Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Svip

The U.S. losing power?

Recommended Posts

Svip

Introduction

Currently, we are seeing a U.S. government losing its grip. In fact, the current government in the White House is acting a bit strange. And in not such a distance future, you will see a U.S. government with lessen global importance.

 

History

Our story goes all the way back to the first World War. Where the Ottoman Empire chooses the one wrong move, which has led the world to its current state; being allied with the Germans. Which of course led to being enemy of the British Empire, and thus they were at war.

 

The British Empire understood warfare, and knew how to conquer the Ottoman Empire, which they did. But one thing we in the West learned too late, is how you manage territories in the Middle East. Something the Ottoman Empire had been doing perfectly for centuries.

 

During a meeting with the French foreign minister and the British foreign minister in a hotel room in Paris, they outlined the borders of the new Middle East, completely ignoring what they had promised the people in the Middle East; their own land.

 

But both the British Empire and the French realised soon enough that getting small democracies into these new nations would be a too long and difficult process. So they inserted monarchy in the nations instead.

 

How did the Ottoman Empire handle this, you might ask. Simple, the Ottoman Empire knew that they could not govern their Empire as a whole, so they would let small puppet like states control small areas, not states across belief. This small states worked like a normal state, they were just commanded to deliver goods to the Empire, and that was mostly all.

 

But with the Ottoman Empire out of the picture, the new (and may I add; stupid) borders drawn. It was an ensured failure for the region.

 

The next bad thing to happen for the region was World War II. Not so much because of the war, the Middle East went pretty much untouched during World War II. But because of the effects of the war. The fact that Hitler had killed so many Jews, led the Jews to require their own state. And since the British Empire was still in a somewhat control of the region, they felt that the Empire would give them that authority.

 

Fact was different though, soon, they realised that the British Empire was controlling almost nothing in the region, it had been somewhat stable for a good while. And therefore, they snatched Palestine, and named it Israel and claimed independence.

 

How does all this lead to the U.S. losing their power? Well, it happened shortly after the Cold War's ending.

 

During the first Golf war, George Bush Senior was so close to pull Saddam off the chair. But he didn't do it, he decided against it. Which was a very wise move. Though Saddam might have been a dictator and not in the best possible taste for any nation, the alternatives - even at that time - seemed worse. Remember: Don't go into a war, you cannot win.

 

The War in Iraq

The War in Iraq is perhaps the dumbest move ever from the U.S. in history. It was a losable war, a war you may call a "bad" war, though there are no good or bad wars, no illegal or legal wars. How can you justify war?

 

There are only winnable wars and losable wars, necessary wars and unnecessary wars. The War in Iraq was an unnecessary war, it was a war they could not win. When they entered Iraq, they had already lost.

 

So why did they do it? Was Bush stupid enough to actually believe it would succeed? Probably. Were it because of the oil? Highly unlikely. Did the U.S. had to show off their muscles? Perhaps.

 

Bush is not a realist, but an idealist, for these reasons, he fights for what he believes, not the writing on the wall. I think Bush believes that democracy is possible in the Middle East, which I too think is possible. But where I disagree is the method, you cannot enforce democracy on anyone. Let them gain it themselves.

 

But see now, the U.S. is currently in two wars, the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. There were much speculations that the U.S. would attack Iran due to the Nuclear Situation. But with what army? The U.S. is engaged so many places that they cannot fight back. In fact, to secure the U.S.'s own citizens, I believe they would have to redraw a good deal of troops to defend their home front. The War in Iraq ain't helping the U.S. citizens very much on the safe side - or in any side.

 

The Future

While the U.S. is dealing with its problems, other nations is seeing this to a method to gain power. And we will likely come into a multi-polar-world state (which means more than two nations are "centres" of power - like before world war one), where Iran will take a large control of the Middle East region, China will not only regain power in Asia, but also globally, as China is the number one threat towards the U.S.

 

However, there are other contenders as well;

 

North Korea - it is unclear how much power they will ever gain, but some they will gain, and they will remain a threat. They may even call off their alliance with China at some point in the future due to the lust for power, but at the same time, they may also collapse and remain an almost useless threat.

 

The Debate

Will the U.S. lose its power? I think that is crystal clear right now.

 

How much influence will they lose? Who will pick up the pieces?

 

And what sort of world can we look forward too in twenty years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dom0803

At the end of the day, everything with a beginning has an ending. No matter how large it is.

 

Your cheese sandwich had a beginning, it had an ending. The light bulb in your living room had a beginning, and it had an ending. The British Empire had a beginning, it had an ending.

It's not a matter of if it's losing its power, it's a matter of when its power is lost.

 

The U.S. is not an empire, it's merely a powerful country, and let's face it, its biggest influence is popular culture, because at the minute no country agrees with its political stance. Not even here where we all have red faces, union jack waist coats, and a bulldog under our arm.

 

The fact that you even ask if the U.S. is losing power is a stupid question in itself. Ofcourse it is. There is no controlling nation forever. The Romans had their heyday, the British had their heyday, hell, even the Italians had their heyday. But it all comes to an end.

 

America is losing its grip, some may say it has lost its grip. I'm just waiting for India or China to take over.

 

Hopefully, it wont be China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

I was asking the question for debate matters. I know the U.S. is losing power, but perhaps some disagree... like the U.S. government themselves?

 

However, I think China will replace the U.S. as a "superpower", India does not seem like a country who wishes to obtain that sort of power.

