How One Muslim Suicide Has Been Used to Destroy the Marine Corps

[Lord Coke]

The world will become a more lively place once again, after mankind breaks out from its emasculated state. Disputes will be settled in a more "old-fashioned" way, now that the fluffy utopia of "world peace" is no longer ensured by an army that could destroy the rest of the world's countries twice over.

The countries which have allowed themselves to be absorbed by this fantasy, mainly in West Europe, could no longer afford to totally disregard the defense of the self, which is one of the pillars of a healthy society that isn't over-ruled and "protected" by another.

The entire foundation of these "emasculated" societies, which today can be considered to be a soft, comfortable, feathery pillow, would have to be replaced by a plate of solid steel, in the form of a pro-active male population willing to protect their own liberties.

Once Western Europe goes Shaira law we will see civil war in many countries. The French and Swedes may law down but I could see the British fighting back.

 

[King of Fists]

Boot Camp hazing is nothing compared to what we do in Fleet at 29 Palms. If you can't handle boot camp you are definitely going to kill yourself once you get to Fleet.

What's your MOS?

 

[Swing]

I don't know. That's how I picked up E-2 though was teaching the idiots to pass the ASVAB math portion. I'm talking about guys who didn't understand the concept of a variable in algebra. It was rather pathetic. Then again, the Marine Corps doesn't want smart people. Guys like me were always a thorn in the side of the NCOs because anytime they said something stupid I always had something to say.



I think you mean..

"I chose infantry!"

I'll never regret going infantry. Everyone tried to talk me out of it. It was like waking up to let someone take a dump on your head most days, but I loved it. Those days in the field or on deployment made it all worth it. Better than turning wrenches and being a bitch.

I've known a few people who are pretty smart, test wise, and were infantry at some point. I think I had two MI platoon sergeants who transferred over, and I remember a student who dropped my Calc class because he didn't see the sense; he came from a military family and had planned on being a grunt since he was little. I'm glad that happens, and I think it's unfortunate how often people try and talk high school students out of certain decisions.

If they ask me about joining up, I will clearly lay out that I think they have other options that I consider to be better ones; but I also emphasize that smart people should make their own decisions.

 

[Phr3121]

Getting a 35 on the ASVAB mean you are not very smart but it does not mean you are a moron.

Well, I'm still proud of those kids. Volunteers in an all volunteer military. Plus, if you go into the Infantry you don't really need much brains, you just need to hit the target with your weapon.

I was a soldier in the U.S. Army, can one of the Marines explain to me what MART is? Came across some information that said it can be from a week to a couple of months. How is that possible? Why would one Marine be in training for a week and another for 2 months? And like SEALs, you get weekends off during BRC. We don't get that in Ranger school or Special Forces school. You are locked down from day 1 to graduation. Maybe a 4 hour pass.

SEAL Training: "Weekends are yours to rest and recover... 'Hell Week', one of the hardest physical and mental exercises anywhere in the world. Over 5 days, the men who want to be SEALs will run, swim, carry boats, tread in freezing water, crawl through sand, and more...When you do have time off, different people do different things. Some guys sleep and eat and rest. Others go out and chase girls, party, etc."

"MART (Marines Awaiting Recon Training) can last anywhere from a week to a couple of months (?). This is where most of the junior Marines are going to quit, about 75% or more will quit. MART is hell on earth, you will get treated like absolute crap. Your next phase of training will be BRC (Basic Reconnaissance Course), this will be another 3 months and it is really not that tough. You get treated better in BRC than you do in MART. It is going to be intense and you are going to get treated just like a recruit again, but you will get lots of liberty. You should get evenings off every day and weekends off too."

 

[JonnyRingo84]

The world will become a more lively place once again, after mankind breaks out from its emasculated state. Disputes will be settled in a more "old-fashioned" way, now that the fluffy utopia of "world peace" is no longer ensured by an army that could destroy the rest of the world's countries twice over.

The countries which have allowed themselves to be absorbed by this fantasy, mainly in West Europe, could no longer afford to totally disregard the defense of the self, which is one of the pillars of a healthy society that isn't over-ruled and "protected" by another.

The entire foundation of these "emasculated" societies, which today can be considered to be a soft, comfortable, feathery pillow, would have to be replaced by a plate of solid steel, in the form of a pro-active male population willing to protect their own liberties.

nonsense.

regardless of your culture or your foreign policy....its VERY unlikely that nuclear powers will attack other nuclear powers. everyone loses, and everyone knows it.

also, globalisation with all of its flaws, has made everyone customers or consumers of everyone else. major wars are bad for business. bad for everyone's business.

