NationStates Jolt Archive

I say India would make the most trustworthy superpower.

Way too prude, if you ask me. I'd trust the EU, though it isn't a country.

Britain, because we're so much wiser than the rest of you.

India has never invaded other countries in its whole, very long history, as far as I can determine. Of course, they fight with each other all the time, could hardly be human otherwise...

Canada.

No one would ever see it comming.

EU, even though it's not really a country. Actually, that's why I would choose it: the EU doesn't really have a feeling of national unity, it's less likely to get caught up in nationalism or even narrow-minded patriotism than a single country.

Mórdor!!! YEAH!!:D

EU, even though it's not really a country. Actually, that's why I would choose it: the EU doesn't really have a feeling of national unity, it's less likely to get caught up in nationalism or even narrow-minded patriotism than a single country.

Do you think that the existence of a feeling continental unity is a possibility?

Well, EU is not a country, and the world would cry at Germany being a world superpower again, so i vote Mother Russia

EU, even though it's not really a country. Actually, that's why I would choose it: the EU doesn't really have a feeling of national unity, it's less likely to get caught up in nationalism or even narrow-minded patriotism than a single country.
Ach. It's a beaurocratic mess. It'd be like having Tsarist Russia running the world or something, but worse, and in too many languages.
Canada.

No one would ever see it comming.
"Looks like you're our bitches, eh?"
"Aww :("

Jamaica. *nod*

Do you think that the existence of a feeling continental unity is a possibility?
Possible, yes. But it doesn't exist, at least not right now. Maybe it would if the EU became the world's biggest superpower, I don't know.
Ach. It's a beaurocratic mess. It'd be like having Tsarist Russia running the world or something, but worse, and in too many languages.

Bureaucratic messes are fine. It'd just make it that much harder to interfere with other countries.

Superpowers are inherently untrustworthy. A pox on all their houses.

Bureaucratic messes are fine.
Not really, no.

Makes things take ages to do, and makes everything very expensive to do, too.

Not really, no.

Makes things take ages to do, and makes everything very expensive to do, too.

That's assuming I would want the EU to get anything done. :)

That's assuming I would want the EU to get anything done. :)
You would, really. It's quite good, when it gets around to doing things which aren't so much pish, like having a European Day Of Wearing Bonnets which you only hear about on their website or whatever.

You would, really. It's quite good, when it gets around to doing things which aren't so much pish, like having a European Day Of Wearing Bonnets which you only hear about on their website or whatever.

I meant do anything in other countries, a la United States in Latin America. But I do admire what it does in Europe; I think it's the kind of organization that eventually all countries will have to join if they wish to continue existing. I fear the United States's isolation will prolong the time before it does something like that.

I meant do anything in other countries, a la United States in Latin America. But I do admire what it does in Europe; I think it's the kind of organization that eventually all countries will have to join if they wish to continue existing. I fear the United States's isolation will prolong the time before it does something like that.
The United States really is like the EU on its own, though. It's a whole ton of states, each with quite a bit of power, with a single authority which can preside over the Really Important Things.

The EU's even getting its own Foreign Affairs secretary etc. in the new 'mini-Treaty' (read : new constitution that got rejected).

The United States really is like the EU on its own, though. It's a whole ton of states, each with quite a bit of power, with a single authority which can preside over the Really Important Things.

The EU's even getting its own Foreign Affairs secretary etc. in the new 'mini-Treaty' (read : new constitution that got rejected).The EU can do that? When did that happen?

The EU can do that? When did that happen?
Ooh, 1991ish, when we had a debate about Maastricht on the same scale as the current debate on the mini-treaty.

Since then, the EU's just been gathering more and more power.

Ooh, 1991ish, when we had a debate about Maastricht on the same scale as the current debate on the mini-treaty.

Since then, the EU's just been gathering more and more power.And it has yet to actually obtain real powers that could somehow be compared to the US federal government...

None of the above

And it has yet to actually obtain real powers that could somehow be compared to the US federal government...
The Working Times Directive is a great showing of its power. Everyone has to work to that, all over the EU. With the creation of EuroCorps (as well as the European Gendarmerie Force), Europe's militaries are becomnig more and more integrated, and when the new mini-treaty passes, the EU is going to become a powerful force politically, as well as economically, around the world.

