NationStates Jolt Archive

This is not a thread that will blindly hold America up as a symbol of all that is right in the world, stating that we have God on our side etc. And I will not proudly claim that we can take on every other nation on the planet. This is a thread stating the reasons why America will never be conquered.

Want to know why? Because the worlds economy relies upon us. That's it. Whether it's foreign investments in American industries or government gold reserves being physically held in our lands, the collapse of our nation would effect the entire planet. The stock market crash and Great Depression of the 20's and 30's is a prime example of this already happening.

I am not under the delusion that we can hold our own against every nation who would want to conquer us, neither am I under the impression that no nation wants to conquer us. It's simply the fact that, were we to be under threat of invasion and defeat, the other nations of the world would assist us out of necessity.

It's kind of a "Help me, or your son dies" type situation. You might not want to, but you really need to.

Welcome to the Roman empire!!!

Want to know why? Because the worlds economy relies upon us.

Just like the American economy relies on just about any other developed economy on the planet, thanks to its uncontrolled capitalism and consumerism nature.

I am confident that the US of A, much like every other empire during history of mankind before it, will destroy itself or eventually meet its master.

Personally I can imagine that many economies could sustain themselves without the US of A. After all, almost all countries existed long before the US of A and had economies before them. The US do not export overly much, but import quite a lot.

"The U.S. will never be conquered"

I agree, I think it will implode from within in time.

Oh, I know that. I don't mean that we'll remain on top forever, never losing any of our power and influence, I just mean that we shall never be militarily and completely conquered/annexed.

we shall never be militarily and completely conquered/annexed.

Quite predictable also, that if your nation wre at the verge of being defeated or annexed,you would probably rather sacrifice the entire planet in your arrogance by nuking it to hell and back ,than accepting the fact that not even the US of A are infallible.

"The U.S. will never be conquered"

I agree, I think it will implode from within in time.
It'll take time, however. Take the UK, for example. It did decline, but today, it is a wealthy nation that, while they aren't the most powerful, they can hold their own in the world. In a hundred years, the US will be just like the UK is today.

Oh, I know that. I don't mean that we'll remain on top forever, never losing any of our power and influence, I just mean that we shall never be militarily and completely conquered/annexed.

That's what the Romans said... and the Greeks... and the Holy Roman Empire... and the Persians... and the Egyptians... the list is endless.

One day in the future, a foreign army will march through Washington, the same way they marched through Rome, Thebes, Athens, and so on.

It's just a matter of waiting until the US is too weak to resist... though whoever tries will be waiting for quite some time.

In a hundred years, the US will be just like the UK is today

Says the first human to predict the future 100% precisely. I find it more likely that within a hundred years of time, mankind will have disposed of itself or gotten rid of Earth altogether, thanks to nations like the US of A who are willing to oppress many others for their own goals and embrace war.

find it more likely that within a hundred years of time, mankind will have disposed of itself or gotten rid of Earth altogether, thanks to nations like the US of A who are willing to oppress many others for their own goals and embrace war.

Harsh... sadly it seems to be true, but still; harsh.

In a hundred years, the US will be just like the UK is today

Says the first human to predict the future 100% precisely. I find it more likely that within a hundred years of time, mankind will have disposed of itself or gotten rid of Earth altogether, thanks to nations like the US of A who are willing to oppress many others for their own goals and embrace war.
I guess you have plans for a happy retirement.

AKA: Britian Cannot control/annex the US
AKA: Germany Cannot control/annex the US
AKA: France CANNOT (and while i am alive will not)control/annex the US
AKA: <your country here> cannot controll or annex the US

That doesn't mean that whe will always be the world UberPower, just that, to qoute Ted Turner ( :evil: :evil: :twisted: :twisted: )

"Noone will ever catch up to Bill Gates"
Now replace Mr. Mircosoft with USA, and you'll relise that its a bit too late......



This has been your Loyal Bush Supporter reporting....

*Puts American pride away* My nation, America, will eventualy be conquered, implode, etc., as have all the strongest nations of the past. It is inevitable. Nothing lasts forever. SOmeone will rise to take our place, maybe the EU or China, and they will fall and be replaced by someone else. It is an endles cycle.

It is an endles cycle.

Considering the finity of earth and the entire universe, this is not true. However on universalscales of time, the existence of mankind in itself or the existence of any of its nations, including all empires of the present and past, are meaningless.

Want to know why? Because the worlds economy relies upon us. That's it.

Just wait until China embraces capitalism, and we shall see how long the USA remains necessary to global well-being.

Strange, Klonor, you will admit that the US may go through changes or implode, but why is its economic role unassailable?

Bodies Without Organs, you make a good point. Let me re-phrase what I said.

As long as our economic stranglehold on the world stays at its current level we shall not be conquered.

Considering the finity of earth and the entire universe, this is not true. However on universalscales of time, the existence of mankind in itself or the existence of any of its nations, including all empires of the present and past, are meaningless.

As far as we are concerned-sincde the end of man or Earth or the universe is very far off-It's an endless cycle. Other than this, who cares?

I care because endless is endless. Neither mankind nor earth are endless :) I am picky when it comes to correct wording hehe

You can't say the USA is impermeable, because the people might elect the kind of person who makes the wrong decisions and cause all kinds of civil unrest. Most of the goverments in our world depend on one person, whether it's a dictator, a king, a president, etc. I'm not saying that america would elect some sort of power hungry tyrant, it's just possible that a series of weak leaders would lead to the US's downfall. Rome wasn't suddenly destroyed overnight, it took bad descisions and weak rulers to diminish its power until it was finally conqured.

Peace and longevity of the USA does not depend on economics. It was said before WW1 that there would never be another world war because all the nations of Europe depended on each other so heavily for trade and financing and look where that ended up.

I do believe that the USA will never fall to a foreign power, we have the best military in the world. However I do believe that the USA will fall from internal pressure provided that we keep on the same narcissistic track that we are on where anything goes and there are no moral absolutes, and we do not return to the Christian roots of this greatest nation.

Look at all that America has done, it has come to the rescue of Europe two times in two world wars (any word of thank you from France today? the answer ladies and gentlemen would be no), defeated the oppresive "evil empire" as Ronald Reagan so eloquently put it, freed Afghanistan and Iraq from oppresive regimes intent on harming America and the world, has been a shining city on a hill since its founding, and the list goes on and on. Yet there are some in America that would like nothing more than to kow tow to a group of thugs and dictators otherwise known as the real world UN.

I ask for anyone to challenge my statement that America is the greatest nation this world has ever seen. And please, lets not get into any Bush bashing, give real reasons than just saying that Bush sucks cause that shows absolutely no creativity and no original thinking.

Unashamed Christians
<><

Well it's annoying to be all picky about wording, very annoying. It could make someone go postal rather quickly.

Lets look at the great depression, maybe we missed something....
two things...
Japan and Germany were both gaining power, economically and militarily, i dont think it relied upon the American economy then.
Many people want to conquer America, a few have tried, such as Japan and England, both have failed.
Militarily America will never fall, and since ourm ilitary has to be funded we need buildigns,etc. the economy.
Lets refer to i think it was Rosevelt who promised a car in evrey driveway and a chicken in evrey pot ?
well, i think we be hunting the chickens traveling in our cars, but that isnt my point, alot of Americans have guns, and most arent afraid of geurilla warfare, so if you invade America you can excpect not only military resistance, but also civilian resistance, and since an army of one million men has only been accomplished a few times, an army large enough to control the USA, while also suppressing riots and revolts in the USA, and defending the home country, well it would be to illogical, not to mention to get here you gotta travel over one of two oceans (i base that on the fact that not many south american nations have even remotely enough strength to attack the USA, and Canada, well, i dont think they have enough men either.)
but also, Relegiously speaking, we have supported Israel most of the time, and most Americans are relegious one way or another, so we have somewhat prosperd.
so, basically i agree america wont fall, for awhile anyway, but for different reasons.

I think if we are conquered, it will be from within, and we will end up living in a completely different country. Different from what we set out to be at our inception, and different from what we are used to.

Trouble is, we won't notice until it is too late. Apathy kills.

"Never" is a very, very long time to make such a bold statement. IT is typical American arrogance, thinking we're immortal when we're a mere 200 years old. Global politics and economics can change a lot in a couple decades. Quicker than that even.

There have been many times in history when another nation is dependent, ultimately, on the economy of another, and that this has not prevented a war. Many times it's been the cause of it. After all, if America was truly the center of the world's economy, who wouldn't want to grab hold of it all one day? Who's to say? In the long run it's almost inevitable.

The USA has many advantages, but knowing history, I wouldn't say it's invulnerable in any sense.

I ask for anyone to challenge my statement that America is the greatest nation this world has ever seen

I prefer the Roman empire. At least people had, for a long time before Christianity reared its ugly head, a lot more civil rights than today.

"Greatest nation" is debatable. For me, Germany is the Greatest nation, for French, France might be the Greatest natio, for Britons the UK .. etc. etc.

The arrogance to call yourself "Greatest nation this world has ever seen" is proof enough that you are bound to destroy yourself because of your inherently evil and -as you would call it - sinful attitude towards all other nations of the world.

God Bless America!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.huether-net.de/lsimg/ron76.jpg
If I leave here tommorow, will you still remember me?

I ask for anyone to challenge my statement that America is the greatest nation this world has ever seen

I prefer the Roman empire. At least people had, for a long time before Christianity reared its ugly head, a lot more civil rights than today.

"Greatest nation" is debatable. For me, Germany is the Greatest nation, for French, France might be the Greatest natio, for Britons the UK .. etc. etc.

The arrogance to call yourself "Greatest nation this world has ever seen" is proof enough that you are bound to destroy yourself because of your inherently evil and -as you would call it - sinful attitude towards all other nations of the world.

I'm sorry, but in Roman society, women were possessions. They were often left exposed out of doors at birth, because they were a financial liability, and if they were saved from this, it was usually to be raised in a brothel. As slaves. Speaking of slaves, the Romans kept many, and their treatment was as harsh as that of the slaves we kept in the beginning of the US. The only people allowed a vote were men who were not slaves.

I'd say in civil rights terms, it wasn't better.

God Bless America!
I dont believe in a higher being, but fuck it: GOD BLESS GERMANY!

I'd say in civil rights terms, it wasn't better.

At least the wording of your sentence indicates that you have accepted that it also wasnt worse, despite its many shortcomings, which eventuallyled to its demise.

Look at all that America has done, it has come to the rescue of Europe two times in two world wars (any word of thank you from France today? the answer ladies and gentlemen would be no)...


You know, there were other countries bleeding for Europe. Let's not worry about whose beach was biggest.

Perhaps the lack of gratitude is due to the fact that it was expected. Sort of a 'will-welcome-us-with-parades-and-flowers" mentality.

I'd say in civil rights terms, it wasn't better.

At least the wording of your sentence indicates that you have accepted that it also wasnt worse, despite its many shortcomings, which eventuallyled to its demise.

Actually, I look at the Roman empire and see the United States. There are a lot of similarities. The arrogance and reliance on military strength are foremost.

Bread and circuses, friend. Bread and circuses.

Look at all that America has done, it has come to the rescue of Europe two times in two world wars (any word of thank you from France today? the answer ladies and gentlemen would be no)...

Pay attention: did Jack Chirac giving the highest French military honour to American veterans of D-Day pass you by completely?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/05/dday.honors.ap/

Next time before you spout off about foreign countries you should do a smidgeon of research to save yourself looking ignorant.

Thats it exactly. The Roman empire ended due to its size and the inability of its administration to control it universally. The US might get there perhaps, if the citizens remain apathic and accept everything their administration does, be it violating international laws to limiting their own rights. The US will fall most likely due to the same things that destroyed the Roman empire and every other empire before it - except China, which until today, is the oldest and surprisingly still "doing ok" empire of the world.

*smiles sweetly*

Yeah, but in China, you don't dare say you're unhappy with the current administration. :twisted:

The stock market crash and Great Depression of the 20's and 30's is a prime example of this already happening.




Umm... actually, the Great Depression is an example of the US economy collapsing due to the faltering of economies in Europe, not the other way around. I'm not arguing with your conclusion, just how you got there.