 

Or perhaps, we will see nations controlling regions of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerrieM

Ofcourse the US is losing their power, but it will stay the most important nation for a long time. The current loss of influence is mostly because the strategy of the government. When the govenrment changes, and it's visual leader the president, the US might take a slightly different direction. A direction that can count on more symapthy from countries.

 

The thing that the US has going for them in contrast of for instance China is that they have a "fair" goverment. Not much countries will stand behind China, or for that matter Iran or Russia because these countries have a government that looks like a dictator. Most countries will condone these nations, but don't want to be considerd allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cypress Hill

Like HerrieM said, China is not likely to gain much support with its current system of government. I don't see China ever gaining much more inflience outside of east Asia. India is likely to gain influence if the India Nuc. Deal passes, whisch would allow US companies to sell nuclear material to INdia, but that would make the US more powerful as well, since India would be dependant on the US for their nuc's.

 

While the US may be losing influence in other parts of the world, it will probably remain the dominant force in the western world for some time, since there isn't really anyone in Europe or the Americas ready to take its place.

 

When it comes to the middle east, I don't think creating democracy is currently possible in the region or will be possible in the near future. The mindsets of the people and governments and the way the middle east has been molded over the course of thousands of years are major hindrances for promoting democracy. I think it will take decades, maybe centuries of gradual change before the middle east is ready for democracy. This is why I think we should withdraw our troops from the region, because any progress made there is inevitably in vain.

 

The smart thing for the US to do would be contract their forces and focus more on domestic issues. One of the main reasons Rome collapsed was because the empire was overstretched. The same thing happened to the British empire. Now the US appears to have the same problem, and it should be fixed before it faces similar results to its predecessors.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beanmachine43

No question that the U.S. is losing power, and like anyone else can say it's just a matter of when it reaches a point where another nation can become the dominant "superpower." It has over-exhausted its power and now they're outstretched all over the world in conflicts they shouldn't be a part of in the first place. The Iraq War is probably one of the dumbest moves in U.S. history since the Vietnam War as it was a war from the beginning that could not be won. Democracy in the Middle East will take years to take form, regardless of what advocates of the war say.

 

Republicans sure aren't helping at this point, and democratics are too hypocritical in their point of views to do anything either. At this point, nearly, if not every, country in the world hates the United States' government. It's only a matter of time before the hate starts to take form as an alliance of some sort, aimed at the removal of power for the United States. If the U.S. hopes to preserve its state as a powerful nation it needs to rethink its strategy, by altering its government, domestic affairs, military strategy, and virtually anything you can think of involving it.

 

I do not believe India will be the one to take power, if given the chance. I think that once again you'll see the larger countries attempt to gain power, bickering amongst each other, or more seriously through war.

 

In twenty years, we may see a U.S. losing its power even more rapidly, if not totally. Then again, there is the possibility of the U.S. maintaining its stake in world affairs by backing off and taking a view from afar, or somehow ending up being more aggressive and sticking their noses in more foreign affairs that they shouldn't be.

 

Sorry if that didn't make sense, just woke up from a power chronic nap. confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

 

The Debate

Will the U.S. lose its power? I think that is crystal clear right now.

 

How much influence will they lose? Who will pick up the pieces?

 

And what sort of world can we look forward too in twenty years?

 

Well in order to decide or see or investigate whether the US will lose power we must define our terms: what is the US (will the US still be US tomorrow?), what is Power (economic, military, cultural, radioactive, imaginary? if you have power today will you have power tomorrow?)

 

If the US becomes Mexico, then it will be Mexico who will lose power, not the US. If China becomes the US, then they cannot be enemies.

 

The US will lose influence? influence on what? influence where? when? why? what kind of influence? (what US are we talking about? the US of robber barons and offshore accounts in the bahamas?)

 

What sort of world can we look forward to in 20 yrs? well it will still be a world, it will be 20 years older, humanoid human beings will probably live there, they will still be concerned about how the world will be 20 years later, and wonder how the world was 20 years before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GM Dude

I think we should just refrain from any offensive military action, period.

Can we still defend ourselves without invading other countries?

YES!

We successfully won our Revolution, without ever coming We need to pull out of Iraq ASAP, that's why the world hates America so much.close to invading mainland Britain.

 

 

I don't even care if we stop supporting Israel, for god's sakes!

And security measures????

Screw them if we're gonna lose all of our civil liberties.

I'd rather die in a massive terrorist bombing than live in a pseudo-Soviet-Fundamentalist police state like Bush and most of his fellow Republicans are pushing for.

 

But as long as we humble ourselves militarily{offensively that is}, and focus completely on defense, we should be okay.

 

@Svip: Interesting point there.

 

@Cypress: Pretty much what I was thinking.

 

@BeanMachine43: I worry about that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moth

i find the only part of the world the us is losing power is in the middle east because of the stupid iraq war which is pointless and the fact that iran getting more help from terriest groups and the like

 

and the us will most likely stay a super power for a very long time to come but i do see another superpower rising and it ain't china or india. i think the other superpower will probely be europe cause it is rich and has a lot of people and that most of the countries that are par t of the eu are not commuist countries and i think in 50 years or more that europe will become one big nation

 

i don't china is a threat to the us right now but i do see it becoming a threat later because it might try to get bigger just like the soviet union

 

i also doudt that china will become a superpower cause it doesn't have the support form other nations in the region the same goes for india

 

and north korea will become a threat soon cause that it now has nuclear weapons which they can also sell to terriests and they could also use then on the us

 

to answer the question "the us losing is power?" i say yes and no cause that aren't losing power in other parts of the world ewxpect the middle east

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beanmachine43

The thing is, the U.S. isn't just hated in the Middle East, but in a lot of other parts of the world as well. Many people who are not from the United States tend to believe its a power-hungry, tyrant-ruled nation of power. This can be credited to some of the past presidents, whose names really have no need to be listed.