The Working Times Directive is a great showing of its power. Everyone has to work to that, all over the EU. With the creation of EuroCorps (as well as the European Gendarmerie Force), Europe's militaries are becomnig more and more integrated, and when the new mini-treaty passes, the EU is going to become a powerful force politically, as well as economically, around the world.And yet, we still can't force the Brits to adopt the Euro.

None, as this assumes that one superpower would behave better than another; power corrupts, and so we can't really expect any benefits from superpower. I would rather have no superpower at all.

And yet, we still can't force the Brits to adopt the Euro.
Because our currency remains the strongest in the world, and we make billions of pounds a year from exchanging it for other currencies.

There should be no super powers. Any country that became a super power would abuse its power, despite what various nationalists would have you believe.

America cos they take no shit from commies.

EU is not a country.
Give it fifteen years ;)
Also, there should be no super powers. Any country that became a super power would abuse its power, despite what various nationalists would have you believe.
There's always going to be a superpower around, why not pick a decent one?

Give it fifteen years ;)

There's always going to be a superpower around, why not pick a decent one?

I dont believe their is a decent one. History shows the Europians are not any better despite what they like to pretend, Russia had its shot, America is screwing everything, China has egregious human rights violations, and India would just start nuclear war with Pakistan.


Id say best case scenario is to have two or three super powers so they can keep each other in check, but the Cold War shows even that isnt a great idea.

Because our currency remains the strongest in the world, and we make billions of pounds a year from exchanging it for other currencies.Irish didn't mind.

Because our currency remains the strongest in the world, and we make billions of pounds a year from exchanging it for other currencies.

I didn't know Britain could manipulate the world currency markets.

I dont believe their is a decent one.
A shame.
History shows the Europians are not any better despite what they like to pretend
Nah, the British Empire was really quite spiff for everyone involved.
Russia had its shot
Quite. It was so-so.
America is screwing everything
Aye, but you guys need some practise. Becoming a superpower in less than 200 years after your founding as a 'proper' is a bit hasty.
China has egregious human rights violations
Who really cares?

And I mean really, not just "I need something to get worked up about"-type caring.
and India would just start nuclear war with Pakistan.
Yet to happen, and they've both had nukes for 20+ years.

They understand MAD, you know.

No nation can be trusted as a superpower.

Irish didn't mind.
The Irish don't make their money through financial services.
I didn't know Britain could manipulate the world currency markets.
It can and does.

Aye, but you guys need some practise. Becoming a superpower in less than 200 years after your founding as a 'proper' is a bit hasty.
Pf. Germany did it in less time.

I'm OK with things as they are. The US isn't perfect, but them being the big superpower works reasonabley well for us. I'd sooner we not get involved in so many US wars as we do, but I don't really see the need to rock the boat too much.

Pf. Germany did it in less time.
Prussia, which was really all that was good about the Second Reich, and most of what was good about the Third Reich, was a powerful state for hundreds of years before unification.

Which country would you trust most as superpower?
That’s like asking which convicted paedophile you’d most trust with babysitting your kids.

India. China is a big human rights violater, the US has already screwed everything up, Russia had it's chance and screwed up, and I don't know enough about the EU. Also, I'm taking a wild guess and saying that most of these people are voting for their own countrys because they have a sense of patroitism. Whether they admit it or not is something different.

The EU isn't a country, so the US wins by a mile. With the EU, though, it's so close as to be indeterminate.

As long as they don't bother the rest of us I really wouldn't care. But seeing how China, Russia and the EU would become all meddlesome, I don't think they would.

As long as they don't bother the rest of us I really wouldn't care. But seeing how China, Russia and the EU would become all meddlesome, I don't think they would.

Please, I see the EU as having the least chance of becoming meddlesome, because they all have experiance with Imperialism and know it doesnt turn out well. China wouldnt even really probably be that meddlesome, because its superpowerdom would rely entirely on its business relationships with the West. If it pisses the west off, it would be done for.

Please, I see the EU as having the least chance of becoming meddlesome, because they all have experiance with Imperialism and know it doesnt turn out well. China wouldnt even really probably be that meddlesome, because its superpowerdom would rely entirely on its business relationships with the West. If it pisses the west off, it would be done for.