 

[TheGreatA]

nonsense.

regardless of your culture or your foreign policy....its VERY unlikely that nuclear powers will attack other nuclear powers. everyone loses, and everyone knows it.

also, globalisation with all of its flaws, has made everyone customers or consumers of everyone else. major wars are bad for business. bad for everyone's business.

Who talked about nuclear powers attacking the other directly?

Yet indirectly, nuclear powers have been waging war against one another for decades by using proxy armies. They are doing so right now. To the Syrians or the Ukrainians, "mutually assured destruction" between Russia and USA is of little consolation, as it will be to any pawn utilized in the greater chess game, where issues between super-powers are resolved, ideals pushed down the throats of sovereign people, and economic dependencies established to mark "territory". Proxy wars are great for business. They are necessary for business. Without them, the arms trade would wither away, and with it, an enormous industry supporting the infrastructures of various countries in the world.

Of course, since you're a person residing within the borders of United States, it is unlikely that you would give a shit about the threat of war. You're not threatened, and it is unlikely that you ever will be, as long as your army remains mighty enough to take the world down with it. Even if you totally withdraw and isolate as a hermit kingdom.

Globalization is likely to increase the number of wars fought around the world, as more "unclaimed" territories become pissing grounds for the likes of China, America, Russia and the EU. Take that to the bank. The mobilization of troops will become easier than ever, and machinery, rather than humans, will be doing most of the fighting.

They're not building drones for nothing. They're not trying to establish "multi-culturalism" for nothing. There will be many, many refugees of war, in the coming decades. Better get used to it.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Who talked about nuclear powers attacking the other directly?

this seemed to be what you were implying, but maybe i simply misread your posts. you didnt place any stipulations on who would be fighting whom.

Yet indirectly, nuclear powers have been waging war against one another for decades by using proxy armies. They are doing so right now. To the Syrians or the Ukrainians, "mutually assured destruction" between Russia and USA is of little consolation, as it will be to any pawn utilized in the greater chess game, where issues between super-powers are resolved, ideals pushed down the throats of sovereign people, and economic dependencies established to mark "territory". Proxy wars are great for business. They are necessary for business. Without them, the arms trade would wither away, and with it, an enormous industry supporting the infrastructures of various countries in the world.

Of course, since you're a person residing within the borders of United States, it is unlikely that you would give a shit about the threat of war. You're not threatened, and it is unlikely that you ever will be, as long as your army remains mighty enough to take the world down with it. Even if you totally withdraw and isolate as a hermit kingdom.

ive not disputed any of this.

Globalization is likely to increase the number of wars fought around the world, as more "unclaimed" territories become pissing grounds for the likes of China, America, Russia and the EU. Take that to the bank. The mobilization of troops will become easier than ever, and machinery, rather than humans, will be doing most of the fighting.

so you dont buy into the old quote: "when trade doesnt cross borders, armies will."???

They're not building drones for nothing. They're not trying to establish "multi-culturalism" for nothing. There will be many, many refugees of war, in the coming decades. Better get used to it.

meh...i dont buy into the whole "they" controlling shit everywhere usually. especially multi-culturalism and related conspiracies. i think its inevitable that those ideologies would form given the current state of the world, with or without shadowy figures.

 

[TheGreatA]

this seemed to be what you were implying, but maybe i simply misread your posts. you didnt place any stipulations on who would be fighting whom.

We just need to understand that Russia, China, and the likes of them, they have no regard for human life. That's been proven, and continues to be proven every single day of their existence.

That's something we ought to acknowledge.

Nothing prevents them from waging war, other than the fact that they'd get annihilated by the U.S.

And those are merely the major offenders. All the brutal strongmen in Africa, the religious zealots in the Middle East, do we really think they see war as an obstacle? Do they even care, or understand, the economic repercussions? They only care about the fact that they would get fucked up by America. Military might is what they understand. These are not intellectuals, these are not men who understand the complexities of global trade, and its impact on the living standards of the people.

They don't give much of a shit about that. Otherwise their people would be doing better.

so you dont buy into the old quote: "when trade doesnt cross borders, armies will."???