 

While certainly there's some truth to it, it's just not entirely fact. As bad as that sounds, the government who takes over after the Bush administration needs to address this issue and regain its support from the countries it was supported ten or twenty years ago, specifically the European nations.

 

The Middle East is not well-recieved, no matter what side of the world you're on. So I'm not as much worried as to getting the support of democratic states in the Middle East when compared to gaining the trust and friendship of the other countries of the world.

 

If the U.S. could do that, I see them being able to hold its power for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole
The thing is, the U.S. isn't just hated in the Middle East, but in a lot of other parts of the world as well. Many people who are not from the United States tend to believe its a power-hungry, tyrant-ruled nation of power. This can be credited to some of the past presidents, whose names really have no need to be listed.

 

While certainly there's some truth to it, it's just not entirely fact. As bad as that sounds, the government who takes over after the Bush administration needs to address this issue and regain its support from the countries it was supported ten or twenty years ago, specifically the European nations.

 

The Middle East is not well-recieved, no matter what side of the world you're on. So I'm not as much worried as to getting the support of democratic states in the Middle East when compared to gaining the trust and friendship of the other countries of the world.

 

If the U.S. could do that, I see them being able to hold its power for years to come.

What is the US that is hated across much of the world? Is it the same US that people live in? the same US of California? the same US of Sears? the same US of NAFTA? the same US of American International Schools across the world? the same US of the CIA and the support to the contras in Nicaragua? the same US that started the War on Terror? the same US that is Republican and Democrat? and a Republic and a Democracy and a Republican Democracy and a Democratic Republic?

 

Can the hating of the US truly be credited to presidents? is not the source of hate hate itself? what is hate in any case? which presidents? what is it that the presidents did that was hateful? why would it be credited to them and not to others? past and not future presidents? past and not present presidents? Did whether presidents inhaled or not matter to the hateful haters of america?

 

What is there some truth to? What is not entirely fact? the american government that takes over after the american government? Do the European nations not support the US? In what do they not support the US?

 

The US is a nation of immigrants, a melting pot, anything it does it does, anything it doesn't it doesn't, and if power is what it wants to keep, what kind of power, what kind of energy, what kind of thing is it that would solve whatever problem it is that a large melting pot would have?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beanmachine43

^^I'll make an attempt to reply to your many questions, though I found a couple difficult to read.

 

 

Yes, to reply to your first set of questions. Acts of kindness are fantastic for any country, but do you see huge national stories played on the news 24/7? Do news channels have specific blocks on their programs just for any of these things that are played night after night? No.

 

Yes, the hating of a country can be credited to presidents, as the evidence of George Bush Sr. and his son. If I recall, George Bush Sr. was widely hated by the black community when he was in office, especially for those who lived in the poorer neighborhoods, a.k.a. the ghetto. His son, George Bush Jr., had took the steps of fighting a war that had no real value, other than leading some to speculate of the oil that was there, thinking U.S. was after it. We were lead to Iraq thinking we were going to find Osama, but who did we instead were fighting Saddam. Now wouldn't you think most Amercans were furious when they finally focused away from the Michael Jackson trials or her sister's wardrobe malfunctions? Weren't the countries who followed us into the Middle East outraged when they learned they had done that for nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

 

1 do you see huge national stories played on the news 24/7?

2Do news channels have specific blocks on their programs just for any of these things that are played night after night? No.

3George Bush Sr. was widely hated by the black community when he was in office,

4George Bush Jr., had took the steps of fighting a war that had no real value,

5We were lead to Iraq thinking we were going to find Osama, but who did we instead were fighting Saddam.

6Now wouldn't you think most Amercans were furious when they finally focused away from the Michael Jackson trials or her sister's wardrobe malfunctions?

7Weren't the countries who followed us into the Middle East outraged when they learned they had done that for nothing?

^^I thought I would divide all you said into arguments, assertions, and so on.

1 I do not live in the US, I suppose you mean american by national, and I would ask which news you are watching, what you consider "huge" stories, and whether you know the saying "blood leads"

2 Which news channels? BBC? CBS? CNN? FOX? Al Jazeera? I believe Murdoch´s FOX NEWS started something of a revolution in tv news in the same way that tabloids have started invading newspapers of record.

3 The black ghetto community was together in condemning George Bush Sr? Did a Black Panther type organization arose? Did black rappers and reggae masters criticize intellectually his programs?

4 All wars have value, but their price is something altogether different, this war is providing lots of youngsters with an opportunity for heroism, death, comradeship, poetry, education. After all, what´s the use of having the best miilitary in the world in a world where there is no war?

5 did you go to Iraq? are you a soldier? why do you say "we" went to iraq?

6 No I think they liked being entertained by the war just as much as by Micheal Jackson´s trials, maybe more.

7 The countries who followed the US into the Middle East did so out of Diplomatic reasons, not ideological ones, since the war moved them a bit closer to the US in certain things, they were happy or sad, and their people were happy or sad, but there was no outrage. Some people got so confused though that they started questioning other things, and hopefully they have learned something from the experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beanmachine43

I would have to say you're taking the argument out of context with a couple of your responses, particularly with numbers five and six. Obviously I didn't mean I went to Iraq, but if you couldn't see my point meaning the country as a whole then I'm terribly sorry. Your reply on your sixth response is rather ignorant, maybe the most I've seen in a while, and I applaud you on making that so.