China is deversifying, and by the time they got to superpower level they wouldn't need the west's cash. The EU ordered America and China to stop poluting so their companies could actually compete. What makes you think, if they were able, they wouldn't screw the rest of us over like every other superpower ever?

China is deversifying, and by the time they got to superpower level they wouldn't need the west's cash.

The West is China's market. In order to be a superpower you need cash. How else do you pay for your army? If China cant sell its goods here, the cash flow dies.

The EU ordered America and China to stop poluting so their companies could actually compete. What makes you think, if they were able, they wouldn't screw the rest of us over like every other superpower ever?



:rolleyes:


I seem to recall them threatening that they would boycott our prodcts if we didnt start being more evironmentally friendly. Thats different from bombing us because they dont like how we live our lives or our form of government *cough US cough*.

No, the EU would be the lesser evil.

China is deversifying, and by the time they got to superpower level they wouldn't need the west's cash. The EU ordered America and China to stop poluting so their companies could actually compete. What makes you think, if they were able, they wouldn't screw the rest of us over like every other superpower ever?

Its not so much about WHAT country becomes the superpower, its about what the political stance of the country is when it becomes a superpower

Democracy will screw the world over, regardless of what superpower it is

European communism could work as a superpower, just cut out greedy leaders and its a good system
Asian communism is facism with a different wrapper, it wont work

European Nationalism can work, and if it wasnt for some retarded half-jewish guy whacked out on drugs, ruining everything, Germany would still be a Nationalist superpower
Asian Nationalism is Facism in another different wrapper

Its not so much about WHAT country becomes the superpower, its about what the political stance of the country is when it becomes a superpower

Democracy will screw the world over, regardless of what superpower it is


Care to back that statement up? I wont hold my breath.

European communism could work as a superpower, just cut out greedy leaders and its a good system

Which is impossible.

Asian communism is facism with a different wrapper, it wont work

So it being Asian somehow makes it worse? Wait, nevermind, this is coming from you.

European Nationalism can work, and if it wasnt for some retarded half-jewish guy whacked out on drugs, ruining everything, Germany would still be a Nationalist superpower

Ist jetzt die Zeit für Rache! Wir müssen die Juden abschaffen!

Asian Nationalism is Facism in another different wrapper

Uh-huh, we get it. White government = good, Asian government = bad.

So it being Asian somehow makes it worse? Wait, nevermind, this is coming from you.
Uh-huh, we get it. White government = good, Asian government = bad.
Yes. Brown/yellow wrapper looks like poop. :rolleyes: :p

Jamaica. *nod*

Beware the terror of the atomic bong. *nod*

Asian communism is facism with a different wrapper, it wont work
Fascism works well until the leaders get fat, stupid and surrounded by yes-men. See Italy.

Ist jetzt die Zeit für Rache! Wir müssen die Juden abschaffen!
Nazism and Nationalism are different entities, keep that in mind ;)

I rather like having my homeland by the world's dominant power, though I know it leads to bad things in the long run (for example, America has become so arrogant that we just assume the world will bend to our will...). That said, the only group I think could do it without completely going to Hell are the Europeans, so I'd say the EU.

Better yet, I'd like to see some sort of Western Union (no banking-pun intended), one that also encompassed the United States and Canada. Of course, we Americans are too idiotic to ever give up 100% of control over every little thing, but it would be nice if the entire Western world could join in one body for the benefit of all.

Pf. Germany did it in less time.

How'd that work out for you? :D

Nazism and Nationalism are different entities, keep that in mind ;)

His allusion to nazi germany and his insinuation tha if Hitler hadnt been half Jewish it would still be around are what I was directing that towards.

Uh-huh, we get it. White government = good, Asian government = bad.

Notice he didn't say America, so he/
she isn't racist, just anti-nonEurope

Notice he didn't say America, so he/
she isn't racist, just anti-nonEurope

Wouldn't that count as racism?

Wouldn't that count as racism?

No, just bigotry. Non-European countries have filled with all races.

Canada.

No one would ever see it comming.

Aww...Do we have to?


Anyways, I'm okay with the current Pax Americana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana)

Mórdor!!! YEAH!!:D

*steals ring and runs*

Not without this you don't!

Liechtenstein.

Please, I see the EU as having the least chance of becoming meddlesome, because they all have experiance with Imperialism and know it doesnt turn out well.

