Will the US remain a world power, if so how, if now why not?

N

Nammy

Guest
U.S. will remain a world power for a long time.

We have the top educational institutions, liberty, technology, etc.

However, China seems to be evolving at an exponential rate... And I don't see a way for us to stop China.
 
Werbung:

curefiend

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
72
First of all, GrassRoot, President Bush is not a dictator. Look up the definition. He is not a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control and quite frankly, throwing that word around in an attempt to vilify our President is contributing to the decline in status that Eternal is describing. Chavez was just handed a dictatorship. The two most notable dictators of today are Fidel Castro and Kim Jong ll. There is no comparison between these men and our President. Intentionally repeating misleading and *untrue* statements is doing nothing to help the situation. What positive impact is making comments like that having? And... if you in fact do live in Michigan he is your President as well.

Eternal, I believe the reason our country has remained strong throughout our history is because of the people. Other than the blip in time during the Vietnam War and *now*, the people held onto a fundamental belief that we had a clear responsibility to unite behind a righteous cause. That does not mean that we viewed ourselves as self-righteous but that our country would always do what was presumed to be moral and fair to all. For the most part it was a correct presumption. The world saw this and respected what we stood for. Not all countries may have liked what they saw but they respected it. There is probably one phrase that stands out as being the most factual as any phrase that you have ever seen tossed about. 'United We Stand, Divided We Fall'. We are divided now. I don't want to point fingers because there is enough "blame" to go around for everyone to share. there is another little used phrase that comes to mind, 'Anytime you point your finger at someone else there are three more pointed back at you'. Get my point? The fact is, there isn't a country on this Earth that could take down the United States. We can and are doing it to ourselves. I believe as you mentioned, we are on the path to imploding and it is for purely selfish reasons. The left sees the world one way and the right can not fathom living a life any way but in a traditional way. Tradition is changing and at such a pace that unity, respect and sanctity are the casualities of it all. You mentioned the word "overthrow". To some that word looks like a good idea. I guess I have to wonder at what price?

What price is worth our selfish desires? Is it the country as a whole?

I have a soft spot for Fidel Castro, so I am not going to touch that subject here.

But you are right on one count, George W. Bush is not a dictator, though I think it is worth noting how shady the last two presidential elections were. But Chavez was not handed a "dictatorship", your statement defending bush on not being a dictator because we can hold this discussion then going straight into calling Chavez a dictator contradicts each other. While I think there is something shady going on, especially with Chavez's recently gained ability to rule by decree for the next 18 months, all of it was done under constitutional and democratic measures, and freedom of speech is still allowed. Essentially Chavez is in a position that Bush was prior to the last election, what Bush wanted he got, and that is going on with Chavez and his Bolivarian revolution right now as well.

And your statements about "no countries able to take down the U.S", I am going to go under the assumption that you speaking militarily. Because economically speaking, there are a couple contenders out there that will eventually "take down the U.S", and as time progresses, military strength becomes useless because old fashioned imperialism is frowned upon. It is now done through globalization and economics. So speaking on those terms, the US will fall and is already in the process due to its self destructive trade policies.
 

curefiend

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
72
U.S. will remain a world power for a long time.

We have the top educational institutions, liberty, technology, etc.

However, China seems to be evolving at an exponential rate... And I don't see a way for us to stop China.


America has long since slipped from being a top contender in education, any given country in the EU has beat the US in civil liberties, the US ranks behind Bolivia in freedom of press (reporters without borders). But I guess you got the technology thing, I haven't looked into that one.
 

InterestedParty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
84
Location
Buffalo, New York
curefiend,

Chavez was indeed handed a dictatorship. Wether it was by democratic means or not, he now has dictator status. For the life of me, I can't understand why the people of Venezuea did that. What he is offering Venezuela may look good today, but tomorrow and all the days after that is something they may come to regret. It does not contradict what I said about Bush either. Bush is not a dictator and he has never had the powers that a dictator has. You said, "what Bush wanted he got,". You think? Did President Bush get the reform of the tax code that he wanted? Was he able to get his plan for Social Security passed? How many of his court appointees made it past the Democrats? Are we drilling in ANWR? What part of all of those did Bush get? How many of his proposed policy changes have been obstructed by the Democrats?

I coudn't agree more about the self destructive trade policies of the United States. Thanks to Bill Clinton, China, the main contender that I know of, gained 30 years on th US all with the stroke of a pen back in the late 90's.