Kloner~ You act like everything on Earth revolves around the USA, yet u ignore the fact that while we help support the other countries in the world they help is as well

You also mention the 20's and 30's as an example, but the world has changed a lot since the Great Depression. Find a map of Europe then, and now, it looks quite different. At that time the world had just gotten out of WWI and they depended on the US because we were one of the 2 countries that got out of WWI better than when we went in it.

Not only this but you ignore 9/11 and all the terrorists. Nobody knows the future, but we do know that the terrorists are out there. They could possibly become more capable in future years as well.

Then u say that the other countries will help us. So what if another country becomes more powerful then us. So the other nations will assist because of neccesity to them because now they are more powerful.

No, I'm not against the US, I'm just against the people that think we are better than everyone else, this is why other countries think we are arrogant.

You're whole thread is based on outdated facts and no look into what could become, as well as incredibly biased.

Yeah, but in China, you don't dare say you're unhappy with the current administration.

Then maybe it is the reason why China is so successful? Considering that China has always been under the totalitarian rule of someone or some party (emperor or communist party) and the Chinese seem to have a much different mindset than Europeans, Australians or Americans, it might be their elixir for becoming this old as a nation?

The stock market crash and Great Depression of the 20's and 30's is a prime example of this already happening.




Umm... actually, the Great Depression is an example of the US economy collapsing due to the faltering of economies in Europe, not the other way around. I'm not arguing with your conclusion, just how you got there.
Not true. The US supported European economies, and it seemed to work fine. The problems were at home. Everyone bought using loans and credit, and that's fine. The problem was when they bought stock on credit. But this was merely one factor. Others included oversupply of goods, a wide rich-poor gap in which society bought little of these goods, and very bad banking practices. European economies fell simply because their American lenders went bankrupt.

So many people talking about Rome, and I beat you all to it. Good for me.

No, I am not ignorant concerning world affairs. Chirac giving France's highest military honor to American WW2 veterans is meaningless. France is sucking up and is looking for any way of getting back into Iraq after deserting us so that they can cash in on the huge rebuilding contracts being given out. That goes for Germany as well.

Come to think of it, when was the last time the French fought militarily and won? France is just jealous and they would like nothing more than to knock off the US. Like my favorite civics teacher said in high school, the French are nothing more than cheese eating surrender monkies.

A lot of people said that defeating communism couldn't be done and yet Reagan pulled it off, a lot of people say that you can't have a stable democracy in the Middle East and all of those people will be eating crow decades from now. It will not happen overnight but democracy will flourish in the Middle East because freedom cannot be defeated. Give a people just a little taste of freedom like Gorbachov did in the Soviet Union, and you will not be able to hold them back.

Unashamed Christians
<><

Like my favorite civics teacher said in high school, the French are nothing more than cheese eating surrender monkies.

You have teachers teaching your children stuff like THIS?!?! That explains a lot of things... You get taught to be racist/arrogant/anti-whatevernationhere during early childhood already. No wonder most of what I read from Americans is utter nonsense that "stinks to hell and back".

Come to think of it, when was the last time the French fought militarily and won?

WWII - 1945.
Chad - 1979.
Comoros - 1990.

(Shall we bother mentioning that the US owes its very existence to the alliance it held with France during the War of Independence?)

Like my favorite civics teacher said in high school, the French are nothing more than cheese eating surrender monkies.

It sickens me that such people are given positions of influence over impressionable young minds.

The Eldar from Warhammer 40k popped up into my mind.

The United States may destroy itself with weapons, choke itself with pollution, or starve itself without oil. The blind faith of the masses and lack of skepticism is an insult to the Constitution. I don't care if a God exists; right and wrong are poor concepts if they are supported by poor ideals and more concepts without substance. Heaven or Hell! I don't care which on I go to. As long as I have a free mind and ability to judge everything else, I don't care. I may be wrong, but than again . . .

. . . You may be too.

(Shall we bother mentioning that the US owes its very existence to the alliance it held with France during the War of Independence?)

They burned down the white house.

(Shall we bother mentioning that the US owes its very existence to the alliance it held with France during the War of Independence?)

They burned down the white house.
A better answer would be: Should we bother mentioning that France owes its very existence to the alliance it held with the US during World War Two

(Shall we bother mentioning that the US owes its very existence to the alliance it held with France during the War of Independence?)

They burned down the white house.

Are we talking about the British in 1812?

If so,
1.) what year do you think the War of Independence/Revolutionary War was fought in?
2.) what do the British have to do with the matter at hand?

The U.S. doesn't need to be conquered, we are destroying ourselves. The terrorists accomplished their goal as far as I see it, We are losing personal freedoms, and approval from other nations.

It is in my opinion that the U.S. is reaping what it had sown a while back, when we would just "oust" a leader of a foreign country wherever if they didn't agree with U.S. policy. I think my own country is a bully.

I would say it is more like we depend on other countries... Ever notice that about 70% of our goods say "made in [insert foreign country with cheap workers here]"?

(Shall we bother mentioning that the US owes its very existence to the alliance it held with France during the War of Independence?)

They burned down the white house.
A better answer would be: Should we bother mentioning that France owes its very existence to the alliance it held with the US during World War Two
A better answer would be: Should we bother mentioning that Germany owes its crippled existence to the alliance France held with the US during World War Two? I guess it is better to exist in a crippled state than exist with a Nazi regime leading the country... although it is impossible to say what would have happened, hadthe US not interferred in the war. After all, we are not transdimensional mediums who can foretell the (possible) past.

(Shall we bother mentioning that the US owes its very existence to the alliance it held with France during the War of Independence?)

They burned down the white house.
A better answer would be: Should we bother mentioning that France owes its very existence to the alliance it held with the US during World War Two

How about considering the deal all square then - US owes France nothing, and France owes the US nothing?

that's better. Seeing as how I'm tired of people saying "Omigod...the US owes itself to FRANCE and look at how it acts!"

Without a mere mention of the Allies in WW2...

They burned down the white house.

Seeing as how Lithuanighanistania seems to have disappeared can any one else explain this to me?

They burned down the white house.

Seeing as how Lithuanighanistania seems to have disappeared can any one else explain this to me?

He said that France burned down the White House. I am sure he is either ignorant of history, or ment the British in the War of 1812, one of the two.

Bodies Without Organs, you make a good point. Let me re-phrase what I said.

As long as our economic stranglehold on the world stays at its current level we shall not be conquered.
Right now with Bush strangling the US economy, that may not be for very much longer?

And the American economy relies on the world. Dont you see, America has already done the conquering.

"The U.S. will never be conquered"

I agree, I think it will implode from within in time.
It'll take time, however. Take the UK, for example. It did decline, but today, it is a wealthy nation that, while they aren't the most powerful, they can hold their own in the world. In a hundred years, the US will be just like the UK is today.

In response to the notion that foreign armies shall march into Washington...it is geographically impossible given America's Naval dominance and Air supremacy. When in a defensive position, a strong nation is able to hold the line quite easily.

As for the quoted scenario, I am in agreement there. Interesting little fact I picked up today...

In the 19th century it was believed that Europe would be destroyed in the 20th century (including Britain) and that New Zealand would take over as the "New Britain" (as laughable as that truly is...it is quite true as to the belief) and...uh... :lol: ...rule the world.

I believe that Asia will become extremely powerful over the next 100 years unless we cap their economic development and/or radically change our development - i.e. renewable energy. If we do not need oil, then we do not need the Middle East or Asia. Let them lose their export base. China is the big concern - its economy is out of control and could trigger a global depression if left in its present state.

A smart move would be for the Commonwealth of Nations to forge a giant trade bloc (with the US included - the USA is actually permitted to be a member of the Commonwealth due to its past under British rule). The British were foolish not to when the Commonwealth formed in 1931. It could still happen.

I would say America is beginning to enter its autumn.
Its original ideas at its foundation have been corrupted in the midst of decadence following its amazing wealth, realpolitik and petty political sniping on both sides.
Power has corrupted it.
Examine American foriegn policy as an example; it has been purely practical within the last 50 years ensuring that American dominance is assured and that pragmatism is hidden by a guise of protecting an almost meaningless and yet so-loved term, freedom.
America is a young nation, but perhaps it has aged too quickly......

This is the new world, not antiquity. All empires come to an end.
Live fast, Die young.

This is the new world, not antiquity. All empires come to an end.
Live fast, Die young.

Actually...

Hispanics are a fast growing face of the US population. That, plus a pro-China democrat in the White House (Like Clinton) and the US won't have to worry about being conquered...all the current minority groups will band together and seize the ballot instead!

Military conquest of a great nuclear power isn't very likely to be successful if undertaken by any nation on Earth. Space aliensn are another matter. :) The USA hasn't a chance in hell of conquering and holding Russia in the conventional sense, though at the moment we could effectively end both of our days as significant world power. The same goes for Russia in regards to the USA. Our nuclear weapons guarantee that we will never be successfully invaded and conquered, though that does not preclude the destruction of the nation.

Britain (once known as "Great Britain") dominated world trade to a far greater extent than the US does today.

It controlled an Empire the size of which allowed them to boast that "the sun never set on the British Empire".

You do not have to go back too far to find them as the dominant player in the world.

And today?

No empire, irrespective of its basis, lasts forever.

we shall never be militarily and completely conquered/annexed.

Quite predictable also, that if your nation wre at the verge of being defeated or annexed,you would probably rather sacrifice the entire planet in your arrogance by nuking it to hell and back ,than accepting the fact that not even the US of A are infallible.

Hell yes!

Look at all that America has done, it has come to the rescue of Europe two times in two world wars (any word of thank you from France today? the answer ladies and gentlemen would be no)...


You know, there were other countries bleeding for Europe. Let's not worry about whose beach was biggest.

Perhaps the lack of gratitude is due to the fact that it was expected. Sort of a 'will-welcome-us-with-parades-and-flowers" mentality.

That and Germany would still have been crushed if the U.S. had not entered the war. The Russians had plenty of people to sacrifice on that venture.

The only difference would have been the aftermath in Europe. A Soviet Europe...

Look at all that America has done, it has come to the rescue of Europe two times in two world wars (any word of thank you from France today? the answer ladies and gentlemen would be no)...


You know, there were other countries bleeding for Europe. Let's not worry about whose beach was biggest.

Perhaps the lack of gratitude is due to the fact that it was expected. Sort of a 'will-welcome-us-with-parades-and-flowers" mentality.

That and Germany would still have been crushed if the U.S. had not entered the war. The Russians had plenty of people to sacrifice on that venture.

The only difference would have been the aftermath in Europe. A Soviet Europe...

heh, im actually writing a book about what that would have been like :D

Please do it more justice than Command and Conquer.

And let me know when that is ready for production. Sounds interesting to say the least.

Please do it more justice than Command and Conquer.

um.... im sorry, but that was just ridiculous. albert einstein going back in time to kill hitler? please. :wink:

Wow I had completely forgotten about that facet. I was talking about the gameplay in general but yes, how disgusting that was.

*vomit*

Wow I had completely forgotten about that facet. I was talking about the gameplay in general but yes, how disgusting that was.

*vomit*


it was still a cool strategy game though

I dunno. I enjoyed the first C&C and then after that I just felt that they marketed it to death.

Tiberian Sun???

I waited, what... Like five years for that piece of junk?

Blerg...

I dunno. I enjoyed the first C&C and then after that I just felt that they marketed it to death.

Tiberian Sun???

I waited, what... Like five years for that piece of junk?

Blerg...

even red alert 2? and what about generals?

i think we're doing such a good job of buggering ourselves,
(with bush's 'sun never sets' ambitions)
why would anyone need to?

(not to mention worshiping the automobile, clearcutting, and romantacizing aggressiveness)

=^^=
.../\...

Let's test that theory... http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/6603/aniflags/flag1.gif

i think we're doing such a good job of buggering ourselves,
(with bush's 'sun never sets' ambitions)
why would anyone need to?

(not to mention worshiping the automobile, clearcutting, and romantacizing aggressiveness)

=^^=
.../\...

the hell are you talking about?

Ehhhh...

Red Alert 2. Ok I'll give you that.

Generals never really caught my interest though.

I like the more realistic military games like Close Combat and Sudden Strike (semi-realistic). The second Sudden Strike was actually more realistic seeing as in the first a couple guys with hand grenades could destroy a Tiger tank. *shakes head*

Ehhhh...

