colliver19

The real problem is that Japan has little in the way of a military, so it couldn't contribute more than words to "security". Japan may be militarily weak at present, but with such a vast economy and nationalistic population, how long would it take for Japan to form a strong military if required? Japan certainly has the scientific know-how as well.

I was under the impression Kruschev was deposed because he 'backed down' during the Cuban missile crisis. One thing to bear in mind about the Soviet Union is that international trade as a percentage of her GNP was minute. The Soviet Union could, if it had managed her land correctly, have easily fed all the people in her borders. What's to say in the future Russia will not accomplish this? The dismantling of detente certainly had an effect because resources that could have been ploughed into agriculture were diverted to defence. What you have just said is simply false i'm afraid. I'm not disputing that Arab countries are not as industrialised as their western counterparts, but oil revenues have had a vast impact on the standard of living in most Arab nations. Increases in state provisions have touched almost everyone. Kuwait, for example, has a free national health care system for pet animals! - not even western countries can boast that! And I think you only need look at the early 1970s oil crisis to see that countries who control oil supplies can have a dramatic effect on economies of industrialised nations, particularly the United States, Europe and Japan.

I have one thing to say: RUPERT MURDOCH :angry: He own's just about every newspaper in the UK and hundreds more worldwide. He has too much power.

Eh, what? The Soviet Union has never led the world in science and tech. The world has mocked backward Soviet technology as long as I can remember. The fact they put huge resources into the space race and military technology at once point did not mask the fact that throughout the Soviet Union technology lagged a generation behind the West in almost anything you care to discuss. What makes a country great? Size alone? Would the Soviet Union have been "one of the greatest countries on earth" if they were a tenth their size? And nationalism and grandeur wouldn't have kept tens of millions from fleeing to the west if they'd had the opportunity - if the border guards wouldn't have shot them down. Firstly you forget that the economic crises where people had to line up for food generally occurred during the 1980s. During the 1960s and 1970s, when the Soviet Union was at its zenith, these were rare occurrences. I am not trying the say the Soviet Union was a huge success but even anti-Soviet American scholars could not deny vast progress was made in the 1960s and 1970s. In terms of 'mocking' Soviet technology, I am aware that technology used for civilian purposes did not match that in the west, but in terms of technology used for military and industrial applications, it is undeniable that the Soviet Union lead the world. Although size alone does not make a country great, it certainly helps. If the Soviet Union had been tenth the size it would not have been as powerful because the Soviet Union as it was was almost completely self-sufficient in natural resources, and was not at the mercy of other powers to fulfill its needs. I certainly agree that many people would have left the Soviet Union if given the chance, but not tens of millions as you suggest.

I mean visible living standards. Who pays for health, etc. is a question for card shufflers, not a question involving real wealth. In Britain and in Continental Europe, my understanding is that people live in smaller homes, often don't have central air conditioning, etc., comforts which we take for granted. Well I cant't really speak for continental Europe but as far as Britain is concerned we live in smaller homes because we live in a small country!!! (just like Japan). You only need to look at property prices in the UK to see that you could buy a small mansion in the United States for the same price a detached property would cost you in the UK. The average detatched house price in the UK is now just over £285,000 or over US$400,000. Additionally we don't need air-conditioning as the climate is extremely and pleasantly mild - why have something you would never use? I think the only countries in continental Europe where air-conditioning may be needed is Spain, Portugal and perhaps southern France. Then why did so many of their "best and brightest" such as Andrei Sakharov, Alexandr Solzenitsen (sp), Sharansky, etc. feel the need to leave the country, at great personal sacrifice? As far as regions, the totalitarian system drove away the Baltic States, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. Well I agree that the majority of the Baltic States were unhappy under Soviet (Russian) rule, mainly as they had been forced into the Union, but you only need look at how far living standards and GNP have fallen in these countries to see that the Soviet Union did have some social and economic benefits. I have read many articles written by (mainly older) people who live in ex-Soviet countries who can remember the days of the Soviet Union and miss the feeling of belonging to a great state. Nationalism is very important in the minds of many, particularly intellectual, people. There will always be some people who emigrate from country to country, particularly when countries such as the United States can offer them such strong financial incentives! It should also be remembered whilst standards of living could not compare with those in western countries, most people in the Soviet Union could still rely on free state healthcare and social care - what can they rely on now? You said it yourself - 'the best and the brightest' - what about the normal lay person?

You have to ask yourself a question: When the majority of nations dislike America and Israel, is it the majority of nations who are wrong or America and Israel? I know Americans love democracy so its very much a rhetorical question I guess

So now we have the European Union, the African Union, and the North American Union is on it's way as well. Seems like the Globalists have been busy. http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/index/index.htm The AU has been actively involved of the matter for awhile North American Union wont happen, at least not for a long, long time In a way the building of regional unions is stepping back from globalization. Are you concerned about the creation os regional unions? Why or why not? This won't make me popular in Canada or Mexico but I think the North American Union has already happened - it's called United States hegemony in North America. The rules of the union are simple: 1. Canada will do what the United States tells it to. 2. Mexico will do what the United States tells it to.

