NationStates Jolt Archive

I think this raises an intresting topic, as the US have invaded many countrys, and are currently an invading force.
If bush is out for world peace, surley war isnt the answer???
What is the UN for?

I think this raises an intresting topic, as the US have invaded many countrys, and are currently an invading force.
If bush is out for world peace, surley war isnt the answer???
What is the UN for?

In the eight years he was President, Clinton attacked seven countries without provocation. Bush has yet to make up for that, although many of Clinton's attacks were cruise missile attacks.

If war doesn't bring peace, I suggest that you discuss it with the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The UN is a waste of time. If you think it's a peacekeeping organization, it actually isn't, and you've been fooled.

The UN is for comedic relief, that is all. As for world domination.....crazy

The U.S., like Britain of the 19th century, will back into world domination and like the British no one will be more surprised to one day find they are living in an empire than Americans.

In the eight years he was President, Clinton attacked seven countries without provocation. Bush has yet to make up for that, although many of Clinton's attacks were cruise missile attacks.

If war doesn't bring peace, I suggest that you discuss it with the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The UN is a waste of time. If you think it's a peacekeeping organization, it actually isn't, and you've been fooled.
USS cole attack and the WTC bombing weren't provocation? When George Clinton fired up the Mothership and dropped Da Bomb on they wack asses forcing Al Quaeda to give up the funk he was quite justified.

umm ...no...the US is not out for world domination :rolleyes:

It sure is ok for us to "invade" someone when they are posing a threat to someone else in the world. No one says caca when the US is defending another nation who's under attack.

umm ...no...the US is not out for world domination :rolleyes:

It sure is ok for us to "invade" someone when they are posing a threat to someone else in the world. No one says caca when the US is defending another nation who's under attack.
since when was iraq posting a threat to the world???
did anyone ever find these weapons of mass destruction?

since when was iraq posting a threat to the world???
did anyone ever find these weapons of mass destruction?


not yet

If the US was out for world domination i dont think we would be waisting our time in Iraq, we would take out someone that would stand more of a military threat to the US.

I think this raises an intresting topic, as the US have invaded many countrys, and are currently an invading force.
If bush is out for world peace, surley war isnt the answer???
What is the UN for?
What is the UN for? Good question! :rolleyes:

As far as the US seeking "world dominiation," why? What on earth would we want with it? So what countries have we "invaded?" A list and some references would be nice. Define "many." :rolleyes:

I'm sure Kuwait feels alot safer though..

The U.S., like Britain of the 19th century, will back into world domination and like the British no one will be more surprised to one day find they are living in an empire than Americans.

Agreed. I don't think that it's been a particularly concious decision anywhere along the line. It's just that, because you can interfere, you will, and then before you know it you're accidently occupying half the planet. I think Bush honestly believes he's saving the planet.

I'm sure Kuwait feels alot safer though..
Ditto for Saudi. Too bad about that. I would have liked to see Saddam take over there and keep their clerics in check.

USS cole attack and the WTC bombing weren't provocation? When George Clinton fired up the Mothership and dropped Da Bomb on they wack asses forcing Al Quaeda to give up the funk he was quite justified.

I'm trying to use Democrat-speak, or Euro-speak. In their minds, the US is never justified in doing anything they didn't ask for explicitly. So even if the US is attacked, it can't do anything in response.

If the US were out for world domination, it would invade:

Switzerland, Lichtenstein, & The Cayman Islands. All easy to take, all absurdly rich.

Then the US would invade the United Arab Emirates and Qatar for the oil.

Iraq? Afghanistan? Oh sure. Real trophies there...

I'm trying to use Democrat-speak, or Euro-speak. In their minds, the US is never justified in doing anything they didn't ask for explicitly. So even if the US is attacked, it can't do anything in response.
Exactly! And when do you think the original poster might get around to answering my question? Sometime next year, perhaps? :headbang:

not yetWe all know that's just "No" with blind optimism at the end.

I think the irony is the USA really does believe it is doing good.
Can't understand why not everbody wants to be an American.

Thinks it is OK to ignore the UN but berates other nations for doing likewise.

Too much Hollywood mentality methinks :rolleyes:

I think the irony is the USA really does believe it is doing good.
Can't understand why not everbody wants to be an American.

Thinks it is OK to ignore the UN but berates other nations for doing likewise.

Too much Hollywood mentality methinks :rolleyes:


Its too bad hollywood's menatlity is the same liberal mentality as europe.

Most of the US isnt that liberal

Of course, there are parodies, (http://www.newamericanempire.org/) but yes (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), there are plans for US world domination in the works. PNAC is very much reflective of the current Republican administration; read their site in detail to understand how and why.

If the US was out for world domination i dont think we would be waisting our time in Iraq, we would take out someone that would stand more of a military threat to the US.

Like who? The only military powers even nearly strong enough to match the US are either China or Russia, and the US would never attack either of them because there's a chance they might lose.

Iraq was attacked for Oil, with the added bonus of keeping up the climate of fear that we are being conditioned to believe in.

The simplest and oldest way to start a war is to tell the population that they are being threatened, then denounce anyone who voices opposition as 'un-patriotic'.

We all know that's just "No" with blind optimism at the end.


Nah.....but if one of those WMD is used , and it ends up in your yard-youre gonna wish you hadnt been such a skeptic. Is that really something youre willing to take a gamble with? We're not talking about a few landmines they might have hidden in the back of the closet. How rediculous that so many think the big bad USA is out to invade the world and eat its children and kick its pets. Thats so stupid.

And how is it that every anti-USA person on this forum is an expert on how to run the world?

Of course, there are parodies, (http://www.newamericanempire.org/) but yes (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), there are plans for US world domination in the works. PNAC is very much reflective of the current Republican administration; read their site in detail to understand how and why.

I'll get you a tin foil hat.
The martians are coming, help help!!! :eek:

Nah.....but if one of those WMD is used , and it ends up in your yard-youre gonna wish you hadnt been such a skeptic. Is that really something youre willing to take a gamble with? We're not talking about a few landmines they might have hidden in the back of the closet. How rediculous that so many think the big bad USA is out to invade the world and eat its children and kick its pets. Thats so stupid.

And how is it that every anti-USA person on this forum is an expert on how to run the world?

Good heavens, McCarthy and Nixon rolled into one....
THERE ARE NO WMDs

Which part of that are you having difficulty grasping?

The only nation to launch nukes against others was the good old US of A.
Another tin foil hat on order for you. :)

Nah.....but if one of those WMD is used , and it ends up in your yard-youre gonna wish you hadnt been such a skeptic. Is that really something youre willing to take a gamble with?

The US didn't seem to mind the gamble when they gave Saddam the weapons in the first place...

The US didn't seem to mind the gamble when they gave Saddam the weapons in the first place...
i agree, dosent oil come in to this equation? :D

Good heavens, McCarthy and Nixon rolled into one....
THERE ARE NO WMDs

Which part of that are you having difficulty grasping?

The only nation to launch nukes against others was the good old US of A.
Another tin foil hat on order for you. :)


And dont you think if we wanted to take over the world, we would be launching more nukes at all of our military threats?

Swaziland is truly out for world domination. They've been laying low and watching us all kill each other. When we are sufficiently weakened they will strike.