 

If you hadn't noticed, though I understand you live outside the U.S., there were actually many calls of the removing of Bush and instead placing another party, most likely a democratic state. The entire election of the presidential race was focused almost soley on the war, with John Kerry, his opponent, constantly attacking Bush over the false reasons of the invasion of Iraq. Though with all the support from most of the major states, the "red" states (Alabahma, Texas, Nebraska, etc.) made it possible to allow Bush to stay in office, thus allowing the prolonged state of affairs in Iraq. If the U.S. had Kerry in office, though I still agree Bush is the better man for the job, we might have seen a whole different state of the war and the position of power with the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reptilexcq

I agreed that US is losing power because it is losing support of the world. Before the Iraq War, US is still in pretty good shape, now everyone hated them for being bullies of the world. The terrorists always mentioned the American as their enemies, hated them so much that they want to cut their heads off live on TV, these messages apparently spread across the world and in turn make the world hates America!! The muslims see American as bullies, intervening w/ other people's affairs like they did in Vietnam. Not just bullies, but also how America want to demonstrate that they're superior or superpower and this demonstration i believe also backfire them and make other nations outside of the Middle East hate them as well. I just think right now, US is losing its creditability.

 

I also think George Bush is a bully...want to follow his father's footstep in the Iraq War. I know he will use the Sep 11 incident as a way for him to go to war in Iraq and I know that even if Sep 11 never occur, George Bush will still want to go to war in Iraq. I believe he want the people to know that he is as bully as his father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_-playero-_

@tomtoole: Are you american? Do you live in the states?

 

I'm asking you, cause you have to be here to understand the so called hatred beanmachine is talking about. It isn't about people doing public threats against the U.S.A or a President saying they don't like U.S policies. Of course they can say that, even if they do think so.

 

C'mon, Costa Rican president Oscar Arias is a pacifist, a Nobel Price, do you think he agrees with the War in Iraq? Of course not, but still he stays quiet and ask Bush for favors. Hugo Chavez is probably the only one saying what he thinks out loud, and for the record, I don't agree with Hugo Chavez, and totally against him, and I'm not saying that presidents in Latin America hate the U.S.

 

"Of course, let's sign the Anti-Terrorism Declartion, let's support the War on Terrorism, otherwise, where will our support go?" That is probably what they think.

 

The hatred beamdude is talking about is the public opinion, the conversations you hear in a park, the statements some teachers make. What you hear on the streets. Don't expect to hear such things inside the United States of America from a latinamerican person. Don't expect to watch that on your CNN or NBC, gringo...

 

I am completely neutral. I used to agree with the war in Iraq, but it has taken too much lives, too much time, too much money. I love the U.S and would love to live there, with a decent job, a decent life. My brother is an anesthesiologist, and in six months he is moving there. Hell, he will do great, better than some born-in americans do.

 

The U.S is not loosing power, it is loosing support, more publically than diplomatically speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

 

I would have to say you're taking the argument out of context with a couple of your responses, particularly with numbers five and six. Obviously I didn't mean I went to Iraq, but if you couldn't see my point meaning the country as a whole then I'm terribly sorry. Your reply on your sixth response is rather ignorant, maybe the most I've seen in a while, and I applaud you on making that so.

 

If you hadn't noticed, though I understand you live outside the U.S., there were actually many calls of the removing of Bush and instead placing another party, most likely a democratic state. The entire election of the presidential race was focused almost soley on the war, with John Kerry, his opponent, constantly attacking Bush over the false reasons of the invasion of Iraq. Though with all the support from most of the major states, the "red" states (Alabahma, Texas, Nebraska, etc.) made it possible to allow Bush to stay in office, thus allowing the prolonged state of affairs in Iraq. If the U.S. had Kerry in office, though I still agree Bush is the better man for the job, we might have seen a whole different state of the war and the position of power with the United States.

On account of you considering yourself as your country, I find that particularly strange, you are not your country. You are also not your government. You are also not your nation. You are part of your nation. You live in your country. You represent your nation, government, country, (perhaps) depending on where you are and what you are doing.

 

On account of my being ignorant, I am sorry for believing that americans are entertained by war. I know this is ludicrous, because war is so bad, that nobody would vote for it or suggest it or want it, not even John Kerry, who did vote for it and would have continued it. So you see the elections were not about the Iraq war. If you look closer they seem to have been more about something of "character" - therein the importance of flipflops.

 

I find it interesting that the most you can say is that we might have seen a different state of affairs, MIGHT, not should, not would. I find it interesting because it means you do not trust that it would have been different. You feel that things might have stayed exactly the same. I think that they would, with a slightly different slogan.

 

I find it meaningless to talk of red states and blue states when red and blue are meaningless. Lieberman is no longer blue, he´s independent.

 

 

@tomtoole: Are you american? Do you live in the states?

 

I'm asking you, cause you have to be here to understand the so called hatred beanmachine is talking about. It isn't about people doing public threats against the U.S.A or a President saying they don't like U.S policies. Of course they can say that, even if they do think so.