Red Alert 2. Ok I'll give you that.

Generals never really caught my interest though.

I like the more realistic military games like Close Combat and Sudden Strike (semi-realistic). The second Sudden Strike was actually more realistic seeing as in the first a couple guys with hand grenades could destroy a Tiger tank. *shakes head*

well, there are some really good mods for generals. and what about any of the newer strategy games coming out? (rome total war, the new LOTR game, and the warhammer 40k game)

i think we're doing such a good job of buggering ourselves,
(with bush's 'sun never sets' ambitions)
why would anyone need to?

(not to mention worshiping the automobile, clearcutting, and romantacizing aggressiveness)

=^^=
.../\...

It's called unilateralism. Get used to it. A whole lot more where that came from.

And I for one, say it's about damned time. We may fall one day, but for now let us take our rightful place as the world's Oppressor. :D

Think...

Massive, Westernized oil production protected by super-robots who smother their enemies with naked photos of Rosie O'Donnell.

Now that's a weapon of mass destruction!

Look at all that America has done, it has come to the rescue of Europe two times in two world wars (any word of thank you from France today?

WW2, fair enough. But in WW1, the French killed more and lost more men than any other major belligerent. And a humiliating fact for you: The US air corps used FRENCH planes. Well, You guys conveniently forget that fact, don't you?

I ask for anyone to challenge my statement that America is the greatest nation this world has ever seen. And please, lets not get into any Bush bashing, give real reasons than just saying that Bush sucks cause that shows absolutely no creativity and no original thinking.

Greatest? No. Most Powerful? Yes. And your definition of great is subjective. What is great in your eyes may very well be someone elses hell. Like mine. All I have to do is look at the US health and education systems....The income distribution....and I don't see great anywhere. Sorry.

To Greater Valia:

Isn't that new LOTR game just a rip-off of Warcraft 3?

Same graphics engine. I think they just changed the units.

Still... Would be interesting to play if I hadn't wasted all my money on .wma files off Wal-Mart.com

Never told me it would only let me play them with Windows Media Player and if I transferred them to a different computer they wouldn't work.

Off topic.

/end rant

To Greater Valia:

Isn't that new LOTR game just a rip-off of Warcraft 3?

Same graphics engine. I think they just changed the units.

Still... Would be interesting to play if I hadn't wasted all my money on .wma files off Wal-Mart.com

Never told me it would only let me play them with Windows Media Player and if I transferred them to a different computer they wouldn't work.

Off topic.

/end rant

no, thats the old one that came out a while ago. that was made with the book licences. the new one is being made by EA with the movie licences, they showed it off at E3 this year and it looks great. check it out at www.ign.com

Look at all that America has done, it has come to the rescue of Europe two times in two world wars (any word of thank you from France today?

WW2, fair enough. But in WW1, the French killed more and lost more men than any other major belligerent. And a humiliating fact for you: The US air corps used FRENCH planes. Well, You guys conveniently forget that fact, don't you?

I ask for anyone to challenge my statement that America is the greatest nation this world has ever seen. And please, lets not get into any Bush bashing, give real reasons than just saying that Bush sucks cause that shows absolutely no creativity and no original thinking.

Greatest? No. Most Powerful? Yes. And your definition of great is subjective. What is great in your eyes may very well be someone elses hell. Like mine. All I have to do is look at the US health and education systems....The income distribution....and I don't see great anywhere. Sorry.

so sorry, that was the russians

I am hungrily awaiting Half Life 2. I don't know if you've played Half Life or any of the modifications, but Day of Defeat was not "half" bad.

In fact it was great. And with Half Life 2's easy modding, giant battles with vehicles will be readily available. I salivate every time I think of battling through the streets of Stalingrad.

Please, oh gracious Lord, don't let them f*ck up.

I am hungrily awaiting Half Life 2. I don't know if you've played Half Life or any of the modifications, but Day of Defeat was not "half" bad.

In fact it was great. And with Half Life 2's easy modding, giant battles with vehicles will be readily available. I salivate every time I think of battling through the streets of Stalingrad.

Please, oh gracious Lord, don't let them f*ck up.

ah, that came out of nowhere. start a new thread for game discussion as we have hijacked this one. (do it now boy!)

In a hundred and fifty (or maybe as soon as 30) years or so, those will be nothing but punch lines (assuming punch lines still exist 150 years from now).

You're right, the United States is extremely unlikely to be conquered in the conventional military sense of the word (but its not impossible) within the foreseeable future. It is more likely to implode when the social/economic/racial friction of some description reaches a critical mass, then America will carve itself into little pieces.

So, Americans, while you're right now you're the nation which is rolling the dice. Remeber there is a price to Greatness.

JiangGuo

Yes but I'll be long dead before we fall and, hopefully, there will be someone in power who annihilates the entire world as punishment for the downfall.

You know... Like in The Stand... They didn't have to send the infected people to other countries, but they did anyway.

Heh...

*achoo*

who annihilates the entire world as punishment for the downfall

As far as I am concerned, it is not the world's responsibility to ensure that the US of A will remain the military-oppressive and dominant superpower of the world. I am sure the US of A are capable of doing that themselves, if they manage to control their own problems first and foremost, instead of trying to shape the world the way they want it to be.

who annihilates the entire world as punishment for the downfall

As far as I am concerned, it is not the world's responsibility to ensure that the US of A will remain the military-oppressive and dominant superpower of the world. I am sure the US of A are capable of doing that themselves, if they manage to control their own problems first and foremost, instead of trying to shape the world the way they want it to be.
But that's no fun! Surely, when you spend on the military more than, what, 20 other top spenders combined, THE fun thing to do is to dispatch your military into a foul-smelling Mesopotamian morass. :twisted:

Oh.. I think I could find a foulsmelling and stinking morass directly in Washington DC.. that the White House is still white with so much stink and slime in it, is of course amazing...

Oh.. I think I could find a foulsmelling and stinking morass directly in Washington DC.. that the White House is still white with so much stink and slime in it, is of course amazing...

the hell are you talking about? i think you got carried away with your witty and clever reply that you forgot you had to make a fucking point without being confusing as all hell

I do not see and have experienced a real difference in people, at least their behavior, motives and deeds.

Our western modern empire rules the rest for now with firm ground on technique, green revolution, massive consumption and ruled by dictation of the super rich clans while selling freedom.

It seems that the top in indulging in comfort are north american people,
working to strike it rich be happy while living with the freedom to choose your car, the model and color.

So now we people are stuck with ourself, your debt of Trillions, your polluted environment, a government you have earned with a senate of millionares ruled by oil rich military leader who has been willing to kill own people, or did you buy that Boeing attack on Pentagon?

A healthcare system for the middle class and up, your schooling a disaster, in short we will use whatever until the end. A leader earning over 400 times the avarage wages and getting even more from new tax laws. Hell is just around that corner but unlikely we are to see it as for our more more is better blindness. When we see that 2000 ft wave it will be too late.

True that no army can invade your workers paradise, why would any group want to? They them whoever commies, druggies, extremists and the latest fashion: Terrorists hate your freedom? hihihi
Your private armyCo spreading your love, compassion, patience, respect the world over, especially around oil, pipelines, prisons and the like.

How about an attack from above? Tension growing near the fault lines, Yellowstone super volcano overdue, rapid weather freaky stuff killing the plain harvest, tidal waves from Iceland or Las Palma, a few nukes from russia with love where anything can be bought.

I belive in Karma on basis of my own recurring mistakes and the pay that they gave me sometimes years later. No land but USA has been willing to experiment with nukes on and for people. Now that is a mighty bill, I would not stay somewhere eastcoast for long.

So to me we are in deep shit and I welcome the pay to come soon as to be over with that. I figure early next decade or end this one for people to start dying massively.....more more more into them Billions maybe a hand full.

You think you can stop a petty little virus? Global warming? Yourself?

I am not under the delusion that we can hold our own against every nation who would want to conquer us, neither am I under the impression that no nation wants to conquer us. It's simply the fact that, were we to be under threat of invasion and defeat, the other nations of the world would assist us out of necessity.

It's kind of a "Help me, or your son dies" type situation. You might not want to, but you really need to.

Let´s be serious: What country is REALY THREATHENING AN INVASION OF THE USA. The answer is NONE. However their are countries which are threatening american interests around the world. Since the US is the only remaining super power it has interests around the world and its vulnerable around the world. It has - in a way - taking over a position from Britain and the British empire. The British are now happy to serve as the american junior partner, while the empire was bigger once (actually till World war II and the independence of India).
The US is the only super-power and is going to remain in this position for many decades to come. The only potential rival in the long-run is China.
The real power-games of the future are going to take parth in the Asian-pacific region. The rise of China leads to more chinese influence in the entire region (South-East Asia, Taiwan). There are potential conficts and potential chines ambitions. China was historically the HEGEMONIC power of East Asia. It plans to be that again and due to its population and POTENTIAL economic and military power it seems likely that it can regain that position. The only country which can be a counter-balance to China is the US. I hope that the US is then not to distracted in conflicts in the wider Middle East, as it needs to stand firm in that region as well.

If the world is going to have an hegemonic power I wish that it is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. No other power should be in that position because all others would be a lot worse.

I do not agree that the US of A are the "only" superpower. I would like to quote a text which I do agree with:

The Second Superpower Rears its Beautiful Head (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jmoore/secondsuperpower.html)

James F. Moore - http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/moore.html
Berkman Center for Internet & Society - http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/
jmoore@cyber.law.harvard.edu
Monday, March 31, 2003
Available as PDF - http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jmoore/secondsuperpower.pdf
Jim Moore's Weblog - http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jim/


As the United States government becomes more belligerent in using its power in the world, many people are longing for a “second superpower” that can keep the US in check. Indeed, many people desire a superpower that speaks for the interests of planetary society, for long-term well-being, and that encourages broad participation in the democratic process. Where can the world find such a second superpower? No nation or group of nations seems able to play this role, although the European Union sometimes seeks to, working in concert with a variety of institutions in the field of international law, including the United Nations. But even the common might of the European nations is barely a match for the current power of the United States.



There is an emerging second superpower, but it is not a nation. Instead, it is a new form of international player, constituted by the “will of the people” in a global social movement. The beautiful but deeply agitated face of this second superpower is the worldwide peace campaign, but the body of the movement is made up of millions of people concerned with a broad agenda that includes social development, environmentalism, health, and human rights. This movement has a surprisingly agile and muscular body of citizen activists who identify their interests with world society as a whole—and who recognize that at a fundamental level we are all one. These are people who are attempting to take into account the needs and dreams of all 6.3 billion people in the world—and not just the members of one or another nation. Consider the members of Amnesty International who write letters on behalf of prisoners of conscience, and the millions of Americans who are participating in email actions against the war in Iraq. Or the physicians who contribute their time to Doctors Without Borders/ Medecins Sans Frontieres.



While some of the leaders have become highly visible, what is perhaps most interesting about this global movement is that it is not really directed by visible leaders, but, as we will see, by the collective, emergent action of its millions of participants. Surveys suggest that at least 30 million people in the United States identify themselves this way—approximately 10% of the US population. The percentage in Europe is undoubtedly higher. The global membership in Asia, South America, Africa and India, while much lower in percentage of the total population, is growing quickly with the spread of the Internet. What makes these numbers important is the new cyberspace-enabled interconnection among the members. This body has a beautiful mind. Web connections enable a kind of near-instantaneous, mass improvisation of activist initiatives. For example, the political activist group Moveon.org, which specializes in rapid response campaigns, has an email list of more than two million members. During the 2002 elections, Moveon.org raised more than $700,000 in a few days for a candidate’s campaign for the US senate. It has raised thousands of dollars for media ads for peace—and it is now amassing a worldwide network of media activists dedicated to keeping the mass media honest by identifying bias and confronting local broadcasters.



New forms of communication and commentary are being invented continuously. Slashdot and other news sites present high quality peer-reviewed commentary by involving large numbers of members of the web community in recommending and rating items. Text messaging on mobile phones, or texting, is now the medium of choice for communicating with thousands of demonstrators simultaneously during mass protests. Instant messaging turns out to be one of the most popular methods for staying connected in the developing world, because it requires only a bit of bandwidth, and provides an intimate sense of connection across time and space. The current enthusiasm for blogging is changing the way that people relate to publication, as it allows realtime dialogue about world events as bloggers log in daily to share their insights. Meta-blogging sites crawl across thousands of blogs, identifying popular links, noting emergent topics, and providing an instantaneous summary of the global consciousness of the second superpower.