And dont you think if we wanted to take over the world, we would be launching more nukes at all of our military threats?
The problem is, some of them would fire back :rolleyes: sd

Come one, we got eonugh to go around. If we wanted to we could take them all out before they can respond.

Well I hope no one ever invades your country.....cause I'd hate for you to end up swallowing your tongue when the US has to come help you out. Everyone says the US is a hypocrite, but why is it we're expected to save everybody elses ass(when the sh-- hits the fan) and then get bashed and portrayed as some evil land who's out to destroy everyone?? I'm out....I am so sick of this same old US bashing bullshit.


If youre so concerned about saving the world.....go into politics and actually do something that might make a difference instead of whining in an online forum 8 hours a day.

I'll get you a tin foil hat.
The martians are coming, help help!!! :eek:
Rabola, I didn't make up the PNAC website... it's very real. The basic assertation of this element of foreign policy doctrine was for the US to dominate the world in order to marginalize the "Second World," i.e., the USSR (opposition in the Cold War.) With the Cold War over, however, they've continued along the same vein, simply trying to find new justifications - there is no more Soviet Union to justify excersizing dominant world influence to "help democracy (actually, help capitalism vs communism)."

It's no secret at all that the neoconservatives wish the United States to be the dominant world power. Doctrine is that the US is the best nation, most worthy to police the world, and therefore should do so and should take steps to insure its dominance on the world stage, as dominance by the United States would be better than dominance by some other world power (EU, USSR, a muslim bloc, China, etc etc etc.)

Your dismissals are neither warranted, wise, nor founded in careful examination of what I've said.

Swaziland is truly out for world domination. They've been laying low and watching us all kill each other. When we are sufficiently weakened they will strike.
did you know that the martians have invaded...hey! its rude to where a tin foil hat inside
oops, did you drop your laser gun? :eek:

Come one, we got eonugh to go around. If we wanted to we could take them all out before they can respond.

Also Bin Laden? Heard he's still around...

did you know that the martians have invaded...hey! its rude to where a tin foil hat inside
oops, did you drop your laser gun? :eek:
We need no laser guns. We have George Clinton and the Mothership.

Well I hope no one ever invades your country.....cause I'd hate for you to end up swallowing your tongue when the US has to come help you out. Everyone says the US is a hypocrite, but why is it we're expected to save everybody elses ass(when the sh-- hits the fan) and then get bashed and portrayed as some evil land who's out to destroy everyone?? I'm out....I am so sick of this same old US bashing bullshit.
If youre so concerned about saving the world.....go into politics and actually do something that might make a difference instead of whining in an online forum 8 hours a day.

Yes. I'm so sure that the people in tsunami-stricken regions are so aggravated that the US spent billions on aircraft carriers and helicopters and pre-positioned food supplies, and spent just ages cruising around the waters in the Indian Ocean waiting for something to happen.

Yes, they're just up in arms - just positively pissed off that the US is helping them out, getting that food to unreachable areas weeks ahead of their own governments. Yes, it's really too bad that the US had that military equipment. Really a damn shame. After all, there isn't any other military force in the world with a carrier down there (or even going down there), because that would be a complete waste of time now wouldn't it?

And those wise Europeans - so savvy. They don't have a carrier down there helping - because that would be completely stupid and make them look like warmongering cowboys.

Also Bin Laden? Heard he's still around...


Exactly. Don’t you think we would be more worried about taking over the world then terrorists?

Yes. I'm so sure that the people in tsunami-stricken regions are so aggravated that the US spent billions on aircraft carriers and helicopters and pre-positioned food supplies, and spent just ages cruising around the waters in the Indian Ocean waiting for something to happen.

Yes, they're just up in arms - just positively pissed off that the US is helping them out, getting that food to unreachable areas weeks ahead of their own governments. Yes, it's really too bad that the US had that military equipment. Really a damn shame. After all, there isn't any other military force in the world with a carrier down there (or even going down there), because that would be a complete waste of time now wouldn't it?

And those wise Europeans - so savvy. They don't have a carrier down there helping - because that would be completely stupid and make them look like warmongering cowboys.
Dude, they don't have carriers at all. Not proper American style ones. Just little toy ones that launch Harriers.

Like who? The only military powers even nearly strong enough to match the US are either China or Russia, and the US would never attack either of them because there's a chance they might lose.

Iraq was attacked for Oil, with the added bonus of keeping up the climate of fear that we are being conditioned to believe in.

1) The first part of this statement is true. The Neither the US or Russia wants to attack China because they enough nuclear power to destroy the world a few times over. Te US doesn't want to get into another conflict with Russia for the same reason.

2) Iraq was not attacked for their oil. If the US was to get oil from Iraq, then why did the US give control of the oil back to the Iraqis and gas and oil prices skyrocketed here in America?

Rabola, I didn't make up the PNAC website... it's very real. The basic assertation of this element of foreign policy doctrine was for the US to dominate the world in order to marginalize the "Second World," i.e., the USSR (opposition in the Cold War.) With the Cold War over, however, they've continued along the same vein, simply trying to find new justifications - there is no more Soviet Union to justify excersizing dominant world influence to "help democracy (actually, help capitalism vs communism)."

It's no secret at all that the neoconservatives wish the United States to be the dominant world power. Doctrine is that the US is the best nation, most worthy to police the world, and therefore should do so and should take steps to insure its dominance on the world stage, as dominance by the United States would be better than dominance by some other world power (EU, USSR, a muslim bloc, China, etc etc etc.)

Your dismissals are neither warranted, wise, nor founded in careful examination of what I've said.

what about the europian union, and i would hate to bring vietnam in to the picture!

Are the US out for world domination

I will answer yes. I admit it's just an opinion, but an opinion based on the facts I see around me.

I suspect the original poster is just trying for flamebait, otherwise he would have responded to my original quesions: "As far as the US seeking 'world dominiation,' why? What on earth would we want with it? So what countries have we 'invaded?' A list and some references would be nice. Define 'many.'"

I suspect the original poster is just trying for flamebait, otherwise he would have responded to my original quesions: "As far as the US seeking 'world dominiation,' why? What on earth would we want with it? So what countries have we 'invaded?' A list and some references would be nice. Define 'many.'"
Don't you hate when that happens?

1) The first part of this statement is true. The Neither the US or Russia wants to attack China because they enough nuclear power to destroy the world a few times over. Te US doesn't want to get into another conflict with Russia for the same reason.

2) Iraq was not attacked for their oil. If the US was to get oil from Iraq, then why did the US give control of the oil back to the Iraqis and gas and oil prices skyrocketed here in America?


your compleatly right. And if we went to war for oil, wouldnt gas be cheep?

1) The first part of this statement is true. The Neither the US or Russia wants to attack China because they enough nuclear power to destroy the world a few times over. The US doesn't want to get into another conflict with Russia for the same reason.

2) Iraq was not attacked for their oil. If the US was to get oil from Iraq, then why did the US give control of the oil back to the Iraqis and gas and oil prices skyrocketed here in America?
I suspect you'll not get an answer to this. You're trying to be far too logical for most of the anti-American posters on here. :headbang:

Don't you hate when that happens?
Not really. At least it lets me know that the poster is full of shit. :D

Yes. I'm so sure that the people in tsunami-stricken regions are so aggravated that the US spent billions on aircraft carriers and helicopters and pre-positioned food supplies, and spent just ages cruising around the waters in the Indian Ocean waiting for something to happen.

Yes, they're just up in arms - just positively pissed off that the US is helping them out, getting that food to unreachable areas weeks ahead of their own governments. Yes, it's really too bad that the US had that military equipment. Really a damn shame. After all, there isn't any other military force in the world with a carrier down there (or even going down there), because that would be a complete waste of time now wouldn't it?

And those wise Europeans - so savvy. They don't have a carrier down there helping - because that would be completely stupid and make them look like warmongering cowboys.

I'm sure the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are also pleased that the US spent billions on aircraft carriers and not-so-smart bombs...

what about the europian union, and i would hate to bring vietnam in to the picture!

Vietnam had another superpower backing it.

I suspect the original poster is just trying for flamebait, otherwise he would have responded to my original quesions: "As far as the US seeking 'world dominiation,' why? What on earth would we want with it? So what countries have we 'invaded?' A list and some references would be nice. Define 'many.'"

Vietnam
Iraq
Korea
panama
grenada

what about the europian union, and i would hate to bring vietnam in to the picture!PNAC (expressing the neocon party line) does not wish the EU to become a potential military rival. For example:The decision to establish an independent EU defense planning organization is a small but important precedent that needs to be challenged.Now... Eutrusca, you ask what countries we have invaded? Surely you are aware that we have indeed engaged in quite a few invasions and interventions in recent years, most recently Iraq?

As for why "we" might be seeking world domination (not all of us are) - I give you several reasons: Security. Ambition. Manifest destiny. Insuring profit margins.

I'm sure the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are also pleased that the US spent billions on aircraft carriers and not-so-smart bombs...

Ah yes. But I suppose they figure the money was well spent on the smarter bombs (smarter than the first Gulf War), because far more of the bombs landed on what they were supposed to this time (still not perfect, but a lot better than 10 years ago).

Money well spent! I'm sure the number of collateral victims was smaller this time around!

Like who? The only military powers even nearly strong enough to match the US are either China or Russia, and the US would never attack either of them because there's a chance they might lose.

Iraq was attacked for Oil, with the added bonus of keeping up the climate of fear that we are being conditioned to believe in.

The simplest and oldest way to start a war is to tell the population that they are being threatened, then denounce anyone who voices opposition as 'un-patriotic'.

I totaly agree. People should worry less about terrorism, a threat to national security is nothing new. Terrorism just replaces the cold war climate of fear, and before that there was the fear of nazism; we are never totaly safe so people should get on with life and worry less.

USS cole attack and the WTC bombing weren't provocation? When George Clinton fired up the Mothership and dropped Da Bomb on they wack asses forcing Al Quaeda to give up the funk he was quite justified.

The attacks on the WTC and on the USS cole were retaliation for years and years of economic and military exploitation by the U.S in middle east affairs. The U.S had the perfect chance to take a step back and rethink their foreign policy but they choose instead to strike back, as Osama Bin Laden intended. He hoped that the U.S would inflict enough damage and destruction that new recruits would come pouring in. The U.S justified? I don't think so, they have exploited countless people all across the globe one example in the middle east is during the Iran-Iraq war they supported Iraq publicly and sold weapons to them. They then turned around and sold weapons to Iran. They were not interested and never were interested in supporting democracy all they care about it profit, and profit they shall get.

I think the irony is the USA really does believe it is doing good.
Can't understand why not everbody wants to be an American.

Thinks it is OK to ignore the UN but berates other nations for doing likewise.

Too much Hollywood mentality methinks :rolleyes:

We Americans would think not everyone wanted to be an American, if foreigners would some immigrating... ;)

That'd be because we enforce the UN's own resolutions.

Hey, if it sells...

The US out for World domination?

Feh. You should BE so lucky.

Vietnam
Iraq
Korea
panama
grenada

Vietnam - we were brought in there by a Democrat, and we left by the hand of a Republican President. Notice that we're not there, and that the opposition won - so it hardly counts as domination.

Korea - Hmm... The South asked us to protect them. The UN approved that. Are you suggesting that the UN made a mistake? We're just doing the UN's bidding - and we are in complete accord with the UN resolutions concerning Korea. We're not sitting on one inch of North Korean territory. - so it hardly counts as domination.

Panama - hmmm.... well, that was the US cleaning up its own mess - we had to get rid of the CIA-trained dictator we put in power, and let the Panamanians elect their own man - not exactly domination - almost the reverse

Grenada - would have sounded like domination had we stuck around.

One thing you have to give Bush credit for. With Clinton, he only used force to distract news services from investigating his sex life. With Bush, he uses force only on "official" business.

I will answer yes. I admit it's just an opinion, but an opinion based on the facts I see around me.

Facts.

Or could it be your interpretation of events that have taken place? Someone else may not have that same interpretation. Which doesnt necessarily make it a fact based opinion, but rather just a plain oldopinion.

Vietnam
Iraq
Korea
panama
grenada
want more?

Afganistahn
Alaska (1857-1959)
Cuba
Hawaii(1899-1959)
Philippines
for an extended list, visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire

one example in the middle east is during the Iran-Iraq war they supported Iraq publicly and sold weapons to them. They then turned around and sold weapons to Iran.

So did the USSR, China, France, and Germany. I don't see anybody giving THEM shit about it.

since when was iraq posting a threat to the world???
did anyone ever find these weapons of mass destruction?

Has anyone searched ALL of Iraq?

Do you know how big Iraq is?

Vietnam
Iraq
Korea
panama
grenada

Vietnam - SOUTH Vietnam asked us to be there.
Korea - SOUTH Korea asked us to be there.
grenada - Guilty as charged. We invaded to turn back the Cubans, whom had already invaded. :p


You have *slightly* more traction with Iraq & Panama.

So did the USSR, China, France, and Germany. I don't see anybody giving THEM shit about it.

Indeed. After Russia, the greatest weapons peddler in the Middle East is....

drum roll please....

France!

Vietnam
Iraq
Korea
panama
grenada
Well now, let's just see ...

Korea - ended over 50 years ago, authorized by the UN, included some 30 countries.

Vietnam - ended over 30 years ago, Vietnam is now a united, independent Country

We could argue about Panama and Grenada, but since the US no longer has "boots on the ground" in either country, I'll forgo that dubious pleasure.

That leaves Iraq and, one you forgot to mention, Afghanistan.

If I were going to take over the world, I seriously doubt I would begin with either Iraq or Afghanistan.

So where's all this "evidence" of the US being this great empire-builder? :headbang:

Has anyone searched ALL of Iraq?

Do you know how big Iraq is?
didnt the weapon inspectors conclude that there were no WMD's there? :cool:

Indeed. After Russia, the greatest weapons peddler in the Middle East is....

drum roll please....

France!
big deal, they havnt invaded anybody, have they?

want more?

Afganistahn
Alaska (1857-1959)
Cuba
Hawaii(1899-1959)
Philippines
for an extended list, visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire

Afghanistan - The Taleban attacked us first, and we're there at the behest of the legally elected government. No different than us being in Germany for 50 years.
Alaska (1857-1959) - We'd already bought it from the Russians. Sorry, try again.
Cuba - We were at war with Spain. Doesn't count.
Philippines - Ditto Cuba.

You have some traction with Hawaii.

big deal, they havnt invaded anybody, have they?

You're right. France doesn't invade, they get invaded!! :p

BTW- How about the Ivory Coast? Is that an invasion in your book?

US blantantly out for world domination- if not world domination then perpetuation of capitalsit values and unfortunatley Blair seems intent on joining him. Bush has a desire to inflict his form of "liberal democracy" on others i.e. afganistan/ iraq. US claims to be the threshold of tolerance yet is imposing your views on another actually tolerant? And why if Bush's motive is the protector of peace and liberation of the oppressed has he not got involved in saudi?....cough oil...cough. :headbang:

and what real proof is there that there is a taliba network - creation of nightmares for control - illegal detention of suspects would never have been permitted previously (nb UK judges ruled that suspects should no longer be held without trial)

sounds awfully familair to soviet union "threat" - we can't find their weapons so they MUST have super amazing weapons with a new ultimate defence system... :headbang:

and what real use does the UN have when nations - UK/US can just bypass it when it suits them...in the UK the majority of us found the hardest pill to swallow re: Iraq war was that it was blantantly illegal, our PM mislead us, the US president mislead us and it was improperly investigated. :confused:

So did the USSR, China, France, and Germany. I don't see anybody giving THEM shit about it.

Yes you are correct those countries did sell arms to Iran but the point I'm trying to make is that the U.S over the past 150 years has systematically installed dictators, imposed economic sanctions, assasinated rivals (ie. union leaders, civil rights advocates) invaded and re-invaded countries countless times. For a country that publicly denounces terrorism and evil dictators the U.S has the worst track record of any country in the world, they have acomplished more than the British Empire could have dreamed of. They support "Freedom" but do the exact opposite.

didnt the weapon inspectors conclude that there were no WMD's there? :cool:


then it must be so! :rolleyes:

The guy who inspected my car the other day for a mysterious oil leak didnt find the source of it either. And hes inspected it 4 times! So I've replaced all the gaskets and other crap that could be leaking......just to be safe.

(off topic-i really think mechanics sometimes take advantage of females :( )

Dude, they don't have carriers at all. Not proper American style ones. Just little toy ones that launch Harriers.

ooo as a brit im offended.
A point to those insulting harriers-

which nation bought some "crappy" Harriers... the US .
what defeated the Argentine airforce in the 1980's Falklands war... British Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers.
which plane is the worlds only VTOL plane in service... The Harrier.

enough? or do i need to dig up more stuff

You're right. France doesn't invade, they get invaded!! :p

BTW- How about the Ivory Coast? Is that an invasion in your book?


I guess sending French Foreign Legion troops into various independent African nations and killing people to ensure the mineral and oil companies of France (and in the Ivory Coast, chocolate) get to keep power isn't invasion.

It's only invasion if the US does it.

If anyone questions Bush's reasoning..... God told me to do it.
:sniper:
How can anyone work with that?

1) The first part of this statement is true. The Neither the US or Russia wants to attack China because they enough nuclear power to destroy the world a few times over. Te US doesn't want to get into another conflict with Russia for the same reason.

2) Iraq was not attacked for their oil. If the US was to get oil from Iraq, then why did the US give control of the oil back to the Iraqis and gas and oil prices skyrocketed here in America?

Oh, come on... Do you really believe that the Iraqis control anything in Iraq? The price of oil hasn't just skyrocketed in America, it's the same everywhere.

The oil infrastructure in Iraq has yet to reach even a fraction of its output prior to the invasion. This is partly due to the insurgency which was not forseen by the Bush administration, but also because it's more profitable for Halliburton etc. to import Oil from Kuwait.

Ordinary Iraqis are currently having to wait up to 15 hours in line to get even a couple of litres of fuel, and the price has increased astronomically. This is in a country where fuel used to be cheaper than water.

Iraq was supposed to roll over and be 'liberated', then start providing the US with cheap and easy oil, but it hasn't quite worked out that way...

And why if Bush's motive is the protector of peace and liberation of the oppressed has he not got involved in saudi?....cough oil...cough. :headbang:

Because only a fool would attack the largest oil supplier in the world from a position of weakness: In other words, without control over a substantial secondary source of oil, in other words, Iraq.

Afghanistan - The Taleban attacked us first, and we're there at the behest of the legally elected government. No different than us being in Germany for 50 years.
Alaska (1857-1959) - We'd already bought it from the Russians. Sorry, try again.
Cuba - We were at war with Spain. Doesn't count.
Philippines - Ditto Cuba.

You have some traction with Hawaii.

But what gives the United States the right to impose it's will on foreign countries? is it some god given right? I don't think it is. No country has that right. Talk about legally elected government Hamid Karzai was linked with the CIA I think that spells out conflict of interest to me.

But what gives the United States the right to impose it's will on foreign countries? is it some god given right? I don't think it is. No country has that right. Talk about legally elected government Hamid Karzai was linked with the CIA I think that spells out conflict of interest to me.

Well, in the case of Afghanistan, there wasn't anyone objecting to our invasion at the UN.

Attack the US, and we'll thrash your country as we see fit. There's a lot of historical precedence based on other nations for that sort of thing.

Yes you are correct those countries did sell arms to Iran but the point I'm trying to make is that the U.S over the past 150 years has systematically installed dictators, imposed economic sanctions, assasinated rivals (ie. union leaders, civil rights advocates) invaded and re-invaded countries countless times.

This STILL is comparable to most of those other countries at their height. Point = pointless.


Don't feed the hippo-critters.

I guess sending French Foreign Legion troops into various independent African nations and killing people to ensure the mineral and oil companies of France (and in the Ivory Coast, chocolate) get to keep power isn't invasion.

It's only invasion if the US does it.

Yes that is economic and political exploitation, France and all the other European countries were wrong to do that to Africa. But it doesn't mean that the U.S is given the green light to continue this tradition of imposing it's will on others.

didnt the weapon inspectors conclude that there were no WMD's there? :cool:

How did they come to that conclusion?

(i refer to my question: Have we searched ALL of Iraq?)

Yes that is economic and political exploitation, France and all the other European countries were wrong to do that to Africa. But it doesn't mean that the U.S is given the green light to continue this tradition of imposing it's will on others.

It does mean that since France continues to do it AFTER telling the US not to do it, that France should STFU permanently. They have no moral ground to stand on.

This STILL is comparable to most of those other countries at their height. Point = pointless.


Don't feed the hippo-critters.

Yes your right. But does it mean that the U.S is somehow allowed to continue doing this? does it make it right? I don't think so.

Talk about legally elected government Hamid Karzai was linked with the CIA I think that spells out conflict of interest to me.

Show me a political leader anywhere who isn't connected with an intelligence agency, military, or revolution or coup, and I'll show you someone whose being controlled by the Little Green Men.

How did they come to that conclusion?

(i refer to my question: Have we searched ALL of Iraq?)

This is reminiscent of the Taliban complexes inside the mountains in Afghanistan.
That was nonsense so is your line of "They must exist, the president said so"
Now run along and let the grown ups talk.

Yes your right. But does it mean that the U.S is somehow allowed to continue doing this? does it make it right? I don't think so.

It doesn't MEAN anything. The sky is blue. Fish gotta swim, bitds gotta fly, successful nations gotta impose their will on other nations (otherwise, they're not successful.)

It doesn't MEAN anything. The sky is blue. Fish gotta swim, bitds gotta fly, successful nations gotta impose their will on other nations (otherwise, they're not successful.)

Your definition of successful:
The ability to impose your will on others via force.
Brilliant :rolleyes:

It doesn't MEAN anything. The sky is blue. Fish gotta swim, bitds gotta fly, successful nations gotta impose their will on other nations (otherwise, they're not successful.)
Let's expand manifest destiny to encompass a wider area.

Your definition of successful:
The ability to impose your will on others via force.
Brilliant :rolleyes:

How else do you think governments remain in power, oh incredibly naive one? The monopoly on force.

Let's expand manifest destiny to encompass a wider area.

Franklin said it best: Join, or die.

Oh, come on... Do you really believe that the Iraqis control anything in Iraq? The price of oil hasn't just skyrocketed in America, it's the same everywhere.

The oil infrastructure in Iraq has yet to reach even a fraction of its output prior to the invasion. This is partly due to the insurgency which was not forseen by the Bush administration, but also because it's more profitable for Halliburton etc. to import Oil from Kuwait.

Ordinary Iraqis are currently having to wait up to 15 hours in line to get even a couple of litres of fuel, and the price has increased astronomically. This is in a country where fuel used to be cheaper than water.

Iraq was supposed to roll over and be 'liberated', then start providing the US with cheap and easy oil, but it hasn't quite worked out that way...

What? It hasn't skyrocketed? do you understand that gasoline has gone up about $0.70-$0.80 per gallon?!? This rounds out, for most pick-up trucks, to be about $50-$60 dollars for about 120 miles, which is not a long way. Do you also know that at one point, gass prices in California were about $5.00 a gallon? Not too many people in America can afford that for too long.

It's true that Iraqi gas isn't all that America buys, in fact it's not even close. But, that is probably why prices didn't go up even more.

Y'know, 15+ years ago we were being PRAISED by Europe and the rest of the World for bringing down the Soviet Union. You think we're out for world domination? Look at the Soviet Union, our Arch-enemies! They had systematically invaded half of Europe, a large portion of Asia, and had baisically Enslaved the population. The Soviet Union was out to conquer the world, people! If you didn't notice, most of our invasions of countries(except for post-1990 and pre-1950) were to stop the Soviet Union. Sure, you may hate us for having too much power, but it was either us or the Soviet's, people. IF the Soviets had won, then NationStates wouldn't exist and we'd all be working on collective farms in Angola or something.

Anyhoo, while I don't think the U.S. is out for World Domination, we ARE trying to keep our status as the worlds only superpower, and as the leader of the Free World(which we are. None of your anti-U.S. blather can oppose that). We are the economic, military, social, cultural, and information capital of (at least) the free world, which means everywhere that isn't Communist or ruled by radical dictator's.

Besides, no one was whining when the British killed thousands of Indians that tried to free themselves, or when the French invaded Vietnam, or when the Spanish enslaved the Cubans (who we freed... and then semi-enslaved), or when anyone else did these things! I guess we should let another superpower emerge, if only because the Europeans will stop yelling at us because they'll be afraid of an invasion by China or A Russia ruled by a dictator.

But what gives the United States the right to impose it's will on foreign countries? is it some god given right? I don't think it is. No country has that right. Talk about legally elected government Hamid Karzai was linked with the CIA I think that spells out conflict of interest to me.
It sure seemed like Britian, Spain, and France thought they had that right about 200 years ago.

This is reminiscent of the Taliban complexes inside the mountains in Afghanistan.
That was nonsense so is your line of "They must exist, the president said so"
Now run along and let the grown ups talk.
You? Grown up? ROFLMAO!!!!!!! :D

This is reminiscent of the Taliban complexes inside the mountains in Afghanistan.
That was nonsense so is your line of "They must exist, the president said so"
Now run along and let the grown ups talk.

LOL at you.

I didn't say "They must exist, the president said so"

Did I say that? Noooooooooooo.

My assertion is based in the LOGIC (look it up) that it would take a very looooooong time to search ALL of Iraq for WOMD. Because it would take so long to do so, I question anyone who says, with conviction, that there unequivocally ARE NOT any WOMD in Iraq.

That sort of statement cannot be proved at this point.

It sure seemed like Britian thought it had that right about 200 years ago.


ouch....

but true

What? It hasn't skyrocketed? do you understand that gasoline has gone up about $0.70-$0.80 per gallon?!? .

My gas is under $1.70. It hasn't been under $1.00, for at least a decade. Maybe your state is gounging the price with extra taxes? That's the reason most European countries' gas prices are so high... the price they pay is up to 3/4 tax.

The recent price surge was mostly due to speculation, actually, since there was very little change in actual oil supplies.

There is a shortage of refineries in the US, which is one of the main reasons prices here stay high - the ones we have are running at capacity, even though we could import more.

My gas is under $1.70. It hasn't been under $1.00, for at least a decade. Maybe your state is gounging the price with extra taxes? That's the reason most European countries' gas prices are so high... the price they pay is up to 3/4 tax.

The recent price surge was mostly due to speculation, actually, since there was very little change in actual oil supplies.

There is a shortage of refineries in the US, which is one of the main reasons prices here stay high - the ones we have are running at capacity, even though we could import more.
No, there was a drop in oil imports. That is why we had to take a very rare dip into Alaskan oil.

Y'know, 15+ years ago we were being PRAISED by Europe and the rest of the World for bringing down the Soviet Union. You think we're out for world domination? Look at the Soviet Union, our Arch-enemies! They had systematically invaded half of Europe, a large portion of Asia, and had baisically Enslaved the population. The Soviet Union was out to conquer the world, people! If you didn't notice, most of our invasions of countries(except for post-1990 and pre-1950) were to stop the Soviet Union. Sure, you may hate us for having too much power, but it was either us or the Soviet's, people. IF the Soviets had won, then NationStates wouldn't exist and we'd all be working on collective farms in Angola or something.

Anyhoo, while I don't think the U.S. is out for World Domination, we ARE trying to keep our status as the worlds only superpower, and as the leader of the Free World(which we are. None of your anti-U.S. blather can oppose that). We are the economic, military, social, cultural, and information capital of (at least) the free world, which means everywhere that isn't Communist or ruled by radical dictator's.

Besides, no one was whining when the British killed thousands of Indians that tried to free themselves, or when the French invaded Vietnam, or when the Spanish enslaved the Cubans (who we freed... and then semi-enslaved), or when anyone else did these things! I guess we should let another superpower emerge, if only because the Europeans will stop yelling at us because they'll be afraid of an invasion by China or A Russia ruled by a dictator.

Why is it, by putting up a viewpoint that differs from your I am accused of being anti-American? This is not true.
The US is the only superpower at the moment, but with that comes responsibility.
As for being the cultural capital of the world, McDonalds and Coke yes OK your superior reasoning powers have me defeated......

What? It hasn't skyrocketed? do you understand that gasoline has gone up about $0.70-$0.80 per gallon?!? This rounds out, for most pick-up trucks, to be about $50-$60 dollars for about 120 miles, which is not a long way. Do you also know that at one point, gass prices in California were about $5.00 a gallon? Not too many people in America can afford that for too long.

It's true that Iraqi gas isn't all that America buys, in fact it's not even close. But, that is probably why prices didn't go up even more.

If you read my post, I was agreeing that the oil price has indeed gone up, but not just in america - in the UK we pay the equivalent of around $6 a gallon.

It sure seemed like Britian, Spain, and France thought they had that right about 200 years ago.

Give up that "right," and you've taken the first step down the road to second-tier nation status.

As the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans can tell you, it's hard to regain once you've lost it.

If you read my post, I was agreeing that the oil price has indeed gone up, but not just in america - in the UK we pay the equivalent of around $6 a gallon.

Yes, but that's 3/4 tax and only 1/4 gas.

Give up that "right," and you've taken the first step down the road to second-tier nation status.

As the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans can tell you, it's hard to regain once you've lost it.

The Europeans dearly wished the US would give up first-tier status. That's why they unified in the first place - they had no way to compete individually.

Actually we pay 80p per litre.
But then our cars are generally more efficient, typical economy being 5.5l/100km
HTH

Why is it, by putting up a viewpoint that differs from your I am accused of being anti-American? This is not true.
The US is the only superpower at the moment, but with that comes responsibility.
As for being the cultural capital of the world, McDonalds and Coke yes OK your superior reasoning powers have me defeated......

I never said that YOU are anti-American.

I know we are the only Superpower in the world, and we ARE living up to that responsability. Protect the free world from it's enemies and spread freedom through the world. That is what we have been doing.

Afghanistan: Ruled by the Taliban regime. After we invaded, we instated a democratic government. We just had the first elections, and while they weren't perfect, the Afghani's chose the person that THEY wanted, and there hasn't been a rebellion yet.

Irag: Ruled by the despotic Saddam Huessein. While the motives of the war itself are debatable, there (should) be no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was an EVIL person, and that with him gone it's better. In Iraq people can now speak their mind, they can do whatever they want, they can be FREE. Unfortunatly, Iraq is also home to a radical Sunni population, which has called all the other Terrorist groups to it's aid. So while Iraq isn't picture-perfect, at least it's getting better.

As for cultural capital? YES, we ARE! Look at it this way: The United States is home to a mix of every culture. You can find a large Indian population, a large Nigerian population, a large swiss population, a large German population, a large ANYTHING population. Hell, even one of our greatest buisinesses(McDonald's) was started by SCOT's!

But what gives the United States the right to impose it's will on foreign countries? is it some god given right? I don't think it is. No country has that right. Talk about legally elected government Hamid Karzai was linked with the CIA I think that spells out conflict of interest to me.

We do? I wasn't aware we had conscipted the Germans & Japanese as mercenaries. Or the South Koreans. Come on now. Where have we imposed our will? Iraq? We installed Saddam in the first place to fill a power vacuum. We were cleaning up our own mess!

As opposed to the guys destroying the Budda statues and imposing burkas? Making men grow beards and not letting kids fly kites?
Sorry my friend, Afghanistan is not a candidate to show the US is mean spirited.

Let's expand manifest destiny to encompass a wider area.

I could use a winter home in Sao Paulo...

Oh, and to a lot of posts which say that the US is the only superpower in the world... WRONG.

Ever hear of China? Russia (yes they are still a superpower), North Korea (don't yell at me for this one, but if you are technologically advanced enough to create nuclear weapons... I'm not saying for sure that they have them anymore, but where do you think that China learned the information from?), and actually a lot of Europe?
I believe wha should be said is that America is the largest superpower in the world.

Oh, and to a lot of posts which say that the US is the only superpower in the world... WRONG.

Ever hear of China? Russia (yes they are still a superpower), North Korea (don't yell at me for this one, but if you are technologically advanced enough to create nuclear weapons... I'm not saying for sure that they have them anymore, but where do you think that China learned the information from?), and actually a lot of Europe?
I believe wha should be said is that America is the largest superpower in the world.

hmm i think tht the US, Russia and China are the worlds Super Powers, the others are Major Powers realy- they couldnt beat any of the top 3 in a war on their own, whereas the US, China and Russia could beat each other n ne1 else singlehandedly.

(on a 1v1 basis)

A power can take on another power.
A superpower can take on another superpower.

Nuclear power does not a superpower make. That's sixty year old technology.

Countries vie in various arenas. Economic, Political, Sport, Cultural, Military, Ideologic...

France is a power. If they went to war with (say) India, you could expect it to be about even. Or in culture, one can compare (say) Paris with Vienna and find it a tough match. But both trounce Vaduz or Sofia.

The same goes with superpowers. In hockey, Slovakia and Czech Republic are the place to be. Ditto London and New York (UK and US) in high finance; these two cities (/nations) are the top of the game, perhaps with Tokyo.

At this point, Russia is no longer a superpower. The Russian military is in a shambles. Soldier regularly beg for food and sell anything they can. Their airforce and fleets are crumbling. There is no realm in which you can compare Russia favorably to the US.

China is on the cusp of leaving the second world. But it is not yet a superpower. Superpowers GIVE aid, they don't recieve it.

North Korea is only a superpower to Chad. :D

I could use a winter home in Sao Paulo...
Why settle for a winter home? How would you like to be imperial governor of Brazil?

Why settle for a winter home? How would you like to be imperial governor of Brazil?

I wouldn't, thanks.
The whole idea is silly, thus was my answer. :)

(I am dreaming about a winter home in Myrtle Beach, tho...)

true Markreich, but it was the nuclear/military power being discussed not economic etc. also i didnt mean tht major powers couldnt militarily beat each other, i ment tht the major powers could not beat those top 3, therefore despite the state of the Russians army i would still doubt France or hooever to beat it. In economic terms the US is obviously top, but it gives out about 50% of the worlds polution or something stupid like tht, and it doesnt even need to rely on things like heavy industry, whereas china does

I think this raises an intresting topic, as the US have invaded many countrys, and are currently an invading force.
If bush is out for world peace, surley war isnt the answer???
What is the UN for?

Personally the UN is a bunch of CRAP. Look at what nations are in it: all the African 3rd world nations, Middle East and Asian dictatorships, Corrupt European wimps.

Then look at the people who are in: Kofi and his thug son stealing millions from other nations(Namely the US), Saddam, etc.

I wish the US was trying to take over the world it would make for a nice change of pace.

Are the US out for world domination?
Of course they are.

Draudan, the US wields more power than most in the halls of the UN, and its problems can often be laid in part at our feet; we have undermined it, we have failed it, we have departed from the vision. Would it have worked with our support?

Quite possibly not.
Y'know, 15+ years ago we were being PRAISED by Europe and the rest of the World for bringing down the Soviet Union. You think we're out for world domination? Look at the Soviet Union, our Arch-enemies! They had systematically invaded half of Europe, a large portion of Asia, and had baisically Enslaved the population. The Soviet Union was out to conquer the world, people! If you didn't notice, most of our invasions of countries(except for post-1990 and pre-1950) were to stop the Soviet Union. Sure, you may hate us for having too much power, but it was either us or the Soviet's, people. IF the Soviets had won, then NationStates wouldn't exist and we'd all be working on collective farms in Angola or something.Note here the Cold War references. It is in the cold war that we find the origin of truly global American imperialism in trying to become the dominant world power. We have, to a large degree, succeeded in this.

Historically, of course, Lightning Star conveniently ignores that the USA was the USSR's greatest ally in taking Eastern Europe away from the Axis, that its Asian territories largely were conquered not by a Soviet Russia, but a Tzarist Russia, that the USSR did not particularly get involved in Korea (China was the one who made us stop there, IIRC), wasn't even in a position to become involved in Vietnam (for that matter, Vietnamese communists and Chinese communists didn't even get along very well), that Red China was (and still is) very distinct from the Soviets, and all the other historical evidence of what really happened. We installed a dictator in Vietnam. We tried to keep them a subservient nation. They didn't play along, and it blew up in our faces.

The Soviet Union's ventures into imperialism between 1950 and 1990 were few and disastrous. Afghanistan comes to mind. We, more than the Soviets, were running around trying to get control of everything. We saw Soviet influence under every bed... not knowing what we know now that the USSR has fallen and its own history of intentions laid bare to the eyes of the West.Anyhoo, while I don't think the U.S. is out for World Domination, we ARE trying to keep our status as the worlds only superpower, and as the leader of the Free World(which we are. None of your anti-U.S. blather can oppose that). We are the economic, military, social, cultural, and information capital of (at least) the free world, which means everywhere that isn't Communist or ruled by radical dictator's.
Keeping status as the only world superpower requires world domination. "Leading" is a dominant position. Keeping others from rising to superstardom requires oppression on a broad scale.
Besides, no one was whining when the British killed thousands of Indians that tried to free themselves, or when the French invaded Vietnam, or when the Spanish enslaved the Cubans (who we freed... and then semi-enslaved), or when anyone else did these things! I guess we should let another superpower emerge, if only because the Europeans will stop yelling at us because they'll be afraid of an invasion by China or A Russia ruled by a dictator.Actually, many were complaining in all those cases. You presume silence where none existed. The guilt of others does not excuse the guilt of self.

Here is a really good quote, not sure where it comes from:

"America is an empire of ideas"

Yes, we are out for world domination, and no question about it. But we are not out for world conquest, or control of the world, or plunder. We want our ideas to become dominant... oh, silly things like religious freedom, equality, freedom of speech, representative government, that kind of thing... and we are actually willing to fight for that.

I think this raises an intresting topic, as the US have invaded many countrys, and are currently an invading force.
If bush is out for world peace, surley war isnt the answer???
What is the UN for?


::monotone sarcasm:: oh no you have discovered our secret plan. now we must bludgeon you to death with wiffle ball batts. Moo hoo ha ha.

So, um...anyone wanna help me invade Mexico, they have some pretty land and good liquor. I'll drive.

http://photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/DK1/PEACE.gif

http://photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/DK1/PEACE.gif
:D Yeah, world peace through violence.

I'm sure Kuwait feels alot safer though..

Unfortunatly the Iraqi's don't.

So, um...anyone wanna help me invade Mexico, they have some pretty land and good liquor. I'll drive.

We did under President Polk. Even captured Mexico City. That's how Texas, California, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico became US territory: during the Mexican-American War. The US literally took half of Mexico at that point.

Notably, the half we took is doing much better than the half we left behind. Somedays, I wonder if Polk had been a little more hawkish, and the railroads a little more established...

true Markreich, but it was the nuclear/military power being discussed not economic etc. also i didnt mean tht major powers couldnt militarily beat each other, i ment tht the major powers could not beat those top 3, therefore despite the state of the Russians army i would still doubt France or hooever to beat it. In economic terms the US is obviously top, but it gives out about 50% of the worlds polution or something stupid like tht, and it doesnt even need to rely on things like heavy industry, whereas china does

If you just want to keep it military, you could combine China and Russia and still not be able to win against America -- even assuming all 3 nations went to a wartime economy. Simply put, America spends more on the military than the next 10 nations *combined*.

Even today, France could likely win in a war against Russia. Occupy? Heck no. Even the Mongols failed at that, to say nothing of Napoleon and Hitler.

Polution does not matter in terms for this debate, if we're just talking military.
If you want to include economics, then sure, the US is responsible for about 35% of all global pollution. It also has the largest economy (three times the size of #2), and donates 40% of all aid given per year.

"Yes, we are out for world domination, and no question about it. But we are not out for world conquest, or control of the world, or plunder. We want our ideas to become dominant... oh, silly things like religious freedom, equality, freedom of speech, representative government, that kind of thing... and we are actually willing to fight for that. "

Of course, because the US is the only place to find freedom, equality and democracy.......not. I'm sure if fascists invaded France, Japan, UK or Canada they would just let them take over *Sarcasm*

Seriously, do you think that they even have a chance of finding WoMD? Bush gave the Iraqis so much time to hide/destroy/send away their weapons. Probably all in Pakistan by now, what matters is that the Iraqis don't have the weapons, whether they exist or not.

US-world domination? probably not, there are just too many nukes in the world. Even if the US has most of them. To add to the list of countries that could be US "protectorates", Taiwan and maybe South Korea. Both countries are extremely rich, and already rely on the US.

The U.S., like Britain of the 19th century, will back into world domination and like the British no one will be more surprised to one day find they are living in an empire than Americans.


Sorry, but the British new exactly what they were doing. I don't think the U.S has the slightest clue!

My guess is that Syria may have some of Iraqs' dirty laundry....and nice fact on invading Mexico, I didn't know we went that far, thanks

My guess is that Syria may have some of Iraqs' dirty laundry....and nice fact on invading Mexico, I didn't know we went that far, thanks


...and Canada, but they were seen-off sharpish by the Canadians (British).

what? the war of 1812, a whopping 36 years after the US became a country, and we lost a battle against the global power of the time (the english, not the damn canadians. astounding how canadians with their heads in their rear consider they "beat" the us in a battle. care for a rematch? we'll settle for destroying quebec, btw, which means we may end up better friends than we used to be) to try to attack where the english were staging from. in a war we eventually won. what is your point, or do you have one?

If you mean by 'world domination', the American and Western way of economics, then American ideas have gone a long way to achieve this. Who would have thought Russia and a (still) Communist China would embrace the market economy? Capitalism, that is!

what? the war of 1812, a whopping 36 years after the US became a country, and we lost a battle against the global power of the time (the english, not the damn canadians. astounding how canadians with their heads in their rear consider they "beat" the us in a battle. care for a rematch? we'll settle for destroying quebec, btw, which means we may end up better friends than we used to be) to try to attack where the english were staging from. in a war we eventually won. what is your point, or do you have one?


For English read British. You can't have Quebec. The Scottish Highlanders took it for Britain. Before the US became a 'country', they were all British anyway, in fact they were mostly from Britain! By the way, the US didn't win the war, because Canada is still Canadian, and not part of the USA!

I think this raises an intresting topic, as the US have invaded many countrys, and are currently an invading force.
If bush is out for world peace, surley war isnt the answer???
What is the UN for?

We are out to destroy everything that oposes us. People sometimes think "why does the free world hates us"? Think what Hitler did, before the war in the 30ies with his then less violent politic of annexations (then the US now) to create a German Reich of huge proportions, when you realise that, you're bout to find out why they hate us. Perhaps we are also jalous of the freedoms of the EU countries (or the respect for human rights) and is that the reason why we in the US hate them.

If you just want to keep it military, you could combine China and Russia and still not be able to win against America -- even assuming all 3 nations went to a wartime economy. Simply put, America spends more on the military than the next 10 nations *combined*.
I would not count on this. We've fought North Korea - to a draw. We fought Vietnam - and lost, bloody though it was. We beat the stuffing out of Iraq... twice so far since then. All of which measure roughly a tenth our size and are substantially less developed. We've bullied assorted countries clandestinely in South America.

A war between the US and Russia+China would probably not be decided by sheer economics, but to a large degree on situational factors. China is commonly considered to "effectively spend" more than it publicly states. A dollar goes much further there.

:D Yeah, world peace through violence.

War is peace.

http://www.internationalterrorist.com/artwork/s_trystop.jpg

I would not count on this. We've fought North Korea - to a draw. We fought Vietnam - and lost, bloody though it was. We beat the stuffing out of Iraq... twice so far since then. All of which measure roughly a tenth our size and are substantially less developed. We've bullied assorted countries clandestinely in South America.

A war between the US and Russia+China would probably not be decided by sheer economics, but to a large degree on situational factors. China is commonly considered to "effectively spend" more than it publicly states. A dollar goes much further there.

The USA was supported in Korea by the United Nations. This including thousands of British, Turkish and many other nation's soldiers. Is this forgetfulness of other nation's contributions a clue to why other nations think the USA is rather arrogant and, unfortunately, quite ignorant of the outside world, unless and until it thinks it's being threatened?

We are out to destroy everything that oposes us. People sometimes think "why does the free world hates us"? Think what Hitler did, before the war in the 30ies with his then less violent politic of annexations (then the US now) to create a German Reich of huge proportions, when you realise that, you're bout to find out why they hate us. Perhaps we are also jalous of the freedoms of the EU countries (or the respect for human rights) and is that the reason why we in the US hate them.

I think the EU would be gone by now if we were out to destroy everything that opposes us. We're after our own interests.

Oh, and to a lot of posts which say that the US is the only superpower in the world... WRONG.

Ever hear of China? Russia (yes they are still a superpower), North Korea (don't yell at me for this one, but if you are technologically advanced enough to create nuclear weapons... I'm not saying for sure that they have them anymore, but where do you think that China learned the information from?), and actually a lot of Europe?
I believe wha should be said is that America is the largest superpower in the world.

It takes more than nuclear weapons to make a Super Power. China is certainly a regional power in Asia, but they are not a Super Power. Russia? Have you ever visited the country? They will be lucky to remain a regional European power at the rate they are going. North Korea can't even feed its own people.

A Super Power not only has overwhelming military power (the U.S. spends almost as much on its military as all the rest of the nations of the world combined), but also the ability to project that power anywhere in the world. A Super Power is also able to dominate the world economy. China could suffer a complete economic collapse and the U.S. wouldn't even experience a recession as a result (witness the decade long Japanese recession of the '90s while the U.S. economy chugged right along). However, if the United States economy falters the entire world suffers.

A Super Power exerts overwhelming political, economic, social, and military authority.

Right now there is only one Super Power. That is not an arrogant statement - simply a fact.

I suspect the original poster is just trying for flamebait, otherwise he would have responded to my original quesions: "As far as the US seeking 'world dominiation,' why? What on earth would we want with it? So what countries have we 'invaded?' A list and some references would be nice. Define 'many.'"

There are many ignorant, anti-American, mean spirited posts in this thread, but there is also little doubt that the United States is at a crossroads in its relations with the world. In the modern world a nation does not need to conquer other nations in order to dominate and control them. In fact such conquest is a waste of effort and resources (i.e. Iraq).

The United States dominates the world through the power of its economy, its steamroller cultural hegemony (via Hollywood, television, music, and pop culture), and the threat of its military. The U.S. is also taking control of Middle East oil (compare the number of U.S. military bases in the Middle East today with 15 years ago) and, by extension, exerting power over Europe, China, Japan, and (to a lesser extent) Russia through the control of the substance that drives the modern economy and military.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is moving into this period of empire with little or no debate taking place among our people. In some ways we are in a time not unlike the turn of the last century when McKinley set in motion America's first move into imperialism.

I think the EU would be gone by now if we were out to destroy everything that opposes us. We're after our own interests.

Problem is that we allways oppose when it comes to the interests of the others. I don't specially mean the EU interests but we will have more conflicts with them because they follow the Geneva convention, have a believe that conflicts or problems (like now in Asia for ex.) should be dealt by the UN (without our constant obstruction for our interests like in Israel aso), believe in global cooperation instead of global conflicts.

They did not change, we did. That is why the rest of the world has much more respect for them (because of the vice versa) then for us. Building permanent prisons to keep some 500 prisonars at Gitmo while saying that they will never have a trial is seen as someting that was a speciality of Stalin or other Hitlers by the free world. It is wrong and even not "deep" in our hart and minds, we all now it. A decent country judges people with a trial (fake or not), they don't decide to jail them for ever without a trial. ASO

That is why.
For the rest, I can only suscribe Ogieks explanation. Besides that I don't agree seeing China not as a superpower (economy, millitary) or Russia (still millitary) and the EU as the next economic Superpower with China. Or only chance to sabotage their millitary project is to continue the "monkey business" like we did under Bush I and do the old "devide et impera" by suporting counries like Poland and setting them up against their own sponsors (the EU).

I would not count on this. We've fought North Korea - to a draw. We fought Vietnam - and lost, bloody though it was. We beat the stuffing out of Iraq... twice so far since then. All of which measure roughly a tenth our size and are substantially less developed. We've bullied assorted countries clandestinely in South America.

Yes, the Allies fought North Korea to a draw. Of course, we were also fighting Russian pilots and Chinese armies at the time. At that was 50 years ago. The Russians would never intervene for NK today (and even if they did, their airforce is a joke... Sweden could defeat them easily).

I also doubt China would get involved, as it would seriously damage their economy. This time, the US wouldn't fear fighting China up front, as even though both sides have nukes, neither side would even consider using them unless they were near total defeat. Any Korean conflict would be, by definition, a limited war as in Iraq or Afghanistan. The US would have no desire to occupy Beijing, but Pongyang? Absolutely.

The same arguements hold for Viet Nam.
Both of your examples cite wars that were fought by the US (and allies) against a minor nation with superpower backing. These scenarios simply don't exist today.

Why do you *think* we're not losing 500 men a week in Iraq, as in Viet Nam? Our technology isn't *that* much better than 1970, and urban warfare hasn't gotten any easier. For all we hear in the media, the terrorists/insurgents are really just a militia at best. Dangerous? Yes. Capable of defeating us? Only if we let them.


A war between the US and Russia+China would probably not be decided by sheer economics, but to a large degree on situational factors. China is commonly considered to "effectively spend" more than it publicly states. A dollar goes much further there.

The figures for governmental spending are tied directly to currency. The yuan is pegged at (I believe) 7 to the dollar. Even if China "secretly" spent TEN times what they say they do, they'd still not even equal 1/4th of American military spending.
As for other factors, compare the US and Chinese Navies. The US 7th Fleet alone (based in Japan) is more powerful than the entire Chinese Navy. This isn't 1938; if the US wanted to, we could send an armada which would make Normandy look like a dress rehearsal.