Is the US now a paper tiger?

[Mark1031]

Considering we could irradiate the entire planet I would say, no.

So is Russia still a superpower? I'm not saying the US is now an insignificant country but if we can't impose our will then where is the power? As I said before, destroying things is not in our interest. We benifit most from world stability because we are on top economically. Destroying things does not help us. Stabilizing unstable oil rich countries and making them friendly would help but we obviously cannot do that. So what good are all the laser guided bombs and nukes?

 

[CaptainF]

Though we have learned the lesson that war is not a good idea sometimes, that doesn't mean we aren't powerful.

 

[Antilogic]

I really think that the problem now is the incompetence of the foreign policy of the Bush administration. After some better leaders get into power and the problems now are solved, the US will get its teeth back.

The fact is, Iraq is a debacle that I would soon forget if the consequences of ignorance were not even more dire. Overall, I think the Clinton years saw good ideas implemented in foreign policy: NAFTA, for one. The military intervention during that time was in Kosovo...I'm all right with that one. Also, North Korea was more stable because they didn't have nuclear weapons.

Funny story: Clinton offers fuel and energy in exchange for North Korea not building nuclear weapons. They agree. Bush says "screw that!" and stops giving aid. North Korea starts building and testing nuclear weapons. Now, Bush offers the same deal Clinton did: stop nuclear weapons programs, and you get fuel and energy. So, we are essentially back where we started, but nuclear proliferation has occurred. Overall, bad idea on Bush's part...

 

[REDY]

USA isnt paper tiger. Or maybe is, but after this knowledge you cant use word "superpower" on some country within USA.

 

[Tee Kay]

America is not a paper tiger. It's a giant radioactive robotic tiger.

 

[MobBoss]

If we allow groups of insurgents, armed only with small arms, IEDs and car bombs, force us from Iraq, yes...we indeed are a paper tiger.

A paper tiger is a nation which has the goods to go to war and looks great on paper....but in execution is as fragile as paper. When we allow news reports of casualties that are really inconsequential in the overall gambit of control to influence us to the point of simply giving up and walking away, yes, we indeed are the epitome of a paper tiger.

It is precisely the reason we shouldnt allow the insurgents that victory, no matter the cost in bodies. If we allow our enemies to view us a a paper tiger, it will only empower them to enact further attacks against us. To them, a retreat from Iraq will be seen as weakness. Period. They will know they can influence american policy via car bombs and IEDs. That is something we should not allow.

 

[MobBoss]

Funny story: Clinton offers fuel and energy in exchange for North Korea not building nuclear weapons. They agree. Bush says "screw that!" and stops giving aid. North Korea starts building and testing nuclear weapons. Now, Bush offers the same deal Clinton did: stop nuclear weapons programs, and you get fuel and energy. So, we are essentially back where we started, but nuclear proliferation has occurred. Overall, bad idea on Bush's part...

Are you truly so ignorant that you actually think that NK didnt start nuclear research until Bush stopped giving aid? Let me educate you. Bush stopped giving aid, ie. meeting the terms of the treaty agreement with them because THE NORTH KOREANS TOLD US THEY HAD BEEN RESEARCHING NUKES FOR YEARS UNDER CLINTON in violation of the Nuclear Anti-Proliferation Agreement. Clinton never followed up in NK with any inspections to ensure they were not researching nukes in order to get food aid.

Bottom line, North Korea couldnt have gone from scratch to nuke testing by beginning when GWB took office - they were headed there long before that under Clintons nose.

Think about it.

 

[Mark1031]

Are you truly so ignorant that you actually think that NK didnt start nuclear research until Bush stopped giving aid? Let me educate you. Bush stopped giving aid, ie. meeting the terms of the treaty agreement with them because THE NORTH KOREANS TOLD US THEY HAD BEEN RESEARCHING NUKES FOR YEARS UNDER CLINTON in violation of the Nuclear Anti-Proliferation Agreement. Clinton never followed up in NK with any inspections to ensure they were not researching nukes in order to get food aid.

Bottom line, North Korea couldnt have gone from scratch to nuke testing by beginning when GWB took office - they were headed there long before that under Clintons nose.

Think about it.

You are being misleading. N Korea had lots of plutonium under lock and key and inspected by the IAEA. What they revealed is that they were pursuring a uranium enrichment program. This is a much harder and longer effort and may not have been successful, it certainly would have taken a long time. When Bush abrogated the framework they threw out the inspectors and had a plutonium bomb to test very quickly. It was a horrible policy especially since Bush has nothing to back up his hot air.

Think about it.

 

[MobBoss]

You are being misleading. N Korea had lots of plutonium under lock and key and inspected by the IAEA. What they revealed is that they were pursuring a uranium enrichment program. This is a much harder and longer effort and may not have been successful, it certainly would have taken a long time. When Bush abrogated the framework they threw out the inspectors and had a plutonium bomb to test very quickly. It was a horrible policy especially since Bush has nothing to back up his hot air.

Think about it.

This: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/20/nkorea.timeline.nuclear/ says you are incorrect. A snip:

Oct. 4: A visiting U.S. delegation says North Korean officials revealed that the country has a second covert nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement -- a program using enriched uranium. North Korea later denies this.

What part of "covert Nuclear Weapons Program" is misleading to you?