The Internet and other interactive media continue to penetrate more and more deeply all world society, and provide a means for instantaneous personal dialogue and communication across the globe. The collective power of texting, blogging, instant messaging, and email across millions of actors cannot be overestimated. Like a mind constituted of millions of inter-networked neurons, the social movement is capable of astonishingly rapid and sometimes subtle community consciousness and action.





Thus the new superpower demonstrates a new form of “emergent democracy” that differs from the participative democracy of the US government. Where political participation in the United States is exercised mainly through rare exercises of voting, participation in the second superpower movement occurs continuously through participation in a variety of web-enabled initiatives. And where deliberation in the first superpower is done primarily by a few elected or appointed officials, deliberation in the second superpower is done by each individual—making sense of events, communicating with others, and deciding whether and how to join in community actions. Finally, where participation in democracy in the first superpower feels remote to most citizens, the emergent democracy of the second superpower is alive with touching and being touched by each other, as the community works to create wisdom and to take action.



How does the second superpower take action? Not from the top, but from the bottom. That is, it is the strength of the US government that it can centrally collect taxes, and then spend, for example, $1.2 billion on 1,200 cruise missiles in the first day of the war against Iraq. By contrast, it is the strength of the second superpower that it could mobilize hundreds of small groups of activists to shut down city centers across the United States on that same first day of the war. And that millions of citizens worldwide would take to their streets to rally. The symbol of the first superpower is the eagle—an awesome predator that rules from the skies, preying on mice and small animals. Perhaps the best symbol for the second superpower would be a community of ants. Ants rule from below. And while I may be awed seeing eagles in flight, when ants invade my kitchen they command my attention.



In the same sense as the ants, the continual distributed action of the members of the second superpower can, I believe, be expected to eventually prevail. Distributed mass behavior, expressed in rallying, in voting, in picketing, in exposing corruption, and in purchases from particular companies, all have a profound effect on the nature of future society. More effect, I would argue, than the devastating but unsustainable effect of bombs and other forms of coercion.



Deliberation in the first superpower is relatively formal—dictated by the US constitution and by years of legislation, adjudicating, and precedent. The realpolitik of decision making in the first superpower—as opposed to what is taught in civics class—centers around lobbying and campaign contributions by moneyed special interests—big oil, the military-industrial complex, big agriculture, and big drugs—to mention only a few. In many cases, what are acted upon are issues for which some group is willing to spend lavishly. By contrast, it is difficult in the US government system to champion policy goals that have broad, long-term value for many citizens, such as environment, poverty reduction and third world development, women’s rights, human rights, health care for all. By contrast, these are precisely the issues to which the second superpower tends to address its attention.



Deliberation in the second superpower is evolving rapidly in both cultural and technological terms. It is difficult to know its present state, and impossible to see its future. But one can say certain things. It is stunning how quickly the community can act—especially when compared to government systems. The Internet, in combination with traditional press and television and radio media, creates a kind of “media space” of global dialogue. Ideas arise in the global media space. Some of them catch hold and are disseminated widely. Their dissemination, like the beat of dance music spreading across a sea of dancers, becomes a pattern across the community. Some members of the community study these patterns, and write about some of them. This has the effect of both amplifying the patterns and facilitating community reflection on the topics highlighted. A new form of deliberation happens. A variety of what we might call “action agents” sits figuratively astride the community, with mechanisms designed to turn a given social movement into specific kinds of action in the world. For example, fundraisers send out mass appeals, with direct mail or the Internet, and if they are tapping into a live issue, they can raise money very quickly. This money in turn can be used to support activities consistent with an emerging mission.



The process is not without its flaws and weaknesses. For example, the central role of the mass media—with its alleged biases and distortions—is a real issue. Much news of the war comes to members of the second superpower from CNN, Fox, and the New York Times, despite the availability of alternative sources. The study of the nature and limits of this big mind is just beginning, and we don’t know its strengths and weaknesses as well as we do those of more traditional democracy. Perhaps governance is the wrong way to frame this study. Rather, what we are embarked on is a kind of experimental neurology, as our communication tools continue to evolve and to rewire the processes by which the community does its shared thinking and feeling. One of the more interesting questions posed to political scientists studying the second superpower is to what extent the community’s long-term orientation and freedom from special interests is reinforced by the peer-to-peer nature of web-centered ways of communicating—and whether these tendencies can be intentionally fostered through the design of the technology.



Which brings us to the most important point: the vital role of the individual. The shared, collective mind of the second superpower is made up of many individual human minds—your mind and my mind—together we create the movement. In traditional democracy our minds don’t matter much—what matters are the minds of those with power of position, and the minds of those that staff and lobby them. In the emergent democracy of the second superpower, each of our minds matters a lot. For example, any one of us can launch an idea. Any one of us can write a blog, send out an email, create a list. Not every idea will take hold in the big mind of the second superpower—but the one that eventually catches fire is started by an individual. And in the peer-oriented world of the second superpower, many more of us have the opportunity to craft submissions, and take a shot.



The contrast goes deeper. In traditional democracy, sense-making moves from top to bottom. “The President must know more than he is saying” goes the thinking of a loyal but passive member of the first superpower. But this form of democracy was established in the 18th century, when education and information were both scarce resources. Now, in more and more of the world, people are well educated and informed. As such, they prefer to make up their own minds. Top-down sense-making is out of touch with modern people.



The second superpower, emerging in the 21st century, depends upon educated informed members. In the community of the second superpower each of us is responsible for our own sense-making. We seek as much data—raw facts, direct experience—as we can, and then we make up our own minds. Even the current fascination with “reality television” speaks to this desire: we prefer to watch our fellows, and decide ourselves “what’s the story” rather than watching actors and actresses play out a story written by someone else. The same, increasingly, is true of the political stage—hence the attractiveness of participation in the second superpower to individuals.



Now the response of many readers will be that this is a wishful fantasy. What, you say, is the demonstrated success of this second superpower? After all, George Bush was almost single-handedly able to make war on Iraq, and the global protest movement was in the end only able to slow him down. Where was the second superpower?



The answer is that the second superpower is not currently able to match the first. On the other hand, the situation may be more promising than we realize. Most important is that the establishment of international institutions and international rule of law has created a venue in which the second superpower can join with sympathetic nations to successfully confront the United States. Consider the international effort to ban landmines. Landmines are cheap, deadly, and often used against agrarian groups because they make working the fields lethal, and sew quite literally the seeds of starvation. In the 1990s a coalition of NGOs coordinated by Jody Williams, Bobby Muller and others managed to put this issue at the top of the international agenda, and promote the establishment of the treaty banning their use. For this, the groups involved were awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. While the United States has so far refused to sign the treaty, it has been highly isolated on the issue and there is still hope that some future congress and president will do so.



At the Kyoto meetings on global climate change, a group of NGOs coordinated by Nancy Keat of the World Resources Institute joined with developing nations to block the interests of the United States and its ally, big oil. The only way for the United States to avoid being checkmated was to leave the game entirely. In the World Trade Organization, the second superpower famously shut down the Seattle meeting in 1999, and later helped to force a special “development round” focused on the needs of poor countries. That round is currently underway—and while the United States and others are seeking to subvert the second superpower agenda, the best they have achieved to date is stalemate.



And finally, while George Bush was indeed able to go to war with Iraq, the only way he could do so was to ignore international law and split with the United Nations. Had he stayed within the system of international institutions, his aims likely would have been frustrated. The French and the Germans who led the attempt to stop him could not, I believe, have done what they did without the strength of public opinion prodding them—the second superpower in action.



Now we all know that the Bush administration has decided to undermine, in many cases, the system of international law. Some argue that by pulling out, the administration has fatally damaged the international system, and ushered in a new era where the United States determines the rules—hub and spoke style—through bilateral deals with other nations. The result, some will say, is that the second superpower no longer has a venue in which to meet the first effectively. In my view this is an overly pessimistic assessment—albeit one that members of the second superpower need to take seriously and strive to render false by our success in supporting international institutions.



International law and institutions are not going away. Too many parties want and need them. First, individuals around the world are becoming more globally aware, and more interested in international institutions. Global media, travel, and immigration all contribute to citizens being aware of the benefits of consistent approaches to everything from passport control to human rights. It is striking, for example, that up until the final days before the war, a majority of the US population wanted the president to deal with Iraq in concert with the United Nations. Second, business organizations want global rule of law. Global trade is now central to a vast majority of businesses and almost all nations—and such trade requires rules administered by multilateral bodies. Third, most nations want a global legal system. In particular, European nations, wary of war, outclassed in one-on-one power confrontations with the United States, have become strongly committed to a post-national world. They are pouring collective national resources of enormous magnitude into continuously strengthening the international system.



The key problem facing international institutions is that they have few ways to enforce their will on a recalcitrant US government. And this is where the second superpower is a part of the solution. Enforcement has many dimensions. When the United States opts to avoid or undermine international institutions, the second superpower can harass and embarrass it with demonstrations and public education campaigns. The second superpower can put pressure on politicians around the world to stiffen their resolve to confront the US government in any ways possible. And the second superpower can also target US politicians and work to remove at the polls those who support the administration’s undercutting of international law.



Longer term, we must press for a direct voice for the second superpower in international institutions, so that we are not always forced to work through nations. This means, as a practical matter, a voice for citizens, and for NGOs and “civil society” organizations. For example, the Access Initiative of the World Resources Institute is working to give citizens’ groups the ability to influence environmental decisions made by international organizations such as the World Bank. The Digital Opportunity Task Force of the G8 group of nations included a formal role for civil society organizations, as does the United Nations Information and Communications Technology Task Force.



Overall, what can be said for the prospects of the second superpower? With its mind enhanced by Internet connective tissue, and international law as a venue to work with others for progressive action, the second superpower is starting to demonstrate its potential. But there is much to do. How do we assure that it continues to gain in strength? And at least as important, how do we continue to develop the mind of the second superpower, so that it maximizes wisdom and goodwill? The future, as they say, is in our hands. We need to join together to help the second superpower, itself, grow stronger.



First, we need to become conscious of the “mental processes” in which we are involved as members of the second superpower, and explore how to make our individual sense-making and collective action more and more effective. This of course means challenging and improving the mass media, and supporting more interactive and less biased alternatives. But more ambitiously, we will need to develop a kind of meta-discipline, an organizational psychology of our community, to explore the nature of our web-enabled, person-centered, global governance and communication processes, and continue to improve them.



Second, and ironically, the future of the second superpower depends to a great extent on social freedoms in part determined by the first superpower. It is the traditional freedoms—freedom of the press, of assembly, of speech—that have enabled the second superpower to take root and grow. Indeed, the Internet itself was constructed by the US government, and the government could theoretically still step in to restrict its freedoms. So we need to pay close attention to freedom in society, and especially to freedom of the Internet. There are many moves afoot to censor the web, to close down access, and to restrict privacy and free assembly in cyberspace. While we generally associate web censorship with countries like China or Saudi Arabia, tighter control of the web is also being explored in the United States and Europe. The officials of the first superpower are promoting these ideas in the name of preventing terrorism, but they also prevent the open peer-to-peer communication that is at the heart of the second superpower. We need to insist on an open web, an open cyberspace, around the globe, because that is the essential medium in which the second superpower lives.



Third, we must carefully consider how best to support international institutions, so that they collectively form a setting in which our power can be exercised. Perhaps too often we attack institutions like the World Bank that might, under the right conditions, actually become partners with us in dealing with the first superpower. International institutions must become deeply more transparent, accessible to the public, and less amenable to special interests, while remaining strong enough to provide a secure context in which our views can be expressed.



And finally, we must work on ourselves and our community. We will dialogue with our neighbors, knowing that the collective wisdom of the second superpower is grounded in the individual wisdom within each of us. We must remind ourselves that daily we make personal choices about the world we create for ourselves and our descendants. We do not have to create a world where differences are resolved by war. It is not our destiny to live in a world of destruction, tedium, and tragedy. We will create a world of peace.