It's absurd considering that countries which were heavily dependent on each other economically, have been involved in wars throughout the centuries. Russia and Germany being a prime example.

Trading disputes have spawned warfare since the history of man began. Heck, one of the most deadliest conflicts ever, the Dungan revolt, began as the result of a Chinese bamboo salesman being screwed over in a deal by a Muslim customer.

So no, I don't buy into it. I think it's quite the opposite. Where trade has once crossed, but no longer does as a result of a sanction or a dispute, expect an army to follow.

The Japanese Empire was economically dependent on America. Once America stopped importing oil and other resources as a result of economic sanctions put on the Japanese, they went crazy and Pearl Harboured America.

Dependency creates conflict.

meh...i dont buy into the whole "they" controlling shit everywhere usually. especially multi-culturalism and related conspiracies. i think its inevitable that those ideologies would form given the current state of the world, with or without shadowy figures.

So you don't think it's awfully convenient that when the war drums started rumbling in Syria, a huge push towards "solidarity", "acceptance", "tolerance" and "diversity" began in Europe? Come on. We're smarter than that.

The campaign was done, so that people would be more accepting of the populations that they needed to evacuate from Syrian cities, so that they could start bombing the shit out of 'em.

And they'll be doing that a lot more in the coming years.

I just don't feel like having my country used as a glorified population shelter.

 

[Seano]

Everybody's just waiting for America to grow soft.

Then the fun begins.

The US has been soft for about 10 years, sad to say.

 

[TheGreatA]

The US has been soft for about 10 years, sad to say.

It has got a tough reputation and that's largely what matters.

But news of America's increasing "softness" are starting to make their way to the ears of the numerous "tyrants-in-waiting", around the world. That's not good.

 

[Seano]

It has got a tough reputation and that's largely what matters.

But news of America's increasing "softness" are starting to make their way to the ears of the numerous "tyrants-in-waiting", around the world. That's not good.

I think we're a country of boohooers right now. I'm actually a little ashamed of a lot of my fellow americans.

 

[TheGreatA]

I think we're a country of boohooers right now. I'm actually a little ashamed of a lot of my fellow americans.

Well, I think when the push comes to shove, the Americans can still step up. Sure hope so. I cannot say the same for my European brethrens. We ran all out of gas in WW2, and after that we've just been passengers in the back-seat, with America on the wheel.

We better hope that ride still has a direction.

 

[Phr3121]

Well, I think when the push comes to shove, the Americans can still step up. Sure hope so. I cannot say the same for my European brethrens.

Don't give up so easily my friend from Finland. The Finns have a bad-ass Army (and great looking women). Americans will always step up to the plate. Don't worry about that. We killed each other 'wholesale' during the American Civil War. 700,000 men. That is almost twice the total casualties of Americans in WWII.

Well, Obama fucked everything up during his 8 years as president. No balls. Made America 'soft' and a 'soft' foreign policy (i.e. Syria). Now you have Trump, with a double pair of 'balls', and things will definitely swing the other way. French, British, and German Armies are well rated. They just need good strong politicians to point the right way.

 

[TheGreatA]

Don't give up so easily my friend from Finland. The Finns have a bad-ass Army (and great looking women). Americans will always step up to the plate. Don't worry about that. We killed each other 'wholesale' during the American Civil War. 700,000 men. That is almost twice the total casualties of Americans in WWII.

Well, Obama fucked everything up during his 8 years as president. No balls. Made America 'soft' and a 'soft' foreign policy (i.e. Syria). Now you have Trump, with a double pair of 'balls', and things will definitely swing the other way. French, British, and German Armies are well rated. They just need good strong politicians to point the right way.

I've been part of that Army. May have been bad-ass once, but those times are long gone. It's the mentality of the people that determines the success of an army as much as its structure. The morale for self-defense simply doesn't exist, which is evident in letting thousands of military-aged men walk across the borders with no reprimand. Some 20-30 years ago, that would've been unthinkable.

Trump's balls won't matter if the people don't stand with him. America needs a leader who can bring the people together. Obama attempted to accomplish the feat by trying to please every faction, but this ultimately left him with his hands tied. Trump is largely pandering to a group that's significant in number, but not necessarily a majority. In either case, America will continue to drift around without a solid direction, until they can eventually find a "coach" who can put the entire team back together. Or atleast the majority of it.

Good thing they can switch the man in charge every 4 years, unlike Russia which has pretty much seen all that Putin can offer, for about 5-6 years now.