 

C'mon, Costa Rican president Oscar Arias is a pacifist, a Nobel Price, do you think he agrees with the War in Iraq? Of course not, but still he stays quiet and ask Bush for favors. Hugo Chavez is probably the only one saying what he thinks out loud, and for the record, I don't agree with Hugo Chavez, and totally against him, and I'm not saying that presidents in Latin America hate the U.S.

 

"Of course, let's sign the Anti-Terrorism Declartion, let's support the War on Terrorism, otherwise, where will our support go?" That is probably what they think.

 

The hatred beamdude is talking about is the public opinion, the conversations you hear in a park, the statements some teachers make. What you hear on the streets. Don't expect to hear such things inside the United States of America from a latinamerican person. Don't expect to watch that on your CNN or NBC, gringo...

 

I am completely neutral. I used to agree with the war in Iraq, but it has taken too much lives, too much time, too much money. I love the U.S and would love to live there, with a decent job, a decent life. My brother is an anesthesiologist, and in six months he is moving there. Hell, he will do great, better than some born-in americans do.

 

The U.S is not loosing power, it is loosing support, more publically than diplomatically speaking.

No I am not american, nor do I live in America, but i have visited the USA, and I have talked to americans, read american news, seen american news channels, they are pretty common throughout the world now.

 

Hatred? like hate crimes against blacks. like burning of flags, like protests of animal activists against fur. Like mahatma gandhis movement against war. Do you hate war? Certain people dont allow themselves to feel hate, but mostly people who feel hatred dont hate the US. in the same way that they hated jews in the past, outsiders of any kind, merchants, capitalists. "Beautiful People" for marylin manson lovers - they mean everything that is bad in their world.

 

I think the US is great, the movie Taxi Driver portrays it perfect, it is a great country, great in its vices, in its failures, in its victories, in its propaganda, in its art, in its people, in everything it is great.

 

How many gold medals did it win in the olympics? How many wars has it won? How much wealth?

 

 

 

Oh beautiful, for spacious skies,

For amber waves of grain,

For purple mountain majesties

Above the fruited plain!

America! America! God shed his grace on thee,

And crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joeline

The reason for any nation's demise is, as has been in the past, arrogance. Arrogance and an over-confidence in its power leads the nation to take other weaker nations for granted and pounce on them. Men and empires go hand in hand. In man, arrogance also leads to the same consequences.

A superpower can 'police' nations for only so long. And policing only looks good as long as the nation is righteous in doing so. USA suspended any political mores it formerly had the moment it entered the 1950's. Ever since then, it has always been about making more money, keeping its citizenry happy with their big fat cheeseburgers, swanky automobiles and bigger and better houses- all at the cost of a wailing mother cursing USA for the loss of her only son somewhere in Iraq. Or men humiliated beyond human understanding at Abu Gharaib ( not by some neighborhood bullies but employees of an important state institution). Or an ENTIRE family that was simply celebrating a wedding, being wiped out by a drone in Pakistan. Which brings one to think- whatever happened to those state-of-the-art precision weapons? I thought it minimalised bloopers. And oh yeah, what became of all the satellite gizmos that could pin-point anyone out there? How come Osama still lurks somewhere deep down in spite of years of bombing the s*** out of A-tan and now Pakistan (even if he is down there)?

In order to aid its ambitions and of its very powerful MNC lobby, USA has continued to 'invent' lies of all kinds. Zilch WMD's. Zilch Osama. Zilch Mullah Omar. And it still hasnt learnt any lessons, because now it has its mean eyes on Pakistan. So what value does Pakistan hold for NATO allies? Its very vital passageway to the sea from the oil-rich CIS nations. Pakistan's own rich resources in the form of untapped Oil, Gas and Coal which they are now dying to exploit. And yeah, its nuclear capability, that is as much a problem for India as it is for USA. Why should USA be allowed the superiority of nuclear weapons? Why should we trust it? Has it shown any responsibility in claiming world leadership? It aint worthy of policing anybody anymore. Pakistan and Iran have their own motives for pursuing nuclear capability- mostly for defence purposes as opposed to offense- that has been more clearly refelcted by USA in 1945. Stop stalking the middle-east to pursue democracy, it isnt the only virtue left in the world. If it wasnt easily acceptable to the muslim world, that should be reason enough to stop pestering them and move on. And why is the USA so interested in disseminating the 'beacon of democracy' everywhere, anyways? So that its wealthy corporations have even more freedom to penetrate those markets where formerly non-adhering dictators lived? And then what does one grasp out of USA's dual policies, i.e, on one end it continues supporting Hosni Mobarak in Egypt for decades, and the Ibn-e-Saud family in Saudi Arabia for more than that. And after US's done with them, just shove 'em off into a gutter like they did to Saddam Hussein.

 

So no, its never about the 'virtuous democracy'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E.A.B.

It's an assload to read, but I want to get my thoughts out there-so before I read I'll say this:

 

We live in a world far more different than the early or even mid-1900's.

 

Yes, in many ways similar, but also different. I truly do think that globalization will be the end to mass scaled armed conflicts. At the VERY LEAST, I would think conflicts never rise to the critical levels of yesteryear.

 

On a purely human level, I have made many connections to Europeans, purely through the internet. So at the very least, people are 'closer' than ever before. If we can at least have humans liking each other even though they lead distances apart, governments would be less willing to go after an agenda that is against the peoples wishes.

 

God this is too much of an ideal situation.... sad.gif

 

Ask me about my belief that in the distant future, federal governments will be more along the lines of administrative areas that specialize-essentially making the world one large company! monocle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

Is the U.S. losing power? No and far from it, in fact I would say we still havn't seen the height of U.S.'s power. Bare with me here okay?

