting the US *nationalize* the oil fields and exclude the Chinese from getting any? FDR tried that, and we got pearl harbor. I'm not sure if war with china is a good move for solving future energy costs.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
The obvious self-interested solution would be for the USA and Russia to ALLY and take over key parts of the Middle East and claim its oil and brutally squelch all centres and manifestations of Islamic radicalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you plan to do this? Air bomb the [censored] out of everything? Hello tens of trillions of dollars rebuilding the infrastructure needed to pump oil. Just invade and occupy while causing as little damage as possible to city infrastructure? Hello all out jihad of the world's one billion plus muslims attempting to push out of their lands by whatever means possible. Somewhere in between? Well, somewhere in between. You would also see quite a bit of non-muslim and non-arabs take up the sword against the perpetrators of such a plan, being blinded by such apparently odd stupid concepts such as morality and ethics are lead to do everything in their power to stop it. And of course we'd need millions of soldiers to do such a thing for which there isn't a current demand of the US people for, nor would be very easy to find enough amoral brainwashed phychos that would want to completely ravish such a large part of the world.
[ QUOTE ]
- Future energy costs: solved for a long time

[/ QUOTE ]
Come up with the logistics of how this would work and we'll talk.
[ QUOTE ]
- Islamic radicalism: slaughtered and crushed except for a few weak and inconsequential sporadic suicidal demonstrations.

[/ QUOTE ]
How?
[ QUOTE ]
The coffers of the corrupt oil sheiks and evil mullahs emptied and transferred to better purpose. No longer would the West's money be used against it. No longer would trillions of dollars fund anti-Western jihadism and the spread of jihadi ideology. No longer would corrupt sheikhs import prostitutes to their lavish parties in Europe, all paid for with oil money of the West and stolen from their own Arab constituents.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, now oil companies, lobbyists, and mercenary/contractors get to spend all that money and get all those lavish prostitutes. Same situation, new gang. Except the US people just spent everything they had funding the transition.
[ QUOTE ]
- The future challenge from China: sharply lessened by the joint shared empire of the USA and Russia

[/ QUOTE ]
Being that China is run by a bunch of bafoons they might do whatever possible to stop the US and Russia which could lead to billions dead in war.
[ QUOTE ]
Europe's security could be assured by the shared empire of USA/Russia,

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah, nothing screams security more then being surrounded by two war mongering superpowers surrounding you.
[ QUOTE ]
- Internal political difficulties in Russia: reduced, by becoming an even more prominent world power. When Russia does better, Russians smile on the street and in the Kafe-shops

[/ QUOTE ]
Either that or the increased power Russia yields creates a bunch of coups from different groups trying to take over.
[ QUOTE ]
U.S. health care costs would become manageable due to much greater prosperity

[/ QUOTE ]
Where is this greater prosperity coming from? We've spent nearly a trillon dollars in Iraq. How many trillions are we going to spend in conquering every nation with oil in the world?
[ QUOTE ]
and cheap fuel and gasoline.

[/ QUOTE ]
What, do the laws of supply and demand not apply anymore? Do you imagine the government is going to grab all the oil and throw a big party for all the citizens and just say "free oil for all!"? I don't get this point of view at all. Your logic boils done to:

1) oil is worth a lot
2) we'll take the oil, it'll be easy
3) ??
4) Profit!
[ QUOTE ]
The federal deficit could be eliminated in fairly short order.


[/ QUOTE ]
OK, so now this oil will pay off-
1) the tens of trillions needed to fund this conquest
2) healthcare
3) assure us cheap gasoline
4) The federal debt (somewhere around 9 trillion if I'm not mistaken).

Jeez, what's next?
[ QUOTE ]
Sound crazy?

[/ QUOTE ]
yep
[ QUOTE ]
Sound barbaric?

[/ QUOTE ]
by definiton
[ QUOTE ]
Sound like a pragmatic idea maybe?