 

[Phr3121]

I've been part of that Army. May have been bad-ass once, but those times are long gone. It's the mentality of the people that determines the success of an army as much as its structure. The morale for self-defense simply doesn't exist, which is evident in letting thousands of military-aged men walk across the borders with no reprimand. Some 20-30 years ago, that would've been unthinkable.

Trump's balls won't matter if the people don't stand with him. America needs a leader who can bring the people together. Obama attempted to accomplish the feat by trying to please every faction, but this ultimately left him with his hands tied. Trump is largely pandering to a group that's significant in number, but not necessarily a majority. In either case, America will continue to drift around without a solid direction, until they can eventually find a "coach" who can put the entire team back together.

Well, I retired from the U.S. Army with 20 years of service. "It's the mentality of the people that determines the success of an army." True, they have to believe in what they are fighting for, and also good military leadership (Officers/NCOs).

I believe in Finland the majority of the immigration population comes from Iraq. They say the country is too cold (I agree, but still beautiful) and many are returning to Iraq voluntarily. I read that according to the Finnish government about 75% of the Iraqi immigrants could be sent back home soon. Indeed, 30 years ago Europe was very different from today. I visited Europe last in 1987. I had a friend that went to Europe in 2013 and said she could not believe how the Arab/Muslims have infiltrated all over Europe. This before the Syrian immigration crisis a few years ago. My family ancestry came from Germany, and now Angela Merkel has managed to completely fuck Germany up. Hitler must be rolling in his grave. The rape and burning of German women and children. What a nice way to say: Thank you Germans.

Trust me, the people here in America are with Trump. That is how he won the election. Don't believe any of that liberal CNN news bullshit. It is like Nazi propaganda. They are giving voice and backing a small number of 'whiny' Americans. Democrats who lost the election. I personally think Trump is doing well with foreign policy. He did not back down in Syria or North Korea. He has a good team working for him (well, I would take Jared Kushner out, too young and inexperienced, but a hot looking wife).

Anyway, Finland has far less problems to deal with than the United States. You are also bordered by water, Sweden, Russia, and a very cold winter...

 

[JonnyRingo84]

We just need to understand that Russia, China, and the likes of them, they have no regard for human life. That's been proven, and continues to be proven every single day of their existence.

That's something we ought to acknowledge.

i do. but going back to my original response to you....you seemed to be implying that because of some perceived change in our culture, you were implying that they may fight us? we could all become ballerinas, and russia/china will not directly attack the US. if nuclear powers fight, we all lose, and we all know it.

And those are merely the major offenders. All the brutal strongmen in Africa, the religious zealots in the Middle East, do we really think they see war as an obstacle? Do they even care, or understand, the economic repercussions? They only care about the fact that they would get fucked up by America.

they dont care about this, even. they think theyll be martyred and go straight to heaven. many know theyre going to die as they go into whatever it is that theyre doing.

Military might is what they understand. These are not intellectuals, these are not men who understand the complexities of global trade, and its impact on the living standards of the people.

They don't give much of a shit about that. Otherwise their people would be doing better.

ive not tried to suggest anything different. developing countries have little reason to participate in the hegemonic globalism that now exists, unless they are close to being developed, like a brazil maybe.

It's absurd considering that countries which were heavily dependent on each other economically, have been involved in wars throughout the centuries. Russia and Germany being a prime example.

Trading disputes have spawned warfare since the history of man began. Heck, one of the most deadliest conflicts ever, the Dungan revolt, began as the result of a Chinese bamboo salesman being screwed over in a deal by a Muslim customer.

So no, I don't buy into it. I think it's quite the opposite. Where trade has once crossed, but no longer does as a result of a sanction or a dispute, expect an army to follow.

but even these examples youve given are when trade is still very limited. when so many factions within the developed nations are now sellers and buyers to one another, it almost makes a war between the developed nations bad for business. "conflicts" between the core countries and weak countries, as you said, are good for business.

The Japanese Empire was economically dependent on America. Once America stopped importing oil and other resources as a result of economic sanctions put on the Japanese, they went crazy and Pearl Harboured America.

Dependency creates conflict.

right. today, that would be more difficult to happen. japan would have many more options for oil suppliers would they not?