The USA are a "dieing breed" of superpower. Oppressing humans and controlling humans with fear and poverty, will not work in the future. The time for this worldwide change has not yet come, but the USA are working towards it every day. More and more people accept the peaceful movement against an imperialistic hegemony, the change from the bottom. What is required, is the awakening of mankind as a collective will, recognizing that from birth to death and in our nature, we are one.

No, I am not ignorant concerning world affairs. Chirac giving France's highest military honor to American WW2 veterans is meaningless. France is sucking up and is looking for any way of getting back into Iraq after deserting us so that they can cash in on the huge rebuilding contracts being given out. That goes for Germany as well.

Come to think of it, when was the last time the French fought militarily and won? France is just jealous and they would like nothing more than to knock off the US. Like my favorite civics teacher said in high school, the French are nothing more than cheese eating surrender monkies.

A lot of people said that defeating communism couldn't be done and yet Reagan pulled it off, a lot of people say that you can't have a stable democracy in the Middle East and all of those people will be eating crow decades from now. It will not happen overnight but democracy will flourish in the Middle East because freedom cannot be defeated. Give a people just a little taste of freedom like Gorbachov did in the Soviet Union, and you will not be able to hold them back.

Unashamed Christians
<><


Have you ever met a French person? I have and they're really interesting people that aren't all that different from us. You are judging the entire people of France by looking at their politicians. Personally, I wouldn't want to be judged by what my politicians do, so why do it to them.

France's wars and what they have won and lost have nothing to do with anything. They would gain nothing by knocking off the US. Most people who are against France do not understand the culture of France and how they work.

You should first try to understand a population before trying to steryotype against them. Did you research at all the culture of France? I doubt it. All you are doing is taking information that other people have told you and spitting it back out.

...Instead it will be anniliated and/or blown off the face of the friggin' earth thanks in part to it's inherent stupidity which is the fault of the British because they're the ones who sunt over the colonists that started America. Long live the Morons!

...Instead it will be anniliated and/or blown off the face of the friggin' earth thanks in part to it's inherent stupidity which is the fault of the British because they're the ones who sunt over the colonists that started America. Long live the Morons!

Which means that the entire world will be "blown off the face of the friggin' " Earth. God bless the ICBM.

Just for the record...the USA had very limited involvement in WWI. We really didn't SAVE anyone. we just helped out once it was clear who would win. And although we may have taken sadaam and Bin Laden out of power...all i read about are bombings and killings. There is no order in these countries. Bin Laden is still alive somewhere planning a new evil plot and if it isn't him then someone else will. The USA has started a war they can never win. No matter who u kill, their supporters or sons or followers will step into their shoes. It is a never ending cycle. And though this will not destroy America, a good deal of innocent life will be ended. When it comes down to it...yes we will most likely be taken over by someone at some point before all these planets explode. And if by some reason that does not occur, then we will soon bring about our own destruction with all our destruction of the environment. In the end...all human life will be destroyed by global warming or lack of resources, so it doesn't matter if we are conquered or not.

Look at all that America has done, it has come to the rescue of Europe two times in two world wars (any word of thank you from France today? the answer ladies and gentlemen would be no)
.....
America is the greatest nation this world has ever seen.
<><

you think usa is some kind of heaven with all the gods? I see usa as a big destroyer of this world. everything they do they do becouse of their own good. they come here as some pious rescuer althought they just want some stupid oil or just show their power.
if not military, they come here anyway destroying every culture. their movies are everywhere, their stupid food places are in every corner and their massive companies oppress their workers and customers.
is that enough reasons for you? usa isn't the greatest nation for any good reason. and you think that europe should thank you?
you'd better believe, that you aren't the greatest ones althought you really seem to think so.

I agree. Just like the Roman Empire was never really conquered, it just disintegrated bit by bit, pretty much collpasing on itself.

I don't think the USA will necessarilly follow that path, the world being what it is now. It's more likely that countries will start to merge with each other.

I agree. Just like the Roman Empire was never really conquered, it just disintegrated bit by bit, pretty much collpasing on itself.

I don't think the USA will necessarilly follow that path, the world being what it is now. It's more likely that countries will start to merge with each other.

Actually the Roman Empire was destroyed in a combination of self-disintegration and conquest by Germanian and Hun barbarians.

It was finally extinguished by the Ottoman Turks when they took Constantinople, the Capital of the Byzantine Empire.

Uh...for the person who believes the European Union will be the next superpower...think again.

European nations have some of the most declining birth rates in the world. Italy alone will have a population decline of 12,000,000 over the next 45 years. The damage this will cause to Italy's economy is enormous. Germany shall drop by 4 million, Spain by 8 million and Poland by 5 million.

Alone this represents a decline of 29 million people in the next 46 year (out of a total of 4 nations belonging to the EU)

Yet the USA has a booming population...and will grow by 125 million people - the highest level of growth in the industrialised world.

While the US will continue to be the dominant nation on Earth...India, Indonesia and China will emerge as significant powers. However...their power will rely on imports of raw materials from nations like the USA, Australia and African nations which are resource plentiful. Or...they will decided to take these by force (which is why fellow Australian NS players we need the USA on our side).

Indonesia will likely start to fragment in the future, IMHO.

The possibility is less likely for China and India, but still there.

Why does everyone think China or the EU are the next superpowers? A significant block of the EU MEP's are now ehll-bent on destroying the EU, and unless China embraces capitalism and democracy, they're not gonna get any more powerful. And if China does make those changes, they're going to have massive social problems on their hands - do u realise just how much of China isn't actually made up of Chinese people? In the late 1800's to mid 1900's China absorbed several nations around it, and when democracy comes those nations (eg. Tibet, the western regions of China) are gonna want out. Besides, China is hardly the future - it's older then the US!

And for everyone who thinks the US is going to end up in a "all of Rome" scenario, I'm afraid you're lacking historical context. Nations no longer "fall" like they used to. Centuries ago, nations did rise and fall and cease to exist, but the last time that happened was the Byzantine Empire. In more modenr history, the "fall" of nations is a reduction in power, eg. the Turkish Empire fell but Turkey still exists, the British Empire fell but Britain is still among the most powerful countries on Earth, communism fell but Russia hasn't lost much besides some territory and it' still the second most powerful country on Earth.

As you can see, the "fall" of nations has gradualy been becoming less and less traumatic or important. Centuries ago, nations could fall as most people were peasants who didn't care who ruled them. Now, the "fall" of a nation woudl require genocide. I don't see that happening to any nation in the future, leats of all the US.

We have reached the age of the enduring superpowers, nations that adapt themselves to stay on top.


And is it our fault if other nations embrace our culture and food? If the world was dominated by French culture, they would use that as "proof" that their culture was superior, as it was taking over the world. At least US culture brings democracy with it.

The USA has already been subverted by foreign influences and ideas. If only we had listened to Senator McCarthy.



Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

Christ, this joker again :roll: Look at his thread to see how amature his view is.


China will become the worlds leading Economic power, and all power stems from that. It will do so with only a chunk of it's population and few large costal cities embracing pure Capitalism.

The EU is also a rising power, didn't the Union in America have it's opposition? Infact, wasn't there a civil war about it? :roll:
As a bloc, it is highly strenthened in it's industrial and economic output plus its own consumerism. I suggest you read 'Power and Utopia' , a work on Americas officail view on the EU superstate. It will happen.


The arragance of your poriginal post two, don't you realise great powers and empires rise and fall constantly, that diring each one they belived that they were the ultimate state (Rome, Prussia, Athens, America{see Francis Fukayama's offici8al accepted theory on 'The End of History', a true joke}) but they rise and fall. Was Egypt, was Persia, was GReece, was Macedonia, was Rome, was Germany{Holy Roman Empire}, was differing powers in Europe, was britian, was russia, was America, and in the future it will be China and the EU.

Hubris, arragamnce and pride on your power leads to your downfall. Vietnam is a practical example of that which was a sharp reminder to your leaders not to have complete faith in the ability of American Power, sadly that lesson seems to be forgoten in all but the PR department.

Christ, this joker again :roll: Look at his thread to see how amature his view is.


China will become the worlds leading Economic power, and all power stems from that. It will do so with only a chunk of it's population and few large costal cities embracing pure Capitalism.

The EU is also a rising power, didn't the Union in America have it's opposition? Infact, wasn't there a civil war about it? :roll:
As a bloc, it is highly strenthened in it's industrial and economic output plus its own consumerism. I suggest you read 'Power and Utopia' , a work on Americas officail view on the EU superstate. It will happen.


The arragance of your poriginal post two, don't you realise great powers and empires rise and fall constantly, that diring each one they belived that they were the ultimate state (Rome, Prussia, Athens, America{see Francis Fukayama's offici8al accepted theory on 'The End of History', a true joke}) but they rise and fall. Was Egypt, was Persia, was GReece, was Macedonia, was Rome, was Germany{Holy Roman Empire}, was differing powers in Europe, was britian, was russia, was America, and in the future it will be China and the EU.

Hubris, arragamnce and pride on your power leads to your downfall. Vietnam is a practical example of that which was a sharp reminder to your leaders not to have complete faith in the ability of American Power, sadly that lesson seems to be forgoten in all but the PR department.

As I mentioned previously...the EU has a declining birth rate and will likely slow economically. The USA has a booming birth rate and will continue to be the world's strongest nation.

China, although strong, will fail to match the USA...however I have a feeling that China will overheat within the next 10 years and mass recession will hit...however...as long as China doesn't float their currency, the rest of the world will not suffer too much.

Christ, this joker again :roll: Look at his thread to see how amature his view is.

"Again" I haven't posted on this thread before. And your opinion that I am an "amateur" appears to be simply based on the fact I haven't read this "Power and Utopia" book, which is probably just one man's views on the future, becuase we all know those books are always right. Try looking at the World and making up your own opinions for a change.


China will become the worlds leading Economic power.

Yeah, just like Russia has since it became capitalist.


The EU is also a rising power, didn't the Union in America have it's opposition? Infact, wasn't there a civil war about it? :roll:

Nope. The civil was was about the right of states to secede from the union, granted, but they wanted to secede as a uniform body, and those opposed to the EU want to secede on their own. Europe has been divided for over two thousand years. I hardly think they're all going to become a unified people now just because someone set up a pale replica of the UN. A poweful EU parlianment is about as likely as a powerful UN parlianment. Not going to happen.



The arragance of your poriginal post two, don't you realise great powers and empires rise and fall constantly, that diring each one they belived that they were the ultimate state (Rome, Prussia, Athens, America{see Francis Fukayama's offici8al accepted theory on 'The End of History', a true joke}) but they rise and fall. Was Egypt, was Persia, was GReece, was Macedonia, was Rome, was Germany{Holy Roman Empire}, was differing powers in Europe, was britian, was russia, was America, and in the future it will be China and the EU.

Well, ignoring the poor spelling and grammar, you still didn't manage to say anything relevant. The analogy of the US being an empire is flawed, as an empire is a state where one people rule sover other peoples, who make up the majority in the empire. The US is a single nation and people, living on it's own land, with no significant ethnic groups there. The only similarity the US bears to an empire is size. By your definition, Canada, Russia, China and Brazil are all empires too.
And you didn't disprove my theory that the "falls" of nations are becoming less and less serious over time. I assume that you couldn't think of a counter arguement.


Hubris, arragamnce and pride on your power leads to your downfall.

I would remind you that "hubris" is a Greek word reffering to a certain type of arrogance, one in which the party places themself "above the gods". As America seems to be heavily influenced by the religious, (the words "under God, in god we trust, so help me god" come to mind) America is hardly placing itself above God. Heck, Bush says he works for him, so your choice of the word "hubris" was a poor one.

You're Scottish, I take it?

China is hardly the future - it's older then the US!

Well duh.. the US are so baby-age .. just about the entire world is older than the US.

And is it our fault if other nations embrace our culture and food? If the world was dominated by French culture, they would use that as "proof" that their culture was superior, as it was taking over the world. At least US culture brings democracy with it.

If having Democracy means that I have to accept the US dominating the entire world, then I think I'll rather want an emperor again. US world domination = no thank you. Come to Europe again and we'll kick you right out.

....indeed.....


