Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Holy smokes Dak, you're not just ignorant, you're completely lost. For future reference, if you're going to respond to someones post, and use quotes from said post, then please try to make some sense with your rebuttal.

At 12/4/04 09:59 AM, drDAK wrote:

At 12/4/04 09:48 AM, bcdemon wrote:
Hold on there skippy, you (USA) didnt save the worlds ass(WW2), you HELPED save europe, get it HELPED. Big difference. HUGE actually.

Okay, where are you from? Hum..... hell? possibly. Iraq? No, people like us over there. Um........ Oh! how about from "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about" and "I don't know how to work the BBS" worlds.

And oh my, are you ever wacked, I explained why god "might" want to hurt USA, and you come up with some BS about fighting the war on terror. LMAO you sound like Bush, answer everything with the war on terror.

Thanks, I like Bush. And you sound like my toilet when it gets clogged.

One more thing, If USA is so dedicated to fighting the war on terror, then why is USA going to have 150,000 of its troops in Iraq, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? To let you in on a small secret(not to small, your the only one who missed it) Your fight on terror has about 18,000 troops lookin for the guy who caused 9/11. Can you see a difference in importance here?

Um...... where the hell have you been? Iraq is not RELATED to the WTC but is RELATED to the War on Terror. Think! Cogito! Cogitas non!

And I'm not the only right-wing in this country. there's millions. Try 51% of the US's population. Also, 13% of both Republicans and Democrats showed up to the polls on Nov. 2. So, most the independants went to Bush. We know our leader. You do not.

18,000 = war on terror
150,000 = invasion/occupation on Iraq

There is casualties and money to be spent in every war, stupid. Oh, and calling someone ignorant for having different beliefs than yourself is ignorance itself.

And boy oh boy, if you thought Saddam and the Taliban are your worst enemies in the world, you are sadly mistaken, or just ignorant. I believe you to be ignorant.

You obviously no nothing about US politics or politics of the sort. You spit out a bunch of crap that only can be satisfied by dumping in the BBS.

Im from Canada.

NO, Iraq is related to the war on terror, Iraq is related to the search for Saddams WMD stockpiles. The war in Afghanistan is where the war on terror is stationed.

18,000 = war on terror
150,000 = invasion/occupation on Iraq

Ok, now here comes the part where I explain my post to you, unfortunately. Those numbers up there, arent civilian deaths, those are the amount of soldiers you have in Afghanistan (war on terror) and Iraq (was on, ummmm, not really sure, OIL)

I dont call you ignorant for your beliefs, I called you ignorant because you have proven you have very little knowledge of the topic at hand.

At 12/4/04 01:19 PM, bcdemon wrote: Holy smokes Dak, you're not just ignorant, you're completely lost. For future reference, if you're going to respond to someones post, and use quotes from said post, then please try to make some sense with your rebuttal.

Go suck your level 1 lollypop. Just a bunch of crap. Obviously you don't know anything about Politics so please go watch the washingm machine twirl round-and-round.

Those voices inside your head are talking to you again Bull Crap Demon. Obviously you are the one who doesn't knowhow the BBS goes: When you put a thread or anything on the BBS, it has to say something.

Please stop using Ignorant, because that would be copying what I say. But it seems you don't know anything else so... Knock Yourself Out. Ignorant.

drDak wrote:
" When you put a thread or anything on the BBS, it has to say something."

I agree 100% . Thats why I get all googly when I say something with some fact behind it you just come back with absurd insults and mindless babble. If you have some topics you would like to discuss, such as troop allocation, civilian casualties, or even the geographical location of such events, I will be more than happy to join you in such discussions.

Now, lets try to keep it on topic shall we?

Fact I bet you don't know:
4 out of every 5 of our (I mean America's) troops overseas voted for Bush.

Listen bcdemon.
When we (America again) were attacked on 9/11, America was no longer Republican and Democrat and the World had no say in what we thought. Becuase we have a war against all signs of terrorism, we can't let things go by us anymore. Remember what happened to America (If you know this) in WWII? We were attacked on December 7 (My birthday ^^) in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

You cannot see evil and let it happen, the WTC was a reminder of that.

Now I'm gonna go burn some CDs...... just becuase I need to unwind with some music.

At 12/2/04 01:17 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: And this is just Americas fault. Bull fucking shit. What has the US done that made the terrorists decide to attack WTC? Pentagon? Any terrorist action in the past 10 years? Europe has treated muslims worse than America in my opinion so it really escapes me why we have been singled out.