Tell that to the non-EU European countries that are constantly bullied by it.

Katganistan :)

Katganistan :)
What a suck-up. :p

What a suck-up. :p

:D

Well, EU is not a country, and the world would cry at Germany being a world superpower again, so i vote Mother Russia

HA! Russia, that's great
even though they're not communists anymore, I wouldn't trust them
They have a very long history of horrible leadership

HA! Russia, that's great
even though they're not communists anymore, I wouldn't trust them
They have a very long history of horrible leadership

Depends upon your definition of horrible leadership...

That’s like asking which convicted paedophile you’d most trust with babysitting your kids.

HAHAHA! Niiiiice

Depends upon your definition of horrible leadership...

Some of the zhars did ok, but most of those communist leaders (especially Stalin) just screwed everyone over. Including thier own country.
I'm no expert on Russian history, but thats what I have to say

The U.S. because they are the most democratic of the choices listed.

and India would just start nuclear war with Pakistan.
.

Nonsense.

India did not weaponise first. India supposedly tested first only because China already proliferated warheads (tested at Lop Nor) that can be mated to NoDong missiles proliferated through North Korea. It was only after the emboldened jihadis began inflicting a toll that was beyond what India could tolerate, did India test and overtly became a nuclear weapon power. Until then India was quite content to keep it under the wraps.

Even after going overtly nuclear, India is the ONLY country to have a declared and unconditional no first use - applicable to even enemy states like Pak, China etc.

Even when its sovereign territory was invaded by Pakistan in 1998, India restrained from even crossing the LoC and the international boundary....much less threaten using nukes.

Mórdor!!! YEAH!!:D

Uh how about no. Definetly the United Kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor under Elesar.

Northern Ireland. It would be too busy bickering within itself to bother any other countries

Finland.

Northern Ireland. It would be too busy bickering within itself to bother any other countries

lol, then there'd be a world wide inquisition :rolleyes:
from two different religions so yeah

I say India would make the most trustworthy superpower.

LMAO.

US is far from being perfect but it is by far better than all of your options except EU.

Kentucky !

Mongolia. They did it once, then got bored, went home, and got back to milking yaks.

EU because its not a country. With most of Europe in the EU I'd say that they'd use their power for only the things everyone agreed was good. And Europe is more progressive than America, which is also good.

Assyria. Since it no longer exists, it can't do anything with its power.

My logic is impeccable!

i wouldn't TRUST ANY country as superpower. least of all the one(s) we've already got.

of that list, yes india and the e.u. more then the others on it. but i can't say as i have any positive feelings for the whole idea of there being any such thing as a super power at all.

and certainly none that are as economically and idiologically, even religeously, chauvansitic as any of the one's we've currently got.

i'd much rather see a strong, fair and unbiased international organization, representing the entire planet and protecting people and environment from the ravages and inequaties of soverign nations and major economic interests.

with NO single government nor way of life favored over any other in doing so.

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

I'd take the US as the only country which doesn't have the threat of a genocide waiting to happen within its own borders. Plus we haven't destroyed the world yet as a superpower for the last 60 years.

EU. Not because it's a superpower: it's because it is so fractioned on the political and military side that it is very unlikely that EU is going to go around playing empire like other superpowers.

Btw, India and China aren't superpowers yet. They will become superpowers in the next 30 years if they don't fuck thing up.

I'd take the US as the only country which doesn't have the threat of a genocide waiting to happen within its own borders. Plus we haven't destroyed the world yet as a superpower for the last 60 years.

Genocide? In my EU?

Norway ftw.

I shall add my voice to the grumbles about the EU not being a country.

The EU would probabaly be the least of the worst options on offer. I personally would rather see a specifically Northern European super-power though, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland would be good.

Third Dynasty of Ur.

They will re-introduce cuneiform script and temple prostitutes, and they'll solve the middle east issues by virtue of coming from the only time in history when it wasn't a shithole - surely they know what needs to be done.

I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the arrival of our old sumerian overlords.

I don't think any single country is capable of using the power for anything other than self interest, therefore I would not like to see any superpowers that were not multinational groupings like the UN.

I say India would make the most trustworthy superpower.

A country isnt a superpower when visitors that drink your water shit themselves. And im pretty sure your also disqualified when you allow livestock to wildly roam your major cities.