I have got to ask, what about Fidel Castro has you so enamored with him? I sincerely would like to know.
 

curefiend

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
72
curefiend,

Chavez was indeed handed a dictatorship. Wether it was by democratic means or not, he now has dictator status. For the life of me, I can't understand why the people of Venezuea did that. What he is offering Venezuela may look good today, but tomorrow and all the days after that is something they may come to regret. It does not contradict what I said about Bush either. Bush is not a dictator and he has never had the powers that a dictator has. You said, "what Bush wanted he got,". You think? Did President Bush get the reform of the tax code that he wanted? Was he able to get his plan for Social Security passed? How many of his court appointees made it past the Democrats? Are we drilling in ANWR? What part of all of those did Bush get? How many of his proposed policy changes have been obstructed by the Democrats?

I coudn't agree more about the self destructive trade policies of the United States. Thanks to Bill Clinton, China, the main contender that I know of, gained 30 years on th US all with the stroke of a pen back in the late 90's.

I have got to ask, what about Fidel Castro has you so enamored with him? I sincerely would like to know.

Chavez has a rule by decree for a limited amount of time, everything was done constitutionally and democratically, freedom of speech is still in tact, thus he is not a dictator. No one is being killed or dragged off to prison for being Anti-Chavez.

You think the self destructive trade policies began with Clinton? Try Regan, and just kept getting worse from there, it goes beyond China, the "blame Clinton" for everything argument is just childish, and trust me I am no fan of Clinton.

And my interest in Castro is rather nuanced, I promise to share with you my perspective on the matter, just not right now.
 

simex

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
8
Look, I've spent close to two years over in the sandbox interacting with British troops -- they're not all you're cracking them up to be. They're sound fighters and I've gotten along with most of them very well, don't get me wrong, but if I had to go to war with only one ally, it would be Israel.

Having spent time with and trained with both the IDF and the British Army -- I know what I'm talking about.



Revolutionary War (1775) against Britain, War of 1812 against Britain, Spanish-American War (1898) against Spain, WW1 against Germany, WW2 against Germany, Japan.

In each of these conflicts, America was facing a larger, more powerful opponent -- and won.

You should allow history to play a part in your argument and you might be able to actually make an argument as opposed to rehashing the exact same things Brits have been saying since mid-20th century.



The U.S. was just coming into isolationist policy after the late 19th-century/early-20th century imperialist ventures, and thus, we had no reason to meddle in European affairs.

We finally did after the sinking of the Lusitania and Zimmerman telegram, and when we did, we kicked some ass.

Do me a favor and look up the "Siege of Kut". Let me know how this one turned out for the Brits.



Hahaha. Ass kicked at Pearl Harbor? It was an ambush. Saying we had our ass kicked implies that we lined up our armies, navies, and air force side by side and they beat us. Hardly the case...

Anyhow, we nevertheless entered the conflict and was a huge player in Allied victory. Don't forget also, the U.S. responded to Pearl Harbor with the fight against Japan -- had nothing to do w/ Europe. This battle in the Pacific was virtually unilateral -- and the U.S. defeated the world's strongest navy comprised of the most dedicated, fanatical troops in the entire war.

And then in Europe, without Patton, most of the country would be speaking German right now.



We didn't lose in Korea or Vietnam. That's just comical. In fact, it's actually impossible for an insurgency or guerilla war tactics to defeat a conventional army -- and defeat isn't even their purpose. The purpose is to prolong the war until the other side realizes that its not worth the time, money, effort, and life to continue the fight. It's what the NVA and VC did and its what the insurgents in Iraq are doing today.

BTW -- where was GB in the Cold War? It was Ronald "Evil Empire" Reagan and his tough rhetoric and increased arms race that expediated the collapse of the Soviet Union. Stalin and Krushchev were hardly cowards.

The revolutionary war was technically a civil war between Britain and some of her colonies. Doesn't count as an American war, actually the war which lead to the creation of USA.

I got involved in a heated debate on Wikipedia about the 1812 War. Some people were concerned an American website was biased in declaring this conflict a "draw". However, "With stalemate on the battlefields, both nations agreed to a peace that left the prewar boundaries intact." So, at best a draw, mate.

in 1898, Spain was no-longer any kind of military force.

WW1+2, as I said, America didn't get involved until it was forced into it. Unlike Britain, America wasn't defending anything except itself. In WW1, Germany was already on her knees by the time American troops arrived in 1918 - being the straw that broke a camels back is hardly evidence of an "American spirit". In ww2, America was prepared to stand by and watch Britain be destroyed by Nazi Germany without getting involved.

Siege of Kut? What are you saying? That Britain, fighting several powerful countries at once (unlike your war against the solitary weak Spanish) lost a battle, while American soldiers were comfortably tucked up at home?