 

Currently the United States has 1000 troops in more than 54 nations, and we have troops in 135 nations. As a matter of fact it's more likely we have troops in your nation right now than we don't. Hell we even have them in the UK how times change uh? wink.gif

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2...yment-1950-2003

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

 

Some state that this has lead to imperial overstretch but that's not the case, quite frankly U.S. deficits and debt don't primarly come from military expedieures but instead social programs like social security and medicare are the real burdens. Despite the fact our military expendures are more than the next 12 nations behind us we have over 300,000 troops stationed around the world, something no other nation since britan has ben able to match. Not only that but militarily the U.S. can't be beaten by any nation on earth. We have 9 aircraft carriers that can be moved anywhere in the world in a matter of days, we have the most highly trained troops in history, we have the most robust research and delevopment sector in Military technologies also. No other nation can use a system of bases to rapidly move troops here and there anywhere in the world. Even China's nuclear asrenal can be easily intercepted by our navy and the rest through what works of missile defense. The only nation on other that can militarily destory the U.S. is Russia and even then they would destroy themselves.

 

So now that we see we can't be beat militarily, lets move to economic. Our economy still remains the best environment for business, research and delevopment, and productity gains. While the recession has caused a period of slow growth from deleveraging, but our economy will rebound as it always has because all the fundamentals are still there for growth. If we could stop our reliance on imports some we could double our growth anyway.

http://pershingareanews.com/u-s-economy-sh...rk-of-life.html

In any case other nations such as China are in no position to over take us. First of all China's environment is going to continue to be a problem going into the future, some economist estimate it could reduce GDP growth by 2 percent in the future. Secondly strains are on the Chinese model of Authoritarian Capitalism mainly because rising unequality cause by lack of welfare isn't being solved. If they don't increase social services (and lower growth some in the short term) they'll end probably end up causing social strife that will lower growth more than having the programs would. The fact that China still has state run banks that don't give the proper amount of credit to good businesses and instead ineffient state run ones is also troubling. Lets get real all the talk is the same that was spread in the 80s about Japan and how did that turn out?

 

So looking at things from a military and economic standpoint it should be clear by now that America is far from over (no matter how much some of you eurospectics want it to be) but I'm not done yet the last area is of course political. What other nation in the world could invade 2 nations within 2 years and still get 40 nations to join it both times? Also don't scream foul because we didn't follow the U.N.becasue the U.N. is basically a nagging extention of U.S. power. Hell founded by the U.S. in the 40's and given the building by the Rockefellers the U.N. has almost no influnce. America pays 25 percent of the budget which doesn't even amount to 33 hours of what the Pentagon spends. The U.N. has almost no power and the only institution that matters in it is the security council. Even then it's almost always going to be U.S. and U.K together, the French are picky, and Russia and China trying to f*ck things up. Just because the U.N. doesn't give us a mandate doesn't really mean much.

 

Not only that but the whole idea that if 4 out of 5 nations of the security council believe something should happen why should one have a unilateral say other wise? Regardless moving from that most people understand that the U.S. is still top dog and will continue to be. The europeans proved during kosovo that they can't unite long enough to get something militarily done (wish you had federalism right now huh?) and China can still barely move it's troops from one side of the nation to another. U.S. power is still number one and will continue this way for many decades to come.

 

 

As if all that crap wasn't enough lets go after what some other people have said to spark some good debate huh?

 

 

 

USA suspended any political mores it formerly had the moment it entered the 1950's.

Yeah becasue fighting (and defeating) communism, restoring democracy in Haiti, helping the aid of European nations after WW2 (even Germany), the support of democracy in Afghanistan, the gains in equal rights for all Americans, the transformation of Japan and Korea into first world nations, the dragging of Mexico into more prosperity through NAFTA, the defense of Europe during the cold war so you all could focus on social programs all of that is a sign of suspended political mores right?

 

 

Or men humiliated beyond human understanding at Abu Gharaib ( not by some neighborhood bullies but employees of an important state institution). Or an ENTIRE family that was simply celebrating a wedding, being wiped out by a drone in Pakistan.

 

Yeah because there's never been a big war in which no civilans have died dozingoff.gif and people in organizations never disrespect human rights huh?

 

 

Why should USA be allowed the superiority of nuclear weapons? Why should we trust it?

Becasue

A. If if weren't for us you'd be the Soviet bitch right now

B. If if weren't for us WW2 would of turned out much differently (especially in the Pacific)

C. We're a democratic nation and like all nations reserve the right to war to protect our allies (your nation) and our citizens.

D. Becasue we invested billions into there delevopment and follow the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and we've continued reducing our numbers.

 

 

Has it shown any responsibility in claiming world leadership?

 

Yeah because that whole creating the U.N. thing and the IMF thing and the WTO thing aren't leading anything right?

 

 

It aint worthy of policing anybody anymore. Pakistan and Iran have their own motives for pursuing nuclear capability- mostly for defence purposes as opposed to offense- that has been more clearly refelcted by USA in 1945.

A. neither are within international law with their nukes

B. how can a nation that's not even democratic really be considered "soverign". If a man breaks into your house right now and takes you hostage is your neighbor wrong for killing him? Even if 99 percent of Irans or Pakistan's population want to live under Authoritarianism it doesn't matter becasue every man and woman deserves election and 99 percent of people can't take away your right to vote and to be free.