We don't really need a superpower, it just gets corrupt and starts enforcing its will upon smaller countries... o one sec im talking about the US. But if we must have one i'll go China, they seem pretty good at oppressing people and thats all a Superpower needs to do really.

A country isnt a superpower when visitors that drink your water shit themselves. And im pretty sure your also disqualified when you allow livestock to wildly roam your major cities.

I'd say that it's an advantage! We need a superpower of that caliber.
I, for one, welcome our new cow-worshiping overlords.

Switzerland. They have a wonderful history of staying out of everyone's business.

I will never trust a single superpower. Power corrupts. If the have to share power, there are checks and balances.

I say India would make the most trustworthy superpower.

I agree, because to my knoledge, India hasn`t done anything terrible and/or unforgivable on a national or international scale. But then again if India does become a superpower, will the power currupt it just as it has done with nearly every other Superpower in the world ?

I'd say the EU. The many different factions/countries within it are more likely to act as a restraining force than would be the case in a single nation superpower.

Switzerland. They have a wonderful history of staying out of everyone's business.

When will the world wake up to the evil Swiss and their inexorable march towards world domination.

Austro-Hungarian Empire to make a shock comeback. Or Jamaica, just for the comedic misunderstandings...."Jamaica?" "No, she wanted to" etc etc

When will the world wake up to the evil Swiss and their inexorable march towards world domination.

...fear Nestlé.

Switzerland. They have a wonderful history of staying out of everyone's business.

well why bother when they have all the money (and by a rather odd coincidence) all the guns :p

I'd trust the EU and India over the USA. China gets last place behind Russia.

Iceland. Not only are they politically neutral, but you can't beat the fact that the most visited Icelandic website (http://www.eve-online.com) is for a friggin MMORPG.

And when things get nasty, they can simply call on their Viking ancestry and bring out the battleaxes.

Micronesia, damnit!

I agree, because to my knoledge, India hasn`t done anything terrible and/or unforgivable on a national or international scale. But then again if India does become a superpower, will the power currupt it just as it has done with nearly every other Superpower in the world ?

They have an ongoing territory war against Pakistan. If they didn't fear the reprisals from the world, as a superpower with enough will wouldn't, they could go on a religious genocide against the Pakistanis, and possibly against other countries.

I haven't seen them rule with responsibility when they've had a significant amount of power, so I do not trust them.

I would only trust the British Empire as a superpower. They are the only ones old enough to handle their shit properly...

They have an ongoing territory war against Pakistan. If they didn't fear the reprisals from the world, as a superpower with enough will wouldn't, they could go on a religious genocide against the Pakistanis, and possibly against other countries.

I haven't seen them rule with responsibility when they've had a significant amount of power, so I do not trust them.

:rolleyes:

So much nonsense in one post.

Pak is the revisionist power. India is the status quo power. Enuff said.

I'd trust the EU and India over the USA. China gets last place behind Russia.

Why do people insist on treating the EU is a nation?

Considering EU member states have such a rich tradition of war and oppression I can understand why you would pick them first.

As for India being a superpower I would say they are well on their way. I wouldn't fear India at all as a superpower.

If I were to pick one other nation outside of the US I would pick India.

the Grand Dutchy of Fenwick

:rolleyes:

So much nonsense in one post.

Pak is the revisionist power. India is the status quo power. Enuff said.

India hasn't been in control of its own destiny for long enough for me to have a good opinion about their morality and ability to rule with wisdom. The fact that they haven't used their nukes yet is a good sign, but it doesn't really mean anything.

The last time I checked, they are fighting a war (whether in real time or not, they have a violent border dispute mixed with religious undertones), and in wars people get angry enough to do things that are monstrous, even if they are coming from a "status quo" power. If they had the power and status of a "superpower" there is really no telling what they would do. So therefore I don't trust them as much as I trust the US.

I would trust the US the most.
the Why?????

the EU. go back 150 years. If you call what the Americans does now imperialism what Europe did then will make you lose control of your bowel movements. They also worked together making deals to divided up places like Africa and China. Also they would work together when rebellions took place in areas such as China. Also these behavior really didn't stop until after world War II. the only reason it stopped was Europe was not longer in a position to be imperialistic.