Well duh.. the US are so baby-age .. just about the entire world is older than the US..

That was my point. We are the future. Liberty and justice for all, and all that.


If having Democracy means that I have to accept the US dominating the entire world, then I think I'll rather want an emperor again. US world domination = no thank you..

Come on, we've done more good than the British did when they were in charge. Without the US, there would be no modern democracy (and don't talk abou the British Parlianment; as a title from one of my history book soges "The un-democratic (British) system in the 1800's". That wasn't a real democracy, even by the standards of that time.


Come to Europe again and we'll kick you right out.

Because Europe has such a great track record in wars against the US. I count 5 wars the US has fought against European nations, and we won 4 outright and drew with another (the of War of 1812; neither side made any gains, both won battles and both lost battles. Nothing was resolved. Pointless war.) Besides, half of the Europeans are pacifists and wouldn't ifght back! :D

Spanish Biru,

I support the US and I want that the european countries - including my country - to be junior partner of the US. Therefore I applaude the policy of Blair.

Regarding China: you shouldn´t underestimate it. By the way: 92% of Chinese are HAN-Chinese. China is not the Soviet Union (which really was a multi-ethnic state- only 50-60% russians). In Tibet the Han-Chinese are already making up MORE than 50% of the population. Tibet is already Han-chinesized.
The bigger problem for the Chinese leadership is Sinkiang and the muslim minority over there (the Uigures). However. The chinese government is supporting Han moving to Sinkiang and to Tibet. Even in Sinkiang almost 50% are Han-Chinese now and the number of Han in those provinces is increasing due to the chinese policy. Because of that and the fact that more than 90% of Chinese are Han it is highly unlikely that any region would try to split apart.


So: you need to be weary of them. However: the Chinese are needing energy imports (Russia, Central Asia, Arabia). The close partnership with Russia is therefore a good thing for American interest. And the presence on the Persian golf region is of course very helpful to preserve the american power. However: you need to be wary of East Asia as well: North Korea and China-Taiwan are potential areas for a confrontation.
China is also having enormous economic potential in the long-run.
I don´t believe it is going to be the second super power in any foreseable time-frame. But it is potentially the number II of world politics.

Uh...for the person who believes the European Union will be the next superpower...think again.

European nations have some of the most declining birth rates in the world. Italy alone will have a population decline of 12,000,000 over the next 45 years. The damage this will cause to Italy's economy is enormous. Germany shall drop by 4 million, Spain by 8 million and Poland by 5 million.

Alone this represents a decline of 29 million people in the next 46 year (out of a total of 4 nations belonging to the EU)

Yet the USA has a booming population...and will grow by 125 million people - the highest level of growth in the industrialised world.

While the US will continue to be the dominant nation on Earth...India, Indonesia and China will emerge as significant powers. However...their power will rely on imports of raw materials from nations like the USA, Australia and African nations which are resource plentiful. Or...they will decided to take these by force (which is why fellow Australian NS players we need the USA on our side).

You are absolutly right. As a matter of fact: those countries which Rumsfeld called new Europe actually have the lowest birth rates.
But the birth rate of the US isn´t that high as a matter of fact. It is 2,0 child per woman (in order to keep the population on the same level you would need 2,1). That´s almost the same as France and Irealand (both above 1,9). But Germany (1,3), Italy, Spain, Portual (all 1,2) and the east Europeans (1,17 in Czech Republic for expample - simular numbers in the baltic states) and also to a lesser degree Brtain 1,6) are decreasing the average.

However: if you only look to birth rates even the US population would decline. The reason for the expected growth is immigration.
Europe is going to have immigration as well - i don´t like it but as a european I know we need it - But we need immigrants we need (qualified workers) and not who need us (unqualified workers, refugees). But those group can be more attracted by the US. English is the lingua franca of the world. European countries, especially the non-English-speaking have little chance in the competition for the smartest brains.

The only position for the Europeans left is the position to be the junior partner of the US. Europe will lose relevance - however that could partly be outweight by closer cooperation between the countries. The nominative power of the facts (declining relevance for the individual nations) is going to lead to a more common european policy in order not to become completly irrelevant. That´s my believe at least.
However: even than Europe can only be the junior partner of the US.

Uh...for the person who believes the European Union will be the next superpower...think again.

European nations have some of the most declining birth rates in the world. Italy alone will have a population decline of 12,000,000 over the next 45 years. The damage this will cause to Italy's economy is enormous. Germany shall drop by 4 million, Spain by 8 million and Poland by 5 million.

Alone this represents a decline of 29 million people in the next 46 year (out of a total of 4 nations belonging to the EU)

Yet the USA has a booming population...and will grow by 125 million people - the highest level of growth in the industrialised world.

While the US will continue to be the dominant nation on Earth...India, Indonesia and China will emerge as significant powers. However...their power will rely on imports of raw materials from nations like the USA, Australia and African nations which are resource plentiful. Or...they will decided to take these by force (which is why fellow Australian NS players we need the USA on our side).

You are absolutly right. As a matter of fact: those countries which Rumsfeld called new Europe actually have the lowest birth rates.
But the birth rate of the US isn´t that high as a matter of fact. It is 2,0 child per woman (in order to keep the population on the same level you would need 2,1). That´s almost the same as France and Irealand (both above 1,9). But Germany (1,3), Italy, Spain, Portual (all 1,2) and the east Europeans (1,17 in Czech Republic for expample - simular numbers in the baltic states) and also to a lesser degree Brtain 1,6) are decreasing the average.

However: if you only look to birth rates even the US population would decline. The reason for the expected growth is immigration.
Europe is going to have immigration as well - i don´t like it but as a european I know we need it - But we need immigrants we need (qualified workers) and not who need us (unqualified workers, refugees). But those group can be more attracted by the US. English is the lingua franca of the world. European countries, especially the non-English-speaking have little chance in the competition for the smartest brains.

The only position for the Europeans left is the position to be the junior partner of the US. Europe will lose relevance - however that could partly be outweight by closer cooperation between the countries. The nominative power of the facts (declining relevance for the individual nations) is going to lead to a more common european policy in order not to become completly irrelevant. That´s my believe at least.
However: even than Europe can only be the junior partner of the US.

Well the US birth rate is actually 2.06 (the highest in the industrialised world). Europe will not be able to counter its extreme birth rate decline with immigration - to do this they would need to let in many hundreds of thousands of people each year - but from where?

Total Fertility Rates:

France - 1.71
Germany - 1.36
England - 1.74
Italy - 1.22
Spain - 1.15

...just to name a few

With booming economies in the USA and Australia, many Europeans will begin seeking a new life in both places, further adding to Europe's declining and ageing population (the young ones will leave).

I think ya'll are all forgetting that birth rates aren't fixed, they fluctuate. If Europe needed more people it would be easy to run a program sposering having more children, so I do not think this is a legitamit argument. While I dont neccesarily think the EU will conquer the US I do think that it has a lot of economic power and should definetly be treated with respect. Personally I think that China will be the most powerful nation in the future. Right now the US has its eyes on the middle east and China is getting some of the islands in the pacific. If the US does nothing to stop it, they could become very powerful.

Please do it more justice than Command and Conquer.

um.... im sorry, but that was just ridiculous. albert einstein going back in time to kill hitler? please. :wink:

I'm afriad you quote quiet badly. It was Nikola Tesla!

JiangGuo

Well the US birth rate is actually 2.06 (the highest in the industrialised world). Europe will not be able to counter its extreme birth rate decline with immigration - to do this they would need to let in many hundreds of thousands of people each year - but from where?

Total Fertility Rates:

France - 1.71
Germany - 1.36
England - 1.74
Italy - 1.22
Spain - 1.15

...just to name a few

With booming economies in the USA and Australia, many Europeans will begin seeking a new life in both places, further adding to Europe's declining and ageing population (the young ones will leave).




Well: I don´t know where you got your numbers. I can give you the numbers from eurostat of 2002 of all 25 EU-members.

Child per woman:
Irland 1,97
France 1,89
Netherlands 1,73
Denmark 1,72
Finnland 1,72
Sweden 1,65
UK 1,64
Luxemburg 1,63
Belgium 1,62
Cyprus 1,49
Portugal 1,47
Malta 1,46
Austria 1,40
Estonia 1,37
Germany 1,31
Hungary 1,30
Italy 1,26
Greece 1,25
Spain 1,25
Lithuania 1,24
Latvia 1,24
Poland 1,24
Slovenia 1,21
Slovakia 1,19
Czech Republic 1,17


You see BIG DIFFERENCES between the different countries.
While France and Ireland almost have the same numbers as the US, others have much lower. About two to three decades ago the french number was almost the same than the german number. However they managed to increase it. Other countries are also "working" on that. The same was the case in skandinavian countries. One way how government can promote more children is to offer more kindergarten places and schools who offer lessons or other options also on the afternoon on all work days (Monday-Friday). Germany has started such a program to increase the number of full-day schools.
Another way is to give more tax benefits for children.
Those instrument can be combined, of course.
However: changes in that field need a lot of time.

Regarding the economic development: the economies in Eastern Europe are booming. They are still "underdeveloped" economies. They have a very huge growth potential.
That´s of course also helping the old members who benefit because of the trade with the east europeans.
Bye the way: the EU can still enlarge: before 2004 they were 15 countries, now there are 25 and in three years there are going to be 27-28 countries. And in a longer perspective there are going to be 30-40 members.
The EU is and remains the biggest market of the world.
On the economic field I see the perspective of a stronger Europe in future.
Bye the way: if we are talking about economic strength we must relativate. For example: China is richer than Belgium. But if you look how much is there per citizen (per head) Belgium are much richer.
The percentage of the EU on the world economy may decrease but the GDP per head of Europe is and remains high and still increases.

The US has more growth than Europe: but it needs more growth since it population is increasing almost 2% a year. Therefore: 2% growth in the US means 0% per head. In order to have growth per head the US needs more growth. Europe growth rate is 0% (in some countries up to -0,2% (which isn´t so dramatic by the way). So: 2% growth in Europe MEANS 2% growth per head. Europe can life very well with less growth than the US. However: 2% would be nicer than 1% of course, but we will manage that.


"immigration - to do this they would need to let in many hundreds of thousands of people each year - but from where?"
I don´t like immigration. But I can tell you that Germany has a surplus in the immigration balance of about 200.000 people a year (meaning more people coming than leaving).
It is an irony that the region with the highest population growth is the neighbouring region of Europe: the Middle East and north Africa. The problem IS NOT that there are not enough people who want to come to Europe: There are too many.
And as a matter of fact: we may import terrorism by allowing more of those arabs in. I mean: Spain was already attacked: the attackers were parth of the huge arab community in Spain and were using the infrastructure of arab-islamist organisations in Spain.
The county with the highest amounts of Arabs in Europe is France. They may be the next target.
Another country with population growth is Turkey. But most of the countries were the immigrants could come from are muslim countries. Europe may loses its identity by allowing more immigration. That´s really a dilemma.
The best way would be to do more for families to increase the number of domestic children. The examples of France and Skandinavia are proving that this is possible.

@Bamada,

"While I dont neccesarily think the EU will conquer the US I do think that it has a lot of economic power and should definetly be treated with respect. Personally I think that China will be the most powerful nation in the future. Right now the US has its eyes on the middle east and China is getting some of the islands in the pacific. If the US does nothing to stop it, they could become very powerful."

You are right: The EU is a economic giant: But it is still a political dwarf. That may change a bit in future. The single nations of Europe are loosing relevance in the world. That puts more pressure for cooperation and to work on the CFSR (common foreign and security policy).
I also agree to your remarks regarding China. However I think you should think about the fact that the middle east and Central Asia are very important in regard of the world energy ressources. That the US has a strong position in this region also makes it more likely to controll China.
However: whether the US is really able to do that can be doubted. A few days ago the two pipelines in Iraq were attacked and don´t function anymore. Since the US isn´t able to controll Iraq completly it seems to be very unlikely that it can controll the entire region. Without allies in Europe and in the region itself it is not going to work.

Just in case no one keyed in to this yet...

Americans own too many guns to be invaded. An ex-KGB agent was interviewed on 60 minutes and said, "The USSR would have never invaded the U.S. You people have so many damn guns we would be fighting half of your civilian population as well as your military."