I think eventually the Western Powers will just have to let the Arab states and Israel fight it out amongst themselves. I realise many Americans and Canadians are pro-Israeli but by supporting Israel they are fighting a battle that can't be won. At this time due to American influence (and vast military aid), Israel has the edge over her Arab neighbours, but eventually China and other powers will come to stage, at the very least as America's equals and they will not be willing to upset the Arab nations (including Iran) particularly China as she has so much economic investment in the region already, let alone in the future. I have no particularly pro-Arab sentiment, but it doesn't take a genius to realise Israel is doomed - her neighbours will absorb her one day, it's the one certainty on this planet today I would say. Israel is just too small and politically isolated in the region to survive. I would hazard a guess by saying if I was alive in 200 years time, a map of the world would show Palestine, not Israel.

I completely agree Margaret Thatcher had her own, quite obnoxious, way of doing things but you have to remember that she did much to restore the UK's international prestige at a time when Britain had just experienced enormous domestic chaos during the 1970s. As for Pinochets' murderous ways i'm not condoning them in anyway, but the government of Argentina at the time of the Falklands War was just as barbaric as that of Chile. Make no mistake the balance of power in South America would be much different today if Britain had not intervened. I presume from your stance you are very much in favour of the rights of the civilians of Chile - how would they have liked a full-scale Argentine invasion in the wake of a 'glorious' re-conquest of the Falklands? You should make no mistake in believing that Argentina would have stopped with the Falklands had she been successful. Chile was another 'thorn in the side' of Argentina. I very much doubt the government of Argentina would have respected the rights of many ordinary Chileans - just as Pinochet didn't.

So you're willing to speak in favour of a murderous thug soley because he supported your country in a war that you concede was pretty much meaningless? Your priorities are perplexing indeed. Well if you put it like that of course. It may have been pointless to people who wern't British, but to us it was a blatant invasion of a British territory. Do you not think America or Canada (if she had the naval capabilities) would react in kind? Don't forget the Falklands Island is populated - by people who overwhelmingly consider themselves British. You should also remember Argentina was ruled by a dictator at the time as well - just as bad as Pinochet i'm sure.

Because that desolate hunk of rock in the south Atlantic was so vital to British interests? And hey, if Maggie Thatcher likes someone, that's a good sign they're a complete bastard. Those two will be sharing a meathook in hell. LOL I think the Falklands were more about international prestige than vital interests. I agree Thatcher was a battleship but she got the job done i guess.

Nah - that did nothing for Britain!

Russia is, like China, a country that cannot get out of its own way. Its "bounceback" is relative, and it is a pygmy, at its most powerful, compared to what it would be if it had the US's or even Canada's internal cohesion. The fact is that the Yeltsin/Putin experience is showing that Russia needs at least a benevolent dictatorship to avoid blowing apart, given the internal rivalries. The fact also is that Moscow's writ has never really run through the country. It might manage a brutal slaughter in Ukraine or against the "kulaks" but it could never exercise long-term control. Even the oil sales don't create the leverage they're cracked up to. The fact is that a resource seller has little choice but to sell resources almost as fast as it can, since oil doesn't lend itself to significant storage. Also, the market dictates where oil is sold to. Even if Russia were to "favor" Cuba by "giving" them oil or selling it at a below-market price, the transportation efficiencies would dictate that Cuba's oil come from Venezuela or Mexico. That is the reason that regimes that theoretically hate the US are always selling it oil; they have no choice. What democracy does is make it more likely that restive populations will stay in the system without the use of force. Also, it minimizes the "brain drain" that is inevitable with totalitarianism. When intelligent people feel stifled, that they cannot get ahead, they leave. That is one of the many reasons that the US, Canada and Australia are light years ahead of Continental Europe in living standards; the loss of millions of talented emigrants during the decades leading up to both of the World Wars did serious damage. Russia could stick its dissidents into Gulags; it could not make them maximize efforts for the USSR or pull together with it I think your last quote is the most important - Russia DID stick its dissidents into Gulags and was still one of the worlds most powerful countries - and the second richest in the world after the United States in terms of total GDP. Also everything in this world is relative - people in different countries have different expectations. You say that the US, Canada and Australia have standards of living light years ahead of the countries of continental Europe, but (speaking as an Englishman) I probably expect different things than you from my government - mainly a much higher level of state involvement in terms of health care and welfare benefits (I wouldn't even dream of buying healthcare insurance, and yes, if I was out of work, I would expect the state to support me financially without question). I think your quote about democracy keeping people 'in the system' is understandable but false. If you look at the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s when she lead the world in science and technology it was nationalism and grandeur that kept people in the system - they knew their country was one of the greatest on Earth - they didn't require democracy for that. I think it's also important to understand that many Russians won't have any knowledge of the concepts of democracy - they grew up in a country where democracy didn't exist - and certainly wasn't taught favourably in any Soviet school textbooks!

This is a strange question: why is it most Europeans (as I am) are pro-Arab whilst most North Americans are pro-Israeli? I agree that both Arabs and Israelis need to compromise, but I feel Israel is just too heavy handed. No wonder Arabs feel discontented.

Iran wants to be recognized as a regional power - asking for Iran's 'help' is a excellent way to turn Iran's ambitions in useful directions. It is quite possible that Iran will be willing to trade nukes for political influence. You seem to forget that Iran is a regional power! I'm European so I have no pro-Iranian feelings, but her large population in a region in which most countries have relatively small populations makes her a regional power right from the get-go - let alone her revolutionary radicalism.