Russia yeah...and it is really only fair to count USSR as Russia. Chechnya ? Afghanistan ? you do realize Russia had plans to nuke china in 69' the reason it didn't happen was because when they sent a delegation to the US the ensure we would not get involved we told them we would assist which ever side was attacked with nukes first.

India Kashmir boarder disputes. Nuclear. The reason they didn't really invade anyone else is because everyone else is on the other side of the Himalayas. Not to mention the only times in the last 1,000 years they have had unity is when it was imposed upon them by outside forces, Islam and the UK. Also Religious conflicts there that make Palestine seem peaceful.

China. For the love of god no. Great leap forward, cultural Revolution, Tibet, the fact that any place that was part of China 2000 years ago must be part of China today.

Yes the US throws its weight around a little bit. But compared to every former hegemony in the world It is the most restrained Historically speaking. Also remember the 2 most bloodiest wars fought in the 20th Century were when the US refused to step into the global leadership position its economy require it to do.

India hasn't been in control of its own destiny for long enough for me to have a good opinion about their morality and ability to rule with wisdom. The fact that they haven't used their nukes yet is a good sign, but it doesn't really mean anything.

The last time I checked, they are fighting a war (whether in real time or not, they have a violent border dispute mixed with religious undertones), and in wars people get angry enough to do things that are monstrous, even if they are coming from a "status quo" power. If they had the power and status of a "superpower" there is really no telling what they would do. So therefore I don't trust them as much as I trust the US.

Thanks for missing the point.

I am not here to argue who makes a better superpower. I took exception to your rather silly notion that "They have an ongoing territory war against Pakistan. If they didn't fear the reprisals from the world, as a superpower with enough will wouldn't, they could go on a religious genocide against the Pakistanis, and possibly against other countries."

All that goes against facts such as India is a status quo power and Pakistan is the revisionist power driven by religious hatred.

Given that it was Pakistanis who engaged in genocide of their then compatriots and co-religionists of east Pakistan (Bangladesh) and it was the "Oh they will go on religious genocide" India who liberated Bangladesh, your claims are all the more silly and laughable. Oh and did I mention that the US, the one whom you trust, backed Pakistan in the conflict.

India hasn't been in control of its own destiny for long enough for me to have a good opinion about their morality and ability to rule with wisdom.

Apparently it was long enough for you to have a bad opinion.

The last time I checked, they are fighting a war (whether in real time or not, they have a violent border dispute mixed with religious undertones), and in wars people get angry enough to do things that are monstrous, even if they are coming from a "status quo" power. If they had the power and status of a "superpower" there is really no telling what they would do. So therefore I don't trust them as much as I trust the US.

And the US is not fighting any wars.:)

Either you are biased or you are stupid. Pick your choice.;)

I say we could have the Realm of Lunatic Goofballs as the superpower, since insainity is taking over the world anyway

Why not have LG to guide us to the mystical world of life on Meds?

Thanks for missing the point.

I am not here to argue who makes a better superpower. I took exception to your rather silly notion that "They have an ongoing territory war against Pakistan. If they didn't fear the reprisals from the world, as a superpower with enough will wouldn't, they could go on a religious genocide against the Pakistanis, and possibly against other countries."

All that goes against facts such as India is a status quo power and Pakistan is the revisionist power driven by religious hatred.

Given that it was Pakistanis who engaged in genocide of their then compatriots and co-religionists of east Pakistan (Bangladesh) and it was the "Oh they will go on religious genocide" India who liberated Bangladesh, your claims are all the more silly and laughable. Oh and did I mention that the US, the one whom you trust, backed Pakistan in the conflict.
I never said that the US would make a better superpower, I just said that I trusted them more with the responsibility of being a superpower, which is what the thread is asking.

And perhaps the word genocide is too strong, but there is definitely a religious conflict ongoing between the two nations, with the Hindus in India being payed if they can produce a certain amount of children (for what purpose? It seems like they have enough people in the country already! Oh, wait, for when they get into a war and need more soldiers, right). I'm not saying that I like Pakistan, I would trust them less with "superpower" status, but that's irrelevant, India is in a conflict with them, and it is a very heated one, which makes their judgment suspect, in my book.



And the US is not fighting any wars.:)

Either you are biased or you are stupid. Pick your choice.;)

First of all, it is rather telling that to make your point you feel forced to resort to name calling.