 

 

o that its wealthy corporations have even more freedom to penetrate those markets where formerly non-adhering dictators lived?

Considering the fact that our corportations bring propersity to whatever nations we trade with you should be glad we bring free markets to the poor of the world. What the alternative communism? Socialism? Right becasue that worked out SOO well. dozingoff.gif

 

 

And then what does one grasp out of USA's dual policies, i.e, on one end it continues supporting Hosni Mobarak in Egypt for decades, and the Ibn-e-Saud family in Saudi Arabia for more than that. And after US's done with them, just shove 'em off into a gutter like they did to Saddam Hussein.

 

Well guess what? Foreign Policy isn't only humanitarian but also security and guess what? yep economic. So we except the Saudis and Egyptians becasue they keep the Middle East stable, Israels economy strong, Oil following to Europe and Japan (who actually use the most middle eastern oil so your welcome), and terrorism more or less in check. Not only that but Saddam was a different case because he started to break our human standards with full genocide, economic by invading rich Kuwait and security by using chemical weapons. Say what you want but the world and U.S. policy isn't as simple you make it out to be.

Edited by bobgtafan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown

Well then..

 

First a misreading.

 

Currently the United States has 1000 troops in more than 54 nations

 

"Since 1950, 54 countries have hosted at least 1,000 American troops...

 

... In 2003, 14 countries hosted 1,000 or more American troops, the same number of countries as in 2000." - Site #1

 

 

To United States military power... What good is it that we can kill a million civilians in the blink of an eye but can't bring ONE man to justice for the deaths of thousands? A country may not be able to beat us militarily, that doesn't mean we can't be crippled psychologically enough for it not to matter.

 

 

Another misreading.

 

If we could stop our reliance on imports some we could double our growth anyway.

 

"Most consumer spending was for overseas products, reducing the potential growth by 2%."

 

user posted image - Site #3

 

 

 

So looking at things from a military and economic standpoint it should be clear by now that America is far from over (no matter how much some of you eurospectics want it to be)

 

First I am going to assume that by 'clear' you meant 'muddled as all hell because I misinterpreted my sources'. I am then going to assume you meant 'eurosceptic', which means "criticism of the European Union (EU), and opposition to the process of European integration." (Wiki). If this is indeed the case I ask you... wtf?

 

 

Becasue

A. If if weren't for us you'd be the Soviet bitch right now

B. If if weren't for us WW2 would of turned out much differently (especially in the Pacific)

C. We're a democratic nation and like all nations reserve the right to war to protect our allies (your nation) and our citizens.

D. Becasue we invested billions into there delevopment and follow the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and we've continued reducing our numbers.

 

To all of this I point out the simple fact that it wasn't "us", it was "them". Without "them" the U.S. wouldn't have won the revolution. Without "them" the U.S. wouldn't have outlasted the U.S.S.R. The "us" you refer too, the present majority of the population... didn't do a whole lot to secure international trust.

 

It's like making the argument that your father was an excellent driver, and that because of it you are also an excellent driver. Did our forbearers manage not to blow up the world? Yes.

Does that mean I trust every subsequent generation to not have their finger slip on the button? No.

 

 

B. how can a nation that's not even democratic really be considered "soverign". If a man breaks into your house right now and takes you hostage is your neighbor wrong for killing him?

 

How does a man taking you hostage have anything to do with a nations sovereignty or democratic status? If a man and his wife are having an argument is your neighbor wrong for killing either of them?

 

Just wtf all around I guess. That's what I'm driving at. Good night.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

What's all this talk about "democracy" anyway? Looks like somebody forgot that the US is not a democracy. It's a republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

 

First a misreading.

QUOTE 

Currently the United States has 1000 troops in more than 54 nations

 

 

"Since 1950, 54 countries have hosted at least 1,000 American troops...

 

... In 2003, 14 countries hosted 1,000 or more American troops, the same number of countries as in 2000." - Site #1

 

 

To United States military power... What good is it that we can kill a million civilians in the blink of an eye but can't bring ONE man to justice for the deaths of thousands? A country may not be able to beat us militarily, that doesn't mean we can't be crippled psychologically enough for it not to matter.

You're right I did misread that, my bad, well yes we can still suffer psychological blows but that doesn't mean we're losing power, that just means we have to exercise it. Pearl Harbor hurt us psychologically but in the end we still won, Osama may of gotten away with 9/11 and he may die in the caves of Pakistan but who's really won? In the end we still have troops in the middle east (double now because of Afghanistan), we're still not near collaspe, we still have destroyed key components of Al-Queda.

 

 

Another misreading.

QUOTE 

If we could stop our reliance on imports some we could double our growth anyway.

 

 

"Most consumer spending was for overseas products, reducing the potential growth by 2%."

That wasn't a mis reading, as I said if we reduced our dependence on imports we could double our economic growth that qoute basically says that.

 

 

So looking at things from a military and economic standpoint it should be clear by now that America is far from over (no matter how much some of you eurospectics want it to be) 

 

 

First I am going to assume that by 'clear' you meant 'muddled as all hell because I misinterpreted my sources'. I am then going to assume you meant 'eurosceptic', which means "criticism of the European Union (EU), and opposition to the process of European integration." (Wiki). If this is indeed the case I ask you... wtf?

I basically f*cked up my wording there.

 

 

QUOTE 

Becasue

A. If if weren't for us you'd be the Soviet bitch right now

B. If if weren't for us WW2 would of turned out much differently (especially in the Pacific)

C. We're a democratic nation and like all nations reserve the right to war to protect our allies (your nation) and our citizens.