@Ascensia,

Well: I would say the US has too many nukes as well.
As a matter of fact: there are many countries in the world were the average numbers of guns per citizens is higher than in the US.
But the US is too big and too powerful. Any invader would first fail completly and secondly would be nuked down.
Nobody would be so stupid. I don´t think even the North Koreans would be that crazy to even fire some of their rockets to Alaska (which is the only parth of the US which is (probably) in the range of their missiles)

@Ascensia,

Well: I would say the US has too many nukes as well.
As a matter of fact: there are many countries in the world were the average numbers of guns per citizens is higher than in the US.
But the US is too big and too powerful. Any invader would first fail completly and secondly would be nuked down.
Nobody would be so stupid. I don´t think even the North Koreans would be that crazy to even fire some of their rockets to Alaska (which is the only parth of the US which is (probably) in the range of their missiles)
Was just sharing a tidbit from 60 minutes I found comical -.- relax

This is not a thread that will blindly hold America up as a symbol of all that is right in the world, stating that we have God on our side etc. And I will not proudly claim that we can take on every other nation on the planet. This is a thread stating the reasons why America will never be conquered.

Want to know why? Because the worlds economy relies upon us. That's it. Whether it's foreign investments in American industries or government gold reserves being physically held in our lands, the collapse of our nation would effect the entire planet. The stock market crash and Great Depression of the 20's and 30's is a prime example of this already happening.

I am not under the delusion that we can hold our own against every nation who would want to conquer us, neither am I under the impression that no nation wants to conquer us. It's simply the fact that, were we to be under threat of invasion and defeat, the other nations of the world would assist us out of necessity.

It's kind of a "Help me, or your son dies" type situation. You might not want to, but you really need to.

Actually Suadi Arabia has 3trillion in american stocks and is Americas biggest oil supplier now if one day there is a popular revolution good bye America, your economy would implode and becuase of the economic strength of the rest of the world we would come out pretty decent and China especially could fill the void caused by you gong away. Infact i heard a prediction that the US would dissolve in the next 25-50 years (i think) becuase the number of poeple claiming Medicaid will doubke and the number of taxpayers will remain level

Christ, this joker again :roll: Look at his thread to see how amature his view is.

"Again" I haven't posted on this thread before. And your opinion that I am an "amateur" appears to be simply based on the fact I haven't read this "Power and Utopia" book, which is probably just one man's views on the future, becuase we all know those books are always right. Try looking at the World and making up your own opinions for a change.

Don't show such arragance, I used those words because I didn't want to repeat my large responce to your list again.
It is posted as it's own thread, I delt with it there and encourage everyone else to go and see it for yourself.

you view is amature in my opinion because you have a very simpliustic reasoning process that you used to state Mc.Carthy was a great man and his work should be continued.

The book I mentioned was just for some reading to help understand a view.
Dont show such ignorance in assuming I used a pice of advie to you to justify my view, it was nothing but a helpful suggestion that is relavant to this thread.

And don't be hypocritical, your reasoning here is false, you assumptions massive.
Explian why I havn't viewed the world myself, and ecxplain how you have in comparrison for your view to carry any wight.



China will become the worlds leading Economic power.

Yeah, just like Russia has since it became capitalist.


The EU is also a rising power, didn't the Union in America have it's opposition? Infact, wasn't there a civil war about it? :roll:

Nope. The civil was was about the right of states to secede from the union, granted, but they wanted to secede as a uniform body, and those opposed to the EU want to secede on their own. Europe has been divided for over two thousand years. I hardly think they're all going to become a unified people now just because someone set up a pale replica of the UN. A poweful EU parlianment is about as likely as a powerful UN parlianment. Not going to happen.

You think Russia's econommical stronger after the fall of the USSR than before :shock: ?
Never mind that after the Union collapsed, it suddenly became the LEADING (words i used) economic power??

During the Stalinist&post Stalin era, Russia was on par with the US on most levels, but addmitantly it fluxed.
You view that it became a powerhouse economy AFTER embracing Capitalism is absurd.

Get some background before commenting on situations you show obviouse misconceptions about. I will try to discuss this with you but if I try to cover everything I'll have to start a history lesson for you.
A few points then.
-The UN is not effective because of US dominance and serlf interest of most major nations involved. Koffi Annan did great work within an organisation that's members used toi thier own ends, not as an end in itself.
-Europe Divided over the last two thoughsand years? Forgetting the Roman Empire, the Western Roman Empire, Charlagemes (spelling) Holy Roman Empire, and the many other slightly smaller ofshoots that built Europe up.
you misunderstand, Europe has gone from small tribal towns to a slowly unified continant over the last 2000 years as it's unifaction from tribe, to region, to province...right up to ethnic state, to the Nation State itself, and to the Continental Union.
America, barly 300 years old, had to first wipe out a race, enslave another, then go to war on a half of itselve, then go to war against the Spanish, Mexicans, Germans (because of a Mexican threat in WWI), then Russians to both establish and consolidate it's Union.
Europe is at the point America was in the early 1900's, excluding the immence role Big Business played in the American Union, it took a shattering depression, a World War, and finaly a play off between Federal and State authority that almost ended up in State and Federal troops taking the stand offs further to unify America. A union thoughraly soaked in blood, were as becaause of our wars, our national interests going first, we realised we must have stable economic pacts with each other and over time strenthen our ties to AVOID another European war.

Our Union is growing naturaly, even in the face of opposition, but unlike the American one we do not expand and enforece it on the tip of a bayonet.

The First EU constitution was passed yesterday. Progress continues.




The arragance of your poriginal post two, don't you realise great powers and empires rise and fall constantly, that diring each one they belived that they were the ultimate state (Rome, Prussia, Athens, America{see Francis Fukayama's offici8al accepted theory on 'The End of History', a true joke}) but they rise and fall. Was Egypt, was Persia, was GReece, was Macedonia, was Rome, was Germany{Holy Roman Empire}, was differing powers in Europe, was britian, was russia, was America, and in the future it will be China and the EU.

Well, ignoring the poor spelling and grammar, you still didn't manage to say anything relevant. The analogy of the US being an empire is flawed, as an empire is a state where one people rule sover other peoples, who make up the majority in the empire. The US is a single nation and people, living on it's own land, with no significant ethnic groups there. The only similarity the US bears to an empire is size. By your definition, Canada, Russia, China and Brazil are all empires too.
And you didn't disprove my theory that the "falls" of nations are becoming less and less serious over time. I assume that you couldn't think of a counter arguement.

My poor spelling comes form my Dyslexia, my apologies for you focusing on presentation rather than content.

I'm sorry, but I'm a step away from calling you an idiot for your absurd assuymtions and twisted logic.

And Empire is defined as when one group (ethnic, regional, anything) has the defining power or influence over another. You think US possesions are restricted to N.America. Several of those were taken through war or form buying them from other Empires.

What about the official American possesions of Hawayi (spelling), the Philipens, US Samoa?
And the US controled regions of S.Vietnam, S.Korea(see recent protests), Singapour, the dog-like Austrailian Govt, the 'go-along' leadership of Britain, and in the goddamn S.America's, are you so blind you don't know your own fucking history? How many US backed groups have taken power? How many Govts, even a few the US put there, have been removed becasue of unfavorable stancse to the US.

THe US degrade the good name of Justice and Freedom in it's expansionist actions, expanding it's power (economic and political) over other states it has nothing but economic or strategic interests in.

Russia (Soviet&obviousely Tsarist)was an Empire, and could be claimed as still being one as the Chechen province aling with a few smaller ones wish freedom and indepandacne but are denied it.
China is and Empire in that it was the obviouse province of Tibet under it's control
Canada? Nope, as far as I know Canada's never forced itself on people who dont want it or has denied freedom to the PEOPLE it controls, dircet or indirect. Coarse I don't know the history of Canada beyond last centuray, but I am aware at sometime a large group in the US Senate demanded an invasion of Canada. Wonder why...
Brazil? I have little knowledge of Brazilian hostory, since you must or you wouldn't make that claim, please run it by me, I mean, it can't have just become that size and been given to Spanish settlers without regional expansion yeh?

As for the last bit, jesus, nation's dont just disapear after they 'fall' it's a slow processs of decay that tend to have a few notable occasions of sudden decrease. Don't be so ignorant of history to presume you know that it has ended in the US state. I sure as hell don't





Hubris, arragamnce and pride on your power leads to your downfall.

I would remind you that "hubris" is a Greek word reffering to a certain type of arrogance, one in which the party places themself "above the gods". As America seems to be heavily influenced by the religious, (the words "under God, in god we trust, so help me god" come to mind) America is hardly placing itself above God. Heck, Bush says he works for him, so your choice of the word "hubris" was a poor one.

You're Scottish, I take it?


You show a poor understanding of the classics if that is your interpritation of the term 'Hubris'.

Hubris is a case of essecive arragance, like all terms it evolved from it's conception during ancient greek history but the essance remained the same, someone with Pride, with the arragacne to put them selves above the rules of society and history (and intern the referacen 'to put onself above the gods' derives from this meaning of religouse duty to the citystate/state, see?)
Hubris is any act of unfounded overconfidence in essance, an act that uses the victorys and luck of the past to assume ones future.
Hubris, a common them in History of those who stretch to far, who put themselves above the ruels that govern, are always decended upon by a Nemisis that ends them
For a better description see Herodotus, Solon's conversations with Croesus BkI near the begining, and Croesus' later talk with the Persian Mede as he is on the pyre. A great showing of Hubris in action and the understanding of it, also Solon's Fragments (of peotry) show the famouse LAw-Givers aplauded (at the time) understanding and intewrwoven ideas of the nature of Hubris as the inventors of word understood it.

Yes, I am Scottish. And you?

And of note, the book I mentioned is now standard reading for all US diplomats and is accepted as reflective&explanitory of the US Govt's official line.

The reason everyone hates the US is the same reason everyone hates the Yankees. I propose extending the Suez Canal accross the entire Middle East. That way Afghanistan's economy would skyrocket as being a beach resort and all the oil would be dug out in the process. After all, there is so much tension in the Middle East because they never got the chance to just kick back and relax on a beach!

Ever wonder why OPEC doesn't raise prices when they have every right to? Because they know that the United States is the only country that if they got tired of paying oil prices, could effectivly develop a new form of energy. Studies say that the children born today will be driving hydrogen cars when they turn 16.

I don't see what all your talk about the United States "falling" is about. You say we will collapse from iternal problems, but even then we are divided up into 50 states. Assuming the United States ceases to exsist for some reason or another, what happens then? Do the hundreds of millions of people stuck between Canada and Mexico with their cars and computers and skyscrapers just decided to leave? The United States isn't going anywhere.

@Bamada,

"While I dont neccesarily think the EU will conquer the US I do think that it has a lot of economic power and should definetly be treated with respect. Personally I think that China will be the most powerful nation in the future. Right now the US has its eyes on the middle east and China is getting some of the islands in the pacific. If the US does nothing to stop it, they could become very powerful."

You are right: The EU is a economic giant: But it is still a political dwarf. That may change a bit in future. The single nations of Europe are loosing relevance in the world. That puts more pressure for cooperation and to work on the CFSR (common foreign and security policy).
I also agree to your remarks regarding China. However I think you should think about the fact that the middle east and Central Asia are very important in regard of the world energy ressources. That the US has a strong position in this region also makes it more likely to controll China.
However: whether the US is really able to do that can be doubted. A few days ago the two pipelines in Iraq were attacked and don´t function anymore. Since the US isn´t able to controll Iraq completly it seems to be very unlikely that it can controll the entire region. Without allies in Europe and in the region itself it is not going to work.


Wow you are totally right. I didnt think about how you could control China through the Middle East. We do have one ally, Israel, but the problem with Israel is that they have no allies in the middle East. I think the EU could become more politically powerful. France and Germany are already the 2nd and 3rd most powerful nations, put together with the rest of Europe it would be very powerful. We should most definetly work on our alliances with Europe before we lose more alliances.

