The Golden Horde flinging bubonic plague-infected corpses at Caffa in 1347 isn't about 60 years ago, and even then likely wasn't the first.

Speaking of the plague, the Japanese employed it against Chinese civilians, among other things.

Uh no. Why do you think France and Germany are supporting the US when Bush' administration talks about attacking Iran when they were insanely against attacking Iraq? Because they are now at risk.

This is forward planning being blown far out proportion. I'm sure you could find American plans to annex Canada locked up somewhere or Russian plans to invade some ex-Soviet republics. It's what forward planners are paid to do.

No, they are worried as well as the US about the stability of global markets and their interests in the Gulf. A threat to US/French/German interests does not mean its a threat to the actual countries, and even a complete end to oil exports from the Gulf would not doom the world economy, even though it would be a extreme setback.

Dresden had it coming just like Köln/Cologne, Hamburg, Kiel... You don't start / cheer on a dictator who starts an all out war with your neighbors, invade, destroy and terroize them and then expect retaliation to be all Geneva Conventions and what not.
Just the other week I was among the crowd that blocked a neo-nazi "memorial" march from entering the inner city of Lubeck. Sure, Lubeck was bombed by the British during WWII (that was the occasion alleged by those skinheaded clowns) but so was Coventry, just to name a city in England that was literally wiped from the map.

Agreed. International affairs of the world's so-called super powers always make me picture an angry kid whose lolipop was stolen.

Bush has just dismissed this as wild speculation. While I doubt hes being completely truthful, I think the issue has been successfully resolved.

Is there something I'm missing there ?

It could be April 17 of last year.

Or maybe it's EXTREMELY forward planning, like to the next level!

Perhaps they just ship some early.
I get my issues of Discover Magazine and Popular Science literally one month in advance. For example, in February, we got the March issues.

At first, I thought it was Syria that would be next on the list, but perhaps I was wrong.

It'll probably happen. I thought it was funny to hear today that one of the people who actually HEARD the plans from the higher-ups themselves said, "I had to ask them what they were smoking."

However, bombing the problem is not the solution. We don't need democracy in Iran. I'll take my chances with the current President Mahmoud or the Ayatollah than I would with anything America has to offer. It's not the US's job to go hunting for bombs. It's the UN's.

And on that note, if the US does strike Iran, we need to be kicked out of the UN and not let back in until reparations are paid. Not only would it be a violation of International Law, but it would be despised by most of the world (save for maybe Britain, France, Italy, and of course, Israel). Kicking the US out of the UN might not be the most feasible solution, but the UN needs to grow some balls anyway.

Well, it would be an interesting thing indeed, not the most fortunate of events, but interesting nevertheless. I personally don't think it will happen simply because it would cause a major wave of dissent not only in America but all around the world. Most of these countries see America as an aggressive state trying to push democracy on them, and any study of human emotions will reveal that anger is the direct result of pushing, both on a smaller and a larger scale. They don't care if maybe democracy is a generally good system of government, all they see is violence and the supposed "conquering" of their countries and believe that we are no better than a totalitarian, fascist, or communist regime. Makes no difference what the ideals are. It would be terribly unfortunate to see this pushed even further by either side of the fight, but something will certainly have to happen.

April 17th issue just means they are disclosing what they intend to show in it in advance. It's common for publications to do that, and indeed ship early as well.

That said, it just seems like common military planning. I highly doubt theres an active effort currently going on to find a way to launch an invasion.

As much as some people would like to see it happen, and as much of a threat Iran is right now, I have to say that it won't. Bush is just teetering on the edge of being a lame duck president right now, and proposing a war in Iran when the public sees Iraq as a gigantic quagmire (regardless of whether you think it is or not, the fact is that the majority of people think that Iraq was a mistake) would be political suicide.

Agreed, for the most part.

That would be a very interesting situation if the US were kicked out of the UN. It is a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto power. Plus, if expulsion require a Security Council vote, then it would never happen, because the US could either veto itself, or failing that, persuade one of the other members (most likely Britain) to veto it. Plus, assuming that the US were kicked out, I would be especially curious as to how the government would react, especially considering that the UN is hosted on U.S. soil. And if it were let in again, would it still retain its position on the Security Council?

Interesting points. I didn't think about some of those points, especially about the UN being hosted in NY. That's why I think the UN HQ should move to Switzerland :). Then we wouldn't have to worry about that. The government would more than likely be shocked. Expulsion from the UN shouldn't even have to be voted on by the Security Council though if it is direct violation of an International Treaty. If anything, it should be the World Court that handles that.

The US controls 25% of the world economy and is a sole superpower. Kicking it out of the UN destroys the UN. The US is the worlds only country capable of acting in many situations, and as has been said before - theres only one thing worse than Washington in power, and thats Washington not in power. Whether you like it or not, the US is a stabilizing force in the world, and kicking it out of the UN destroys the body and has huge ramifications.