D. Becasue we invested billions into there delevopment and follow the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and we've continued reducing our numbers.

 

 

To all of this I point out the simple fact that it wasn't "us", it was "them". Without "them" the U.S. wouldn't have won the revolution. Without "them" the U.S. wouldn't have outlasted the U.S.S.R. The "us" you refer too, the present majority of the population... didn't do a whole lot to secure international trust.

 

It's like making the argument that your father was an excellent driver, and that because of it you are also an excellent driver. Did our forbearers manage not to blow up the world? Yes.

Does that mean I trust every subsequent generation to not have their finger slip on the button? No.

 

Honestly I'm not understanding your argument there.

 

 

QUOTE 

B. how can a nation that's not even democratic really be considered "soverign". If a man breaks into your house right now and takes you hostage is your neighbor wrong for killing him?

 

 

How does a man taking you hostage have anything to do with a nations sovereignty or democratic status? If a man and his wife are having an argument is your neighbor wrong for killing either of them?

 

Just wtf all around I guess. That's what I'm driving at. Good night.

 

Basically what I was saying with that methapor is that if a burglar (an authoritarian) takes a homeowner hostage (the people) why is it wrong for a neighbor (America and allies) to come and free the homeowner? It's not and even if the burglar wants to call himself the true owner of the home we all know thats a crock of sh*t.

 

@nlitement

 

Dude Republic means a government controlled by the citizens and democracy is means by which you do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cidamelo

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown

I'll stick to the things where misunderstanding still appears as to keep it cleaner.

 

 

Another misreading:

 

If we could stop our reliance on imports some we could double our growth anyway.

 

 

"Most consumer spending was for overseas products, reducing the potential growth by 2%."

That wasn't a mis reading, as I said if we reduced our dependence on imports we could double our economic growth that qoute basically says that.

 

What I was driving at was that an increase of 2% isn't doubling. It's plus 2 to whatever you are at not times 2.

Unless there's some overly obvious thing I'm missing here.

 

 

To all of this I point out the simple fact that it wasn't "us", it was "them". Without "them" the U.S. wouldn't have won the revolution. Without "them" the U.S. wouldn't have outlasted the U.S.S.R. The "us" you refer too, the present majority of the population... didn't do a whole lot to secure international trust.

 

It's like making the argument that your father was an excellent driver, and that because of it you are also an excellent driver. Did our forbearers manage not to blow up the world? Yes.

Does that mean I trust every subsequent generation to not have their finger slip on the button? No.

 

Honestly I'm not understanding your argument there.

 

I'm trying to draw the distinction between what is present and what was past. It's not accurate to say "we" did something 100 years ago if "you" weren't there to do it.

 

My grandfather was a police officer. But just because of that I can't say that my family arrests criminals, and if it weren't for us there'd be more criminals on the street. In my mind these terms are generation sensitive. I guess I might be a bit of a pedant but for me it changes the entire context of the statement.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

 

P.S.

Yay democratic republics.

 

Yay nonproductive brazilian responses. Hope Lula part 3 goes well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

As far the past argument goes I'm simply saying this. It was U.S. institutions that did these things in the past and the same institutions are whooping ass today. The people in the bureacracies may have changed but the beast has only gotten stronger. And I mis read the economic report. Still american power is no where near the height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise

 

What's all this talk about "democracy" anyway? Looks like somebody forgot that the US is not a democracy. It's a republic.

Um, a nation can be a democratic republic.

Just thought I should point that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patsfan4life

America is losing the values and beliefs that made it a great nation. I say America reached its climax in the 50s during the Eisenhower administration, and slowly began to lose influence afterwards. Its kinda like the Soviet Union after reaching its height of influence in 1960.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The-King

 

America is losing the values and beliefs that made it a great nation. I say America reached its climax in the 50s during the Eisenhower administration, and slowly began to lose influence afterwards. Its kinda like the Soviet Union after reaching its height of influence in 1960.

Our "beliefs and values" are what's tearing us apart today, religion is more noticeably finding it's way into our political process than it has in the past as people start to reject it on a larger scale and become gratuitously more accepting of things that were once generalized taboos while it's proponents resist to their last breath. Massive portions of most politicians time is spent on ideological bullsh*t (or rather their public time). We as a people overlook important issues in order to push or oppose church centric ideologies that strip people of their rights. It's becomes less prevalent the further we get from election season, but it's still there, constantly.

 

Our country isn't losing power, but the over-complicated bureaucracy that is the US Government is caving in on itself from the giant stacks of bureaucratic bullsh*ttery that's stacking up on top of it. Everything seems to be more and more of an arbitrary process, putting more people in between different levels of the political process, over-complicating things and causing or forcing miss-communications. The complication of the process also makes corruption easier to hide, especially given the fact that the earmarks on bills now don't have to be made public. Our government is essentially suckling the tit of big business as it force feeds them their opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler

~TK~, whom isn't? Any 'first world' nation is on their high chair thanks to big business. The ways of conquest in the past are done, and the age of Diplomatic Business is already reigning supreme. In fact, I remember and earlier argument about North Korea and China, where we specifically pointed out that China will never side with North Korea as long as America continues to give it so much economic value. Business may be tearing our world apart internally, but internationally it keeps the rich (America, China, Russia, Commonwealth etc) from killing each other.

 

I guess in laymen's terms you could say it keeps the poor poor and the rich, well.... rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.