@Bamada,

well: i think your government is fully aware of the strategic importance of the middle east and central asia also in regard to the world energy ressources which all three main centres of the world economy (North America, Europe, East Asia (which includes of course China, but also Japan, South-East Asia and also in a growing amount India).
Since the US had a traditional alliance with Japan, works on improving the relationship with India (China and India tradtionally don´t have good relations: China is an ally of Pakistan – India is allowing the Dalai Lama to stay there in exil near the chinese border) and also Vietnam (which also has traditionally a strained relationship with China).
And a strategic alliance with Russia which would include cooperation in respect of the former soviet republics in Central Asia would lead to the complete surrounding of China by the US and other nations of the region who fear China because of it´s growing power and ambitions (historicaly China has been the hegemonial power in East Asia for many centuries).

However: there are also different interests between the US, Europe and Russia.
Russia´s strategic aim is to become an ENERGY SUPERPOWER. Russia has not only big ressources in it´s own territory of 17 million km² (which is after all more than two third of the old Soviet Empire (22 million km²), but also in the former soviet republics in Central Asia and the Caucasus which Russia considers the „near foreign countries“. They are all after all members of the CIS (Community of Independent States) which is under russian leadership.
The current pipelines from Central Asia and the Caucasus are still mainly going through russian territory. The russian aim is that this should remain this way.
Europe and the US of cours don´t want to become too dependent on Russia.
Regarding the Caucasus:
In this respect Turkey and Georgia play an important role. There are now new pipelines from Azerbaidshan (on the Caspian Sea) through Georgia to Turkey and the harbours down there. The problem is of course the destability of the caucasus region which is – like the Balkans (former Jugoslavia) a region full of ethnic and religious conflicts. That is of course a threat for the security of the pipelines. And Russia has of course an interest that it remains that way.
The other issue is Central Asia: there a simply two alternative pipeline routes (except the russian path).
The first one is through Iran to Turkey (to the mediterranean) , the second opition is through Afghanistan to Pakistan (harbour Karatschi).
In contrast to the US EU countries have started dialogue with Iran a long time ago. Already after the dead of Khomeini under president Rafsandschani the trade relationship was expanded. Shortly after the election of the reform-orientated presiedent Chatami in 1997 a contract was signed between european oil companies and the governments of Iran, Turkey and Central Asian countries regarding a pipeline being built from there through Iran to Turkey. This project was quickly implemented and completed.
There were simular negotiations between US companies and the Taleban administration in Afghanistan (they after all promised „stability“). However: due to their support of Osama bin Laden they ended in 1998 unsuccessfully.
And due to the security situation in Afghanistan it seems to be impossible to built secure pipelines through Afghansitan in the foreseeable future.
Since that is the case it would be worth while to consider whether a „deal“ with the Iranians are possible. Not only because of that: After all: they have some influence in the shiite community in Iraq and they can use it for good or evil. EU countries – for example Britain – could try to mediate in that respect.
Of course Iran has to fulfill certain demands – especially allowing full inspections of their nuclear facilities – no nukes). There is of course also the problem regarding the shiite Hesbollah in Southern Lebanon, which is after all potentially the biggest threat for Israel. However: except at the area of the Sheba farms there have been no clashes between them and Israel since the Israeli withdrawl from south Lebanon.
Without a constuctive iranian role it seems to be impossible to really solve the problems of the region and to stabilize it. But this is of course needed – also in order to stabilize the world economy and the world order (under the umbrella of the US as stabilizing power for an era which could become a : Pax americana). However: we are in the Middle East still distant away from this Pax Americana – peace under american leadership.
Therefore a dialogue between the US and Iran would be needed. How far the Iranians are ready for that I don´t know. But there are some signs of them in that directions and also some by the US administration (for example their reaction after the earthquake in Bam).

Actually Suadi Arabia has 3trillion in american stocks and is Americas biggest oil supplier now if one day there is a popular revolution good bye America, your economy would implode and becuase of the economic strength of the rest of the world we would come out pretty decent and China especially could fill the void caused by you gong away. Infact i heard a prediction that the US would dissolve in the next 25-50 years (i think) becuase the number of poeple claiming Medicaid will doubke and the number of taxpayers will remain level

Actually...

Canada and Mexico are the top two oil suppliers to the USA. Saudi Arabia is third.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Furthermore, the fact that the US population will grow by 125 million over the next 46 years is testimony to a growing economy. The US is resource rich in minerals still and has a generous oil supply of its own to draw upon in the event of the Arabs causing an oil scare.

The USA, as the largest consumer of goods and services, would do well to get off oil over the next 30 years and become mostly self sufficient energy wise. Why risk the economy on the ever shifting mood swings of hostile Arabs?

"The U.S. will never be conquered"

I agree, I think it will implode from within in time.
It'll take time, however. Take the UK, for example. It did decline, but today, it is a wealthy nation that, while they aren't the most powerful, they can hold their own in the world. In a hundred years, the US will be just like the UK is today.
Why? It has the resources, it has the money, it has the people, which is what the UK didn't and why it fell apart.

Frankly, in my opinion the reason the US won't fall is quite simple. The world will be more united by then. So long as development continues, the inexorable path towards unity continues, just look at the EU, look at Pan-America, SEATO, pre-World War One conditions are returning.

Finally, as for oil, oil is unlikely to remain the main energy source of the world for more than 20 years at most. Hydrogen is making inroads on it in cars, H-3 in power plants, solar and wind, you name it. Oil is losing its influence.

"The U.S. will never be conquered"

I agree, I think it will implode from within in time.
It'll take time, however. Take the UK, for example. It did decline, but today, it is a wealthy nation that, while they aren't the most powerful, they can hold their own in the world. In a hundred years, the US will be just like the UK is today.
Why? It has the resources, it has the money, it has the people, which is what the UK didn't and why it fell apart.

Frankly, in my opinion the reason the US won't fall is quite simple. The world will be more united by then. So long as development continues, the inexorable path towards unity continues, just look at the EU, look at Pan-America, SEATO, pre-World War One conditions are returning.

Finally, as for oil, oil is unlikely to remain the main energy source of the world for more than 20 years at most. Hydrogen is making inroads on it in cars, H-3 in power plants, solar and wind, you name it. Oil is losing its influence.

Well you are a bit far ahead of yourself there. Oil will continue to be influential for some time to come. The process of pursuing alternative fuels is a long process.

Great Britain had the people, the resources and the money. The reason why it declined as the dominant power was because it had stretched that money and resources too far (across the Empire). The USA is an economic empire and comparisons between it and the old British Empire are few.

As for the world uniting, that is but a dream. When WW3 eventually breaks out, it will be a war of East versus West (civilisation). The Western World should unite if it is to survive. God help us all if the Middle East unifies (even though this is unlikely).

No nation has kept the same form of government for more than 200 years without collasping except for the US. Even the Romans didn't survive for more than 200 years.

No nation has kept the same form of government for more than 200 years without collasping except for the US. Even the Romans didn't survive for more than 200 years.

The Roman Republic - 750BC to 44BC (that is 706 years - more than 200 years)

The 2nd Triumverate (Lepidus, Octavian, Antony) - 44BC to 30BC

The Roman Empire (under a dictatorship - princups senatus) - 28BC to 40AD

The Roman Empire (under the Emperor) - 40AD to 410AD (that is 370 years - more than 200 years)

The Roman Empire in the East (also referred to as the Byzantine Empire begun by the Emperor Constantine) last until c. 1400AD - a lot longer than 200 years.

Please get the facts before making statements such as the above.

...also...

England was ruled by an absolute monarch from 1066AD through to the 19th Century (with a small period during the 17th century as the exception - Cromwell) Still, this represents more than 200 years on both sides of the intermediate period.

Egypt under the Pharaohs lasted from c3500 BC to 30BC...that is thousands of years under the same system of government.

China lasted for hundreds of years under an Emperor

Russia was governed by the Tsars for hundreds of years (two families - the Muscovsky's and the Romanovs)...

The list can go on...

No nation has kept the same form of government for more than 200 years without collasping except for the US. Even the Romans didn't survive for more than 200 years.
I think we can safely say your points will all be ignored from now on

My feelings are that the US will never fall because we have a thing called "Democracy" We were never a monarchy will were never a dictatorship. If you people dont quit crapping about the US someone could get hurt.

My theory is that if we do what the world wants and go back inside our borders then the international community will start to gripe that we arent helping the world.

WE ARE DAMNED IF WE DO AND DAMNED IF WE DON'T

Its as simple as that. No matter what we do as a country there will always be people that just have to gripe, bitch, and moan. Frankly I am getting very sick of it. Plus I am pretty sure that a lot of other people are as well.

Another thing is you dont see americans saying "will france be conquered" I dont think so. So just leave us the heck alone. No matter what country becomes the most powerful the international community we always be down somebodies neck.

Some have even said that the reason that everybody hates the US is because were only a young country by Europian standards. I mean were only 228 yrs old as a country.

I am pretty sure that if people just worried about their own damn lives they would no longer have anything to gripe about.

One major thing that has completely freaked me out is the fact that England has gone through the same thing. But they still are doing what the other nations did to them. That is complete crap.

Well that is just my opinion.

My feelings are that the US will never fall because we have a thing called "Democracy" We were never a monarchy will were never a dictatorship.

Nor has the USA ever been a democracy.

My feelings are that the US will never fall because we have a thing called "Democracy" We were never a monarchy will were never a dictatorship.

Nor has the USA ever been a democracy.
Democratic republic. When people say democracy, that is what they mean, expecting them to mean literal democracy is nit-picking.

Nor has the USA ever been a democracy.
Democratic republic. When people say democracy, that is what they mean, expecting them to mean literal democracy is nit-picking.

Nah, if I was being pedantic I would have said "constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition". I make the distinction because some us are still holding out for a real literal democracy.

Except by it's own damn friendly fire and the many power hungery creeps it decides to help out in the name of more oil.

There are no democracies...

The USA is a Republic

The United Kingdom is...a Kingdom

Australia is a Federation

France is a Republic

etc...

The last democracy was Athens in antiquity...and they fell (I blame it on too much talking and not enough action)

Also, I have to question the value of total democracy. If the UN security council is anything to go by (unanimous vote, or nothing is passed) as a pillar of democracy, then I will take a dictatorship anyday. When everyone's opinion has to count, we get bogged down in discussion and nothing is ever achieved...

(see The Life of Brian for a comedic example of this process)

There are no democracies...

The USA is a Republic

The United Kingdom is...a Kingdom

Australia is a Federation

France is a Republic

etc...

The last democracy was Athens in antiquity...and they fell (I blame it on too much talking and not enough action)

Also, I have to question the value of total democracy. If the UN security council is anything to go by (unanimous vote, or nothing is passed) as a pillar of democracy, then I will take a dictatorship anyday. When everyone's opinion has to count, we get bogged down in discussion and nothing is ever achieved...

(see The Life of Brian for a comedic example of this process)

Australia is a federal parliamentary democracy

The U.S. IS a representative democracy

France is a presidential republic

The UK is a parliamentary monarchy. Its not a kingdom= a state or people ruled over by a king or queen.

You can give them whatever technical political name u want, but they are democracies in the way government is carried out and in the much broader social sense.

You're wrong... the US will be conquered...
By obesity-related heart failure and a bad case of type two diabetes.

@UTLPNA

"The U.S. IS a representative democracy" -not acurate- all democracies of the world are representative democracies even Switzerland - however they have the most direct-democracy elements: It is actually a presidential republic

"France is a presidential republic" - no, it isn´t. It is a semi-presidential system. It is between a presidential democracy and a parlamentarian democracy as the head of government - the prime minister - needs the endorsement of the parliament and depends on his majority. The rights of the president are less than in the US.

@UTLPNA

"The U.S. IS a representative democracy" -not acurate- all democracies of the world are representative democracies even Switzerland - however they have the most direct-democracy elements: It is actually a presidential republic

"France is a presidential republic" - no, it isn´t. It is a semi-presidential system. It is between a presidential democracy and a parlamentarian democracy as the head of government - the prime minister - needs the endorsement of the parliament and depends on his majority. The rights of the president are less than in the US.

lol ok. in my opinion, the U.S. just represents a democracy... but is not a true democracy in the full sense of the word.. because the electoral college does not accurately reflect the will of the people. but this is just my opinion. but basically you're right. all democracies of the world are representative democracies.

and like i said, You can give them whatever technical political name u want, but Most countries are democracies in the way government is carried out and in the much broader social sense.