"And then in Europe, without Patton, most of the country would be speaking German right now."

LOL - Russian, actually. In Europe, the Soviets had destroyed the backbone German army before US troops arrived there. Of course, it would not be in the US's interests to have most of Europe as part of the Soviet Union. But you certainly did not save us from either fate.

The Korean War - a straight forward civil war between armies - ended in stalemate.

Vietnam - "The conflict was a successful effort by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV or North Vietnam) and the indigenous National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, (also known as the Việt Cộng, or more informally as the "Charlie", "VC" or "Cong") to unify Vietnam as a communist state, defeating the South Vietnamese Republic of Vietnam (RVN)."

Militarily, America failed to achieve what it set out to when sending troops to Vietnam. It was NOT a stalemate. Failure = loss. To say the US didn't lose the Vietnam war is absurd and shows the delusional state of your thinking.

"It's what the NVA and VC did and its what the insurgents in Iraq are doing today."

You'd think you'd have learned your lesson then. Why are you in Iraq if you see it going the same way as Vietnam? American spirit or utter folly? Surely the latter.

Where was GB in the Cold War - on the side of Reagan, courtesy of Mrs Thatcher. We were involved in many of the same dubious methods as the US, funding groups like the Taliban and dictators like Sadam Hussien to fight our battles for us.

Is this double-dealing the American spirit?
 

simex

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
8
Simex -- please check out this article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/08/11/do1102.xml

It's written by a British writer entitled "Americans will die for liberty".

Didn't it all start with the English 'Magna Carta':

"Magna Carta was the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. Magna Carta influenced many common law documents, such as the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, and is considered one of the most important legal documents in the history of democracy."

Sorry, dude, it seems it's the British spirit which is the oldest defender of liberty.
 
Werbung:

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
The revolutionary war was technically a civil war between Britain and some of her colonies. Doesn't count as an American war, actually the war which lead to the creation of USA.

I got involved in a heated debate on Wikipedia about the 1812 War. Some people were concerned an American website was biased in declaring this conflict a "draw". However, "With stalemate on the battlefields, both nations agreed to a peace that left the prewar boundaries intact." So, at best a draw, mate.

It doesn't matter who won or lost (though the U.S. won i.e. 1815 Battle of New Orleans -- British took a thumping), you asked mre to provide examples of when America challenged a stronger, more powerful foe -- and I gave them to you.

in 1898, Spain was no-longer any kind of military force.

Wrong. It was still a powerful Old World empire.

WW1+2, as I said, America didn't get involved until it was forced into it. Unlike Britain, America wasn't defending anything except itself. In WW1, Germany was already on her knees by the time American troops arrived in 1918 - being the straw that broke a camels back is hardly evidence of an "American spirit". In ww2, America was prepared to stand by and watch Britain be destroyed by Nazi Germany without getting involved.

America had no reason to get involved in WW1 -- a war caused by Britain's intricate alliance system that was set into motion when a Serbian terrorist killed the heir to the Austrian throne. America did ultimately get involved when Wilson realized his view of an enlightened world word marked by liberalism, democracy, and capitalism could not exist in a world dominated by imperial Germany in addition to Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare.

Again, the U.S. had no reason to get involved in the European theatre other than it did not want to see Europe fall to Nazi Germany. A similar circumstance to WW1.

Siege of Kut? What are you saying? That Britain, fighting several powerful countries at once (unlike your war against the solitary weak Spanish) lost a battle, while American soldiers were comfortably tucked up at home?

Britain capitulated like a 12 year old girl.

Vietnam - "The conflict was a successful effort by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV or North Vietnam) and the indigenous National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, (also known as the Việt Cộng, or more informally as the "Charlie", "VC" or "Cong") to unify Vietnam as a communist state, defeating the South Vietnamese Republic of Vietnam (RVN)."

Militarily, America failed to achieve what it set out to when sending troops to Vietnam. It was NOT a stalemate. Failure = loss. To say the US didn't lose the Vietnam war is absurd and shows the delusional state of your thinking.

"It's what the NVA and VC did and its what the insurgents in Iraq are doing today."

The U.S. wasn't defeated. We just decided that it wasn't worth it financially or militarily to continue to fight and thus, we pulled out. It's not like the U.S. was out of money, ammo, and troops and could no longer fight causing a surrender. U.S. politicians decided that the war was no longer worth fighting. You're right saying we didn't set out to achieve what we wanted, but it wasn't the military's fault -- it was the politicians fault.

You'd think you'd have learned your lesson then. Why are you in Iraq if you see it going the same way as Vietnam? American spirit or utter folly? Surely the latter.

Completely different scenarios.
 
Top