[/ QUOTE ]
prag·mat·ic
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

Call me crazy, but no, I don't think waging war on every oil rich country is a very practical point of view or a practical consideration. I'd regard anyone who did as bat-[censored] insane.
[ QUOTE ]
What would the two most powerful nations do in ancient times if confronted by such shared challenges as the USA and Russia are facing today (and in the future)? They'd probably ally, wouldn't they?


[/ QUOTE ]
What challenges? That people of a different skin color have oil that they're willing to trade with us and we'd prefer to have it instead?

As to what they would do, they'd probably eventually fight it out amongst each other considering their war mongering attitudes, no? Same as when the bad guys get the cash in movies, they start killing each other off to get a bigger cut. Utlimately the group(s) that benefits will be a very,very, very small minority and everyone else in the world is screwed over or dead.
[ QUOTE ]
The Roman Empire lasted ~600 years. The way things are going, the U.S. empire won't last nearly that long. Even another 200 years would seem a bargain from where things stand now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why exactly do you support the existence of an American empire?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Why exactly do you support the existence of an American empire?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not supporting anything; I'm posing questions.

Thanks for your response and thoughts.

[Nonfiction]

The US will never ally in such a way with either Russia or China, as both have the potential for hegemony over the Eurasian continent. American policy since ww1 has been what the UKs policy was before, opposition towards any potential hegemon. The US enjoys the same unique geostrategic advantages the UK had during its height: an "island" seperated by water from the rest of the major powers and the worlds strongest navy preventing invasion. The only potential risk to the US geostrategically (as to the UK) is a continental power achieving hegemony over Eurasia. Look at who America has fought in the 20th century, Germans, Germans, Russians, Chinese.

As Russia rises again in the coming decades (fueled mainly by energy sold to Europe and increased autocracy/authoritarianism attempting to reestablish global power much as Putin is already doing with bomber flights etc), it is certainly not in America's geostrategic interests to let Russia have anything to do with the Middle East. Especially seeing how Russia is already holding some of its breakaway republics basically hostage by manipulating their energy costs, I don't see how putting even more energy power in their hands could be a good thing. Russia has no desire to "protect" Europe, they want their old power back. Remember that Russia still has tons of nukes, a rusting but powerful army and airforce, a fantastic strategic position, immense size, and who knows what undiscovered resources in Siberia. Russia and China are also basically allied under the Shanghai Pact.

Why do you think most of Eastern Europe is in NATO now? For fun? Why did we put in a missile shield in Poland and why does Georgia want us there? Why did Russia get so angry with us? The game of chess between US and Russia hasn't ended, the "War on Terror" is just a minor fork in the road.

[boracay]

Why would we go 2000 years back when we have a perfect example of similar agreement from 70 years ago. Hopefully it didn't last 600 years.

[ QUOTE ]
You've heard the question, "What would Jesus do?" It's a worthwhile question to ponder sometimes.

Maybe another worthwhile question, at other times, would be to ask: What would Caesar do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking Jesus? The last time your president had his vision about Jesus in his dreams it was resulted in devastation of the whole country, hundred thousands of death and millions of refugees. I'd say the World is afraid of another meeting of that kind again.

So, should we ask what would Ceasar (or Hitler) do to find a right path in this terrifying world? Hopefully, a very large majority of people around the world believe those fascists ideas were very bad and i believe they would think the same today.

[ QUOTE ]
I want to know what will be best for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe neither Scandinavians/Australians/Africans/South Americans would think that would be the best for them. I also believe a large majority of Russians don't think that would be the best for them. And i also believe that a very large majority of Americans think that wouldn't be the best for them. Finally, when looking through this perspective from the past century i also believe you wouldn't think that would be the best for you and your children.

Because, what you're saying is this: A gang is robbing all shops, houses and is terrifying all people around. What you're suggesting is exactly the same and you're basicly saying it's good to be a part of the gang.

A question: What's the reason for such obsession about living in empire? I'd say at least 99.9% of the world's population is not obsessed with it as it is not important for their lives. Ask any Norvegian/Dutch/New Zealander/etc if in doubt.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Pragmatically Speaking...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong forum.