Perhaps you need reminding of the gulf war? As a country that went out its way to condemn imperialism (declaring it evil etc, when we all know the real reason for this was to bring down your rivals) your recent 'stealth' imperialism. The hypocrisy in limiting other nations weapons of mass destruction for instance is immense, lets point out that your history of pushing arab powers is the most recent. European colonialism, although arguably humiliating for those who must suffer it, as far as im concerned was not evil. Certainly under British rule power was devolved and for instance Kipling (an Indian educated in England) said India did not feel like a conquered country due to the fact India was still being ran for the most part by Indians. I do not believe that Britain treated any of her colonies particularly badly, thus I dont agree that Europeans have treated Muslims badly. Though I am unaware of how France ruled her dominions. You are also something of a back stabbing nation, where Britain, in recent middle eastern history, has helped all her allies, America I have read has left some of her allies in the cold. I cannot give you examples though, I read it in a Ken Connor book, he gave me no examples. Recent British incursions in the area were also low key (bar our help in the Afghan Iraqi wars, where America took the majority of the thunder anyway), whereas American ones have been broadcast about the world. I can see plenty of reasons for your bad reputation in the middle east.

At 12/3/04 02:12 AM, MaNiNbLaCk wrote: well to the post here will America be a superpower the answer is yes. here why:
1. we have the best miltary in the world.
think about it,U think in in ten short years that thats going to change? we just uped there $$$$ too.

Yes you invest more and more money into develping superb almost unmatched jets and weaponry (with european technology keeping up, but of course our militarys are not united and are far smaller) and then these weapons are used against foes with little or no aerial capabilities, or perhaps on men with bombs strapped to their chests. One wonders in WW2 technology would be enough to take these little countries on, perhaps not but the current level of military power is excessive (ie a waste of money). We talk of the fact Europe and America do not get on, this may be true yet we can safely assume we are not about to go to war.

10 years is not enough to change all this.

The British empire was destroyed in the course of a single war, less than 10 years. Perversely a war we won, a pyrric (however you spell it) victory you might say.

At 12/3/04 08:47 PM, drDAK wrote: We've been a super power for 300 some-odd years.
There is no country on earth that could take us down.
So why are we not going to be a super-power later?

Dont be absurd, you have not been a super power for 300 years at all. For instance when you achieved independence the Carribean Islands were actually worth far more to the British than the American colonies. One of the reasons you achieved independence is because of the fact you were not considered valuable (and it was thought there was no great potential in America, heinsight, of course, has proved this wrong). At best America has been a power since the beginning of the 20th century and a superpower following WW2. You may point to the fact that at the start of the world war America was a rich as Britain, it was, yet Britain had an enormous empire and America of course didnt.

As long as we're united (Forget the other leftists outside the U.S. ticked off) we will stand as a super power.

We have overcame big wars like Us against Britain. had the French and Indian war not happened, the Brits wouldn't had been so weak and we wouldn't be able to beat them.

No no no, the war of indepence was not a big war, most of the troops you fought against were not British after all, they were American loyalists. It was almost a civil war with foreign influence, it wasnt but im sure you get my point. Or perhaps you talk of the war America declared after indepence, dont be silly there was hardly any conflict. If you want to see a real war, look at Napoleons rampaging through Europe.

The US saved the world's butt in WWII.
We survived WWI too.

Im glad to see you realise how little a role the US actually played in WW1, although your WW2 comment is completely off the mark. The war was not lost when America joined it, though you joining did tip the balance. Thinking in weights is good, for the British weight was still required to beat the Germans.

At 12/4/04 09:59 AM, drDAK wrote: Okay, where are you from? Hum..... hell? possibly. Iraq? No, people like us over there. Um........ Oh! how about from "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about" and "I don't know how to work the BBS" worlds.
Thanks, I like Bush. And you sound like my toilet when it gets clogged.
Um...... where the hell have you been? Iraq is not RELATED to the WTC but is RELATED to the War on Terror. Think! Cogito! Cogitas non!

And boy oh boy, if you thought Saddam and the Taliban are your worst enemies in the world, you are sadly mistaken, or just ignorant. I believe you to be ignorant.

You obviously no nothing about US politics or politics of the sort. You spit out a bunch of crap that only can be satisfied by dumping in the BBS.

This is quite appalling, basically a huge list of insults to deal with any point you cannot counter, yet you call him ignorant. At least he does not resort to childish insults.

At 12/5/04 11:04 AM, drDAK wrote: Go suck your level 1 lollypop. Just a bunch of crap. Obviously you don't know anything about Politics so please go watch the washingm machine twirl round-and-round.

Again.

No, america sucks. We will get officially nuked the hell out of in 2016. I'm moving to England as soon as I can.

At 12/1/04 06:03 PM, Willsphermalothohnyu wrote: