NationStates Jolt Archive

How would you like to represent the world's strongest nation, both militarily and economically, to the formost assembly of national groups in the world?
Requirements:
-You must be "incredibly intimidating and threatening"
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1114033810772&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154
-You must be able to dish out "verbal abuse to subordinates"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=689039&page=2
-You must believe that “there is no such thing" as the assembly you're the ambassador to
http://keystoneonline.com/story.asp?Art_id=1301

Please apply, in person, to President Bush at the White House. Candidates with facial hair not as creepy as John Bolton's will be accepted.

Why do I go to the white house to be a British ambasador?

Why do I go to the white house to be a British ambasador?

Britain, both economically and militarily, is the world's strongest nation???

Britain, both economically and militarily, is the world's strongest nation???

Economicly, the country managing to survive the global economic downturn far better than everyone else

Millitarly, arguably the most professional armed force in the world

Economicly, the country managing to survive the global economic downturn far better than everyone else

Millitarly, arguably the most professional armed force in the world

Economically, Britain's GDP is still much smaller than that of the USA.
Militarily, "professionalism" is hard to qualify. Expenditures aren't, and Britain lags behind the US in that area.

Economically, Britain's GDP is still much smaller than that of the USA.

Yes, but whose economy is going through 10 years of sustained growth.


Militarily, "professionalism" is hard to qualify. Expenditures aren't, and Britain lags behind the US in that area

Training is quantifiable. British rank and file troops recieve a simmilar level of training to some American special forces. Expenditure could simply mean the American army uses ineffective technology which needs a great deal of expensive servicing (Im not saying thats the case, simply disproving the notion that millitary spending is any good way to judge an Armies capability)

Yes, but whose economy is going through 10 years of sustained growth.

Training is quantifiable. British rank and file troops recieve a simmilar level of training to some American special forces.

Canada's economy is going through 9 years of sustained growth. I hardly think we're economically equal to the US.
The US accounts for nearly half of the world's total military expenditure. Unless Britain accounts for the other half, I don't think they're on even footing.

Canada's economy is going through 9 years of sustained growth. I hardly think we're economically equal to the US.

The US does have a population density advantage in terms of GDP. Though GDP tries to deal with it by dividing by the total population, the problem with it is that there is more resorces available per person in the US simply because the country is bigger, no other reason. And unlike America we have record low unemployment and not a record rate recession


The US accounts for nearly half of the world's total military expenditure. Unless Britain accounts for the other half, I don't think they're on even footing.

As I said, spending is not the best way to judge an army.

Yes I want to be a diplomat (or some kind of politician), but not the diplomat you described.

The US does have a population density advantage in terms of GDP. Though GDP tries to deal with it by dividing by the total population, the problem with it is that there is more resorces available per person in the US simply because the country is bigger, no other reason. And unlike America we have record low unemployment and not a record rate recession

As I said, spending is not the best way to judge an army.

To your first point: That's like arguing a 4' tall midget strong man, because pound for pound he is stronger than, say, the combined pound for pound average of Delta Force, would be dominant in a fight. Of course the US has a massive population advantage. That doesn't negate the fact that they're stronger economically.
To your second point: You honestly believe that the UK's armed forces have a superior fighting capacity in a major war to that of the US? If not, then the Us is more dominant militarily.

Yes I want to be a diplomat (or some kind of politician), but not the diplomat you described.

I am sorry, then, but the Bush White House currently has no positions available to you. Please try again in four years, when perhaps the next president will have different requirements. Thank you.

I am sorry, then, but the Bush White House currently has no positions available to you. Please try again in four years, when perhaps the next president will have different requirements. Thank you.


The next President? I want to BE President. Along with everyone else here.

To your first point: That's like arguing a 4' tall midget strong man, because pound for pound he is stronger than, say, the combined pound for pound average of Delta Force, would be dominant in a fight. Of course the US has a massive population advantage. That doesn't negate the fact that they're stronger economically.

I was arguing that the GDP system favours them unfairly, and that growth is better analysis system


To your second point: You honestly believe that the UK's armed forces have a superior fighting capacity in a major war to that of the US? If not, then the Us is more dominant militarily.

The British troops control a larger sector of Iraq than the Americans with less troops than the Americans and get fewer attacks than the Americans. The British are just better soldiers in general. There may be more American solidiers but the British ones seem better at their job.

The next President? I want to BE President. Along with everyone else here.

I've listened to some of the people here, and in my own slightlly less than humble opinion, if they're electable, I'm the Dalai Lama.
Oh, I do hope you're Republican- because you're going to go nowhere on a Democrat ticket.

I've listened to some of the people here, and in my own slightlly less than humble opinion, if they're electable, I'm the Dalai Lama.
I think Jesussaves would have a fair chance of getting into office.
:D

I was arguing that the GDP system favours them unfairly, and that growth is better analysis system

The British troops control a larger sector of Iraq than the Americans with less troops than the Americans and get fewer attacks than the Americans. The British are just better soldiers in general. There may be more American solidiers but the British ones seem better at their job.

I view GDP as a better system because it shows, not how fast an economy is expanding, but rather it's present strength. Frankly the US is dominant- if you disagree, find me a credible economist who believes Britain is economically stronger than the US.
I imagine you're probably correct in your estimate that one British soldier does a better job than one American soldier. I feel the same way. However, if they fought, I'm relatively sure the Americans would come out on top, therefore they have a stronger military.

I think Jesussaves would have a fair chance of getting into office.
:D

Suddenly I'm feeling a wave of spirituality sweeping over me . . .

Somehow, I expected to have at least one die-hard Republican tell me that John Bolton is the answer to the world's problems . . . where are you, Fascist Emerica?