Besides, no current veto country would accept it. Besides Britain, China, France, and Russia all want the US there. Thinking that UN ejection is even a remote possibility is actually pretty idiotic, for there are so many factors involved in the US's current power. And despite how shaky relations always seem to be with France and Germany, don't forget that they are still three of the worlds closest allies by any standard.

I can only offer the German perspective, but relations were anything but shaky until Bush went over the UN Security Council and invaded Iraq. That one was a killer on many levels.

The UN is dependent on the US for its teeth. Much of UN finances come from the US as well.

Anyway this ploy is just another tactical strategy by the US government to threaten Iran from pursuing nuclear development. I doubt that US will be attacking Iran anytime soon considering they're still tied up over Iraq.

I sure as hell hope you're right. It really bothers me how in George Washington's farewell speech, he specifically said to any future presidents of America something along the lines of "Do your best to remain neutral in world affairs."

Now here we are, the most imperialist country in the world!

As the worlds sole superpower, thats not an option. It ceased being an option after 1945. However, there is a difference between acting in world affairs and being imperialistic. The US needs to act to diffuse conflict and enforce international law in some ways since not doing so would result in flagrant violations. However, invading other countries is a different issue.

Agreed, though I'd argue that China could be called a superpower as well while it messes a lot less with world affairs.

Messing with world affairs isn't one of the criteria for being a superpower.

It's just something a superpower usually does, because it is a superpower. Not the other way around

Keep in mind that at the time, the U.S. was little more than an illegitimate country that had just revolted against Britain. They won the war only because the French arrived at the nick of time and assisted in a vital battle. The U.S. at the time was essentially friendless (except for France), powerless, and defenseless. If they had gotten themselves involved with world affairs at that point, they would have likely been on the receiving end of an invasion and swift defeat.

Styphon coming in and verbally owning me in history occurring in 3... 2... 1...

Good call!

To call the U.S. an illegitimate country that had just rebelled against Britain is inaccurate, since when Washington left the Presidency, the Revolutionary War had been over for 14 years. The nations of the world acknowledged it during that time, including Great Britain, making it legitimate.

Your statement about the U.S. being friendless (save France), powerless and defenseless is also inaccurate in its totality. During Washington and Adams' administrations, the United States and France became increasingly hostile to each other, and more pro-Britain. Towards the end of Adams' administration, in fact, there U.S. fought an undeclared naval war with France. Which the U.S. won. Within a few years, the United States was able to sustain a war in the Mediterranean against the Barbary Pirates. Granted, it wasn't a major war, like the ones being waged in Europe at the same time, but that's still far from home. Powerless countries can't do that.

Stoob's quotation of Washington is also inaccurate. Washington wasn't advocating neutrality, he was advocating not entering "permanent" or "entangling" alliances with other countries. He was all for temporary alliances that served a particular need should one arise, but a permanent alliance would tie the U.S. to other nations, which might become detremental to the U.S. later (as in the case with the alliance with France). His idea was not to promote American isolation from the world, but to let the United States "act for ourselves and not for others." (The next time the U.S. signed a treaty of alliance was 1949.)

Besides, it isn't as if neutrality and imperialism can't co-exist. For most of the Victorian Era, Great Britain remained largely neutral in European affairs, but during that same time, the British Empire expanded to cover 2/5 of the world's land area.

Superpower in the general regard refers to the overwhelming might politically, economically, and militarily. Politically, the nation must have a system which it can export and can survive (ie. Communism or Democracy), it must have an economy capable of dwarfing all other countries (ie. Socialist or Capitalist), and it must have a military capable of projecting its forces in land, sea, and air.

In this regard, China fails all three categories. Part of its peaceful rise policy means that it doesn't export its government system unlike the Soviet Union did, and China's sphere of influence basically encompases Mongolia, the DPRK, Myanmar, and Cambodia. Nowhere near the breadth of America's, which ecompases the Gulf oil nations, India, the rest of Southeast Easia, Western Europe, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.

It does not have an economy even close to rivaling the US. It's GDP in nominal terms is less than 2 trillion USD, less than Germany, Japan, and not much more at all than France, the UK, and Italy. The US economy on the other hand clocks in around 12 trillion USD.

Militarily, China is on the rise, but again, fails miserably. It's nuclear arsenal is its only projection ability. It's navy is far less capable than the British, Japanese, or French navies, and those three navies hardly even come close to rivaling the US. It possess no air projection capacity and thus does not have the infastructure to initiate an invasion of a nation half way around the world, or even far beyond its Western border (Tibet).

So no, I wouldn't consider China a superpower. It's definately on the rise and eventually, it likely will garner the name. But now, definately not.

It sucks that there is the idea of a nuclear strike, even if as a bunk-buster, going through some people's minds.