So you don't think it's awfully convenient that when the war drums started rumbling in Syria, a huge push towards "solidarity", "acceptance", "tolerance" and "diversity" began in Europe? Come on. We're smarter than that.

people have always been saying such things as long as ive been alive. tolerance of others has been a growing theme in developed countries since ive been alive.

The campaign was done, so that people would be more accepting of the populations that they needed to evacuate from Syrian cities, so that they could start bombing the shit out of 'em.

im not convinced.

And they'll be doing that a lot more in the coming years.

i would argue that if anything, increased nativism in response to all of this immigration/refugee movement spawned the progressives to start speaking up more about kumbaya let them in islam is peace blah blah.

I just don't feel like having my country used as a glorified population shelter.

ive not suggested that you should feel this way. but i also dont believe that there is some massive shadowy figure conspiracy to bring people in.

 

[TheGreatA]

i do. but going back to my original response to you....you seemed to be implying that because of some perceived change in our culture, you were implying that they may fight us? we could all become ballerinas, and russia/china will not directly attack the US. if nuclear powers fight, we all lose, and we all know it.

I wasn't saying that at all.

What I'm saying is that America's military strength is what is maintaining a balance of power in the world. If you take America out of the equation, you leave a huge power vacuum, in an Eastern Europe that is essentially incapable of mounting a serious defense against Russia, a very unstable Middle East (just see the current rivarly between Gulf states, or Israel-Palestine, not to mention Syria), a more and more pro-active and expansionist China (with defenseless Tibet, Taiwan, etc.).

Before US can pull out of pro-active militarism, it must figure out a way to whip Europe back in shape, leave the Middle East in a more stable condition (or just cease to give a fuck about it, which would be my option), and put checks on China (and obviously its pet dog North Korea).

but even these examples youve given are when trade is still very limited. when so many factions within the developed nations are now sellers and buyers to one another, it almost makes a war between the developed nations bad for business. "conflicts" between the core countries and weak countries, as you said, are good for business.

Trade wasn't so limited as you would think. The German army and industries couldn't properly function without relations to the Soviet Union, which provided them with oil, raw materials, grain and such. They attempted to solve this problem by conquering nearby lands, and eventually parts of the USSR which held oil (if you're more interested you can hear a candid Hitler whining about it here to a Finnish warlord).

The same exact manner that problems today would be solved, if there wasn't a "big dog" over-seeing the entire yard. Russia showed no real regard in annexing Crimea to itself due to the resources that reside in the area, but they were forced to stop there because otherwise they would've risked a US intervention. What prevents them from absorbing the entire Eastern Europe to a neo-Soviet structure? Nothing really, not Europe, certainly. They're willing to pay the price in economic sanctions as we've seen. But they're not willing to get smashed by the United States.

right. today, that would be more difficult to happen. japan would have many more options for oil suppliers would they not?

No, America, like it did then, today would convince the rest of the world not to trade with Japan.

They're doing the same thing to North Korea, and are trying to get China and Russia to go along with the isolation plan. We will see how it ends up.

Safe to say, if North Korea is effectively isolated, they will be forced to resort to desperate measures, giving America a justification to "defend" itself from North Korean aggression.

people have always been saying such things as long as ive been alive. tolerance of others has been a growing theme in developed countries since ive been alive.

I've never seen such a concentrated push for "multi-culturalism" until the recent few years. Laws have been set to punish those who criticize immigration. It is unheard of. People are being fined and threatened with jail time for exercising their now lost freedom of speech.

Merely because of back-room deals that have been made between top-level politicians, to ensure that America and the others do not have to deal with civilian populations residing in the cities that they're currently bombing to the ground.

i would argue that if anything, increased nativism in response to all of this immigration/refugee movement spawned the progressives to start speaking up more about kumbaya let them in islam is peace blah blah.

Nativism is the only proper response to the immigrant movement. If only the Native Americans had been wise enough to adopt a nativist approach instead of smoking peace pipes with the white man. Perhaps they would still be running more than just casinos.

ive not suggested that you should feel this way. but i also dont believe that there is some massive shadowy figure conspiracy to bring people in.

It has got nothing to do with conspiracy, but cold, calculated, pragmatic policy. It's sound, bullet-proof and the modern face of war. The "cuck" countries, the bloated, debt-ridden welfare states, who have been subjected to the multi-cultural agenda, will be assigned as "bomb shelters", where refugees of war will escape to, while their countries are bombed to the ground by super-powers which have decided to lay their claim to the territory.

