Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 15th, 2012, 02:28 AM   #11

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
Funyuns
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 6,339
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
^I agree with you, Alpin. The world politics right now is dominated by the U.S. and because of that, the alliance is a pseudo one because there is no equality among the nations that cooperate under its umbrella.
I am not sure what either of you are talking about here. If it isn't too much trouble, could either one of you expand on the thought a bit further? Thanks.
Panthera tigris altaica is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 15th, 2012, 02:51 AM   #12

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
Funyuns
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 6,339
Blog Entries: 3

Never mind Dagul or Alpine Luke. I think i got the gist of it and corrected post #10 to reflect it.
Panthera tigris altaica is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 02:54 AM   #13

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,795

After WW2, U.S.S.R. and the U.S. emerged as the superpower, and there were only two major alliances in the world, which are either those that support communist ideology or the democracy under the banner of the Americans, and after the dissolution of Soviet Union, the U.S. remains being the hegemony, thus, the alliances under its banner can't hardly be compared to the likes of the alliance of the entente against the central powers wherein the nations which are members of them were almost equal in terms of economic and military power. As of the moment any so called alliance under the leadership of the U.S. actually means the reliance of them over the American firepower.
dagul is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 02:57 AM   #14

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,795

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica View Post
Never mind Dagul or Alpine Luke. I think i got the gist of it and corrected post #10 to reflect it.
Oh, I still exerted some efforts, but anyway
dagul is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 10:35 PM   #15

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,111
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
After WW2, U.S.S.R. and the U.S. emerged as the superpower, and there were only two major alliances in the world, which are either those that support communist ideology or the democracy under the banner of the Americans, and after the dissolution of Soviet Union, the U.S. remains being the hegemony, thus, the alliances under its banner can't hardly be compared to the likes of the alliance of the entente against the central powers wherein the nations which are members of them were almost equal in terms of economic and military power. As of the moment any so called alliance under the leadership of the U.S. actually means the reliance of them over the American firepower.
Would you say some American allies are merely using The US to help fight their wars? If so, who do you have in mind?
Jake10 is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 01:06 AM   #16

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,407

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake10 View Post
Would you say some American allies are merely using The US to help fight their wars? If so, who do you have in mind?
Modern instances of small states being dependant on the US must surely include Israel and the new regime in Iraq, but I think "merely using" is misrepresenting the situation somewhat.
It has to be a mutually beneficial relationship ... powerful countries just don't support, fund, and arm weaker ones unless they have some vested interest or potentially profit from it in some way.
Sicknero is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 06:23 AM   #17

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,795

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake10 View Post
Would you say some American allies are merely using The US to help fight their wars? If so, who do you have in mind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
Modern instances of small states being dependant on the US must surely include Israel and the new regime in Iraq, but I think "merely using" is misrepresenting the situation somewhat.
It has to be a mutually beneficial relationship ... powerful countries just don't support, fund, and arm weaker ones unless they have some vested interest or potentially profit from it in some way.
I think, Sicknero, aptly answered it.

However, my point is as of the moment, no one shall win against the U.S. Hence, any nation, government or entity, that shall be on its side shall be the victor in any war.
dagul is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
alliance, determines


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Franco-Ottoman alliance macro European History 19 December 22nd, 2013 07:24 AM
the most powerfull alliance ever bartieboy War and Military History 26 November 1st, 2011 09:19 PM
Confederate-Prussian Alliance Duke Speculative History 14 March 29th, 2011 07:46 AM
Auld Alliance Toltec War and Military History 11 October 9th, 2009 12:30 AM
Imperial Alliance Julius Nepos Speculative History 13 August 19th, 2009 07:25 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.