And once again, I'm not saying that the US is the best choice for superpower, I'm saying that I trust them the most. I don't think that we are going to use our massive stocks of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against anyone unless we have a very good reason to do so, and while the war in Iraq was obviously a mistake, it is very unlikely that the same mistake will be made anytime soon (read Vietnam, notice how we didn't get involved directly in Afghanistan a few years later when it would have been for the same official reasons).

Well the EU is probably the least likely to do something stupid...

Hey, even though i'm in the US and am a US citizen, our politicians are serious backstabbers.:)

Well the EU is probably the least likely to do something stupid...

How's that?

Russia, without a doubt. Glory for the Motherland!

Assyria. Since it no longer exists, it can't do anything with its power.

My logic is impeccable!

I concur.

Why would people trust the E.U.? It's a coercive, imperialist bully that, like the U.S., attempts to arrogantly enforce its will on other countries. Look at Switzerland and Sark (not really a country, but the example still stands), for instance.

The only reason why Europe hasn't been as imperialistic and dominant on the world market is because they were seriously messed up after WWII, and when they got rebuilt there were already two superpowers, and very little room for other nations to make moves independently. To think that they won't go back to their old ways given the opportunity is more than a little naive.

The only reason why Europe hasn't been as imperialistic and dominant on the world market is because they were seriously messed up after WWII, and when they got rebuilt there were already two superpowers, and very little room for other nations to make moves independently. To think that they won't go back to their old ways given the opportunity is more than a little naive.

QFT

:sniper::sniper:MOTHER RUSSIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:sniper::sniper::sniper::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5:

:mp5:Russia takes no shit. WE INVENTED BADASS!!:sniper:

It would be interesting to see a North American Union take place. Then shortly after that, the asian pacific countries might want to create a union. Then the world would basically be defined by 3 huge unions. Would be just a step closer to world unification, which probably will take many years to achieve, if possible at all. If it can be done, it would help erase lots of world conflicts and bring humans under one common unity. But of course we'd probably need some alien species to attack us in order to even start considering world unification heh.

I don't think trustworthiness is a quality countries can have. They, unlike humans will always do what they think is in their best interest.

I never said that the US would make a better superpower, I just said that I trusted them more with the responsibility of being a superpower, which is what the thread is asking.

When you trust somebody more than the other, you ARE making a judgment that one is better than the other.

with the Hindus in India being payed if they can produce a certain amount of children (for what purpose? It seems like they have enough people in the country already! Oh, wait, for when they get into a war and need more soldiers, right).

That just went right over my head.

Are you suggesting that people are getting "payed" (sic) to produce children so that they can be recruited into the army?


I don't think that we are going to use our massive stocks of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against anyone unless we have a very good reason to do so,

wait a minute...you already did use it...not once...but twice.

and while the war in Iraq was obviously a mistake, it is very unlikely that the same mistake will be made anytime soon (read Vietnam, notice how we didn't get involved directly in Afghanistan a few years later when it would have been for the same official reasons).

But you DID get involved in an unnecessary war in Iraq which brought death to countless thousands.

I give up. Last post. You can BS more if you like.

It would be interesting to see a North American Union take place. Then shortly after that, the asian pacific countries might want to create a union. Then the world would basically be defined by 3 huge unions. Would be just a step closer to world unification, which probably will take many years to achieve, if possible at all. If it can be done, it would help erase lots of world conflicts and bring humans under one common unity. But of course we'd probably need some alien species to attack us in order to even start considering world unification heh.

I actually find it more likely that US Canada Mexico(nafta is a semi step to such a union) would form a union with japan and south Korea. the major draw back of both of these are that japan and South Korea really frown on immigration. Which would defeat the purpose of letting poorer countries people come to your country to work(how the Eu does it just look at Poland).

I would only trust the UK or the US. I favor the UK as history has shown that they were better at it then the americans, in my opinion.

I would never trust Russia, China, or France..

Nah, the British Empire was really quite spiff for everyone involved.

Ahahahaha!
Really, good joke.
That was a joke, right?

Based on her track record the United States is the most trustworthy Superpower listed.

What, no option for Rome? I do suppose it's already been done. :P

Rediculous comment aside, I'd have to say none of the above.