It's a safe and sound way of doing war, without having to deal with unfortunate "collateral damage". But it is still bullshit, to me, to use countries such as my own as "pawns" in a greater game, harming their individual progress and over-whelming and destroying the welfare systems that the natives have built from ground up.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

I wasn't saying that at all.

What I'm saying is that America's military strength is what is maintaining a balance of power in the world. If you take America out of the equation, you leave a huge power vacuum, in an Eastern Europe that is essentially incapable of mounting a serious defense against Russia, a very unstable Middle East (just see the current rivarly between Gulf states, or Israel-Palestine, not to mention Syria), a more and more pro-active and expansionist China (with defenseless Tibet, Taiwan, etc.).

Before US can pull out of pro-active militarism, it must figure out a way to whip Europe back in shape, leave the Middle East in a more stable condition (or just cease to give a fuck about it, which would be my option), and put checks on China (and obviously its pet dog North Korea).



Trade wasn't so limited as you would think. The German army and industries couldn't properly function without relations to the Soviet Union, which provided them with oil, raw materials, grain and such. They attempted to solve this problem by conquering nearby lands, and eventually parts of the USSR which held oil (if you're more interested you can hear a candid Hitler whining about it here to a Finnish warlord).

The same exact manner that problems today would be solved, if there wasn't a "big dog" over-seeing the entire yard. Russia showed no real regard in annexing Crimea to itself due to the resources that reside in the area, but they were forced to stop there because otherwise they would've risked a US intervention. What prevents them from absorbing the entire Eastern Europe to a neo-Soviet structure? Nothing really, not Europe, certainly. They're willing to pay the price in economic sanctions as we've seen. But they're not willing to get smashed by the United States.



No, America, like it did then, today would convince the rest of the world not to trade with Japan.

They're doing the same thing to North Korea, and are trying to get China and Russia to go along with the isolation plan. We will see how it ends up.

Safe to say, if North Korea is effectively isolated, they will be forced to resort to desperate measures, giving America a justification to "defend" itself from North Korean aggression.



I've never seen such a concentrated push for "multi-culturalism" until the recent few years. Laws have been set to punish those who criticize immigration. It is unheard of. People are being fined and threatened with jail time for exercising their now lost freedom of speech.

Merely because of back-room deals that have been made between top-level politicians, to ensure that America and the others do not have to deal with civilian populations residing in the cities that they're currently bombing to the ground.



Nativism is the only proper response to the immigrant movement. If only the Native Americans had been wise enough to adopt a nativist approach instead of smoking peace pipes with the white man. Perhaps they would still be running more than just casinos.



It has got nothing to do with conspiracy, but cold, calculated, pragmatic policy. It's sound, bullet-proof and the modern face of war. The "cuck" countries, the bloated, debt-ridden welfare states, who have been subjected to the multi-cultural agenda, will be assigned as "bomb shelters", where refugees of war will escape to, while their countries are bombed to the ground by super-powers which have decided to lay their claim to the territory.

It's a safe and sound way of doing war, without having to deal with unfortunate "collateral damage". But it is still bullshit, to me, to use countries such as my own as "pawns" in a greater game, harming their individual progress and over-whelming and destroying the welfare systems that the natives have built from ground up.

i agree with 95% of this. ill move along.

 

[TheGreatA]

i agree with 95% of this. ill move along.

It got a little drawn out. A bad habit I've picked up from other forums. But I felt I didn't really do a good job of explaining what I was referring to in my original post, so I had to elaborate.

It was not so much a reference to America being threatened, as much as it was a reference to the fact that there would likely be a lot of moves being made if America suddenly pulled out of world affairs. I can definitely see some "old scores" being settled, between the usual suspects.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

It got a little drawn out. A bad habit I've picked up from other forums. But I felt I didn't really do a good job of explaining what I was referring to in my original post, so I had to elaborate.

It was not so much about America being threatened, as much as it was a reference to the fact that there would likely be a lot of moves being made if America suddenly pulled out of world affairs. I can definitely see some "old scores" being settled, between the usual suspects.

yea. i misunderstood your first post.

i dont think america has the means or the will to continue being the sole top dog. im not one of the people who think america is "going to fall like rome blah blah." but....the world wars put america in an unusual, and inevitably temporary, situation imo. all other world powers bombed to hell, and we were left more powerful than when the wars began. its only a matter of time that we are brought more level with the rest. its already begun.