You dont just go to making a plutonium bomb "very quickly" from scratch and it turns out they pretty much had been working on it for years in violation of their agreement with the USA.

Think about THAT.

 

[Mark1031]

a program using enriched uranium

I rest my case. Thanks.

 

[MobBoss]

I rest my case. Thanks.

What part of second covert nuclear weapons program that used enriched uranium do you not understand????

Oh. My. God.

Do you typically rest your case only on part of the truth? I prefer the whole truth thank you very much. And NK was using enriched uranium as part of a weapons program prior to Bush even taking office. That is what is evident here.

But apparently you only care about the "enriched uranium" part and choose to dance around with your hands on your ears going "lalalala" when the part about "covert nuclear weapons progam" sounds.

You are beyond unbelievable. By all means rest your case. It needs rest. Badly.

 

[Mark1031]

Did you read my post? Do you know anything about the history of this? I don;t deny that they had a covert Nuke program OK. The fact is that enriching uranium is significantly more difficult and would have taken a long time and might not have worked well for them!! OTOH they had loads of plutonium that they could make bomb ready very quickly and they did. Sure they cheated but it was total stupidity to withdraw from negoations and just let them build a bomb. How in your wildest dreams is this any better for anyone. This black and white stupidity is like dealing with a 5 yr old. Oh you cheated I quit. Yea that does a lot of good. Nuke non-prolif is just a delaying tactic. The longer you delay a country the better. This accelerated it. Good Job Bush.

 

[MobBoss]

Did you read my post? Do you know anything about the history of this? I don;t deny that they had a covert Nuke program OK. The fact is that enriching uranium is significantly more difficult and would have taken a long time and might not have worked well for them!! OTOH they had loads of plutonium that they could make bomb ready very quickly and they did. Sure they cheated but it was total stupidity to withdraw from negoations and just let them build a bomb. How in your wildest dreams is this any better for anyone. This black and white stupidity is like dealing with a 5 yr old. Oh you cheated I quit. Yea that does a lot of good. Nuke non-prolif is just a delaying tactic. The longer you delay a country the better. This accelerated it. Good Job Bush.

So, what do you suggest we do to nations that break their treaties and agreements with us? Give them what they want anyway? Boy, that would really work. Thats really going to coerce them to keep to their agreements in the future.

Bottom line, the situation isnt Bush's fault. We have to hold North Korea accountable for breaking their agreements first. Calling off things with NK didnt accelerate squat...they were already on an accelerated path to developing weapons, just covertly. Confronting them on it just made them reveal their real agendas.

You would have the USA be even more of a paper tiger in dealing with powers like NK. Got an agreement with the USA? Well, hell, break it...there are no consequences! You too can have your nukes and eat too.

Thats the message you are sending.

Think about it.

 

[Mark1031]

OK and what price have they paid. Tougher sanction. That will hurt. How long will those last. I'm sure that scares everyone. In return they are now a nuclear power. That is the point of being a paper tiger. We declare this is "unacceptable". Ouch that hurts. My point is that it makes you much more of a paper tiger to make threats and not do anything than to just hold back on the threats. Ya it sucks that nations cheat on agreements. It sucks we can't control the whole world with our mere words. If we are not prepared to invade or bomb NK then you bite your tounge and sit at the table trying to delay their progress as much as possible. You bribe them without saying that is what you are doing. It is the best you can do and in the interest of the country and the world.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Yes modern people are to comfortable to launch a mayor war. Vietnam wasn't that big but it caused a disaster in the US.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Yes modern people are to comfortable to launch a mayor war. Vietnam wasn't that big but it caused a disaster in the US.

What are you talking about? The Vietnam War was the, longest, largest and bloodiest conflict since WWII. Nothing has come close to it since.

 

[Winner]

I agree. People know the US is at least able to kick the **** out of another country, and if we just think in terms of paper tiger, then no, the US is not a paper tiger.

On the other hand, Iraqi forces didn't offer any serious resistance, at least if you don't count a bunch of militiamen with AK-47's as a real resistance.

US has, without any doubt, the most powerful armed forces on this planet, but it appears it is not enough to really control the world and ensure hegemonic stability.

 

[nivi]

What are you talking about? The Vietnam War was the, longest, largest and bloodiest conflict since WWII. Nothing has come close to it since.

Are you sure?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Yes I am sure.

Include the Lao and Cambodian death tolls from the conflict (2nd Indochina War) and the death toll is +5,000,000

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I would say that America definately has the traits of a paper tiger in that on Paper yes, the US can march on into any country it sees fit. That said, I don't believe it has the political capital to do it. Internally and externally amongst its allies. North Korea and Iran are perhaps countries that ideally the US would like to deal with using military force (not saying they do, but it higher officials have said it's an option). At present they don't have the public support to use the force they have.

I wouldn't say that the US is paper tiger but I do feel that it's a caged one.

What are you talking about? The Vietnam War was the, longest, largest and bloodiest conflict since WWII. Nothing has come close to it since.

I think the point that Al is trying to make is that in modern times casualties aren't as accepted as they previously were. The effect of body bags returning from war upon the public support is directly related to how popular the war was in the first place. Obviously the US lost thousands more men in World War 2 and yet there weren't nearly as many protests in entering that war as there was during Vietnam.

Whether the Iraq War was less popular than the Vietnam War at it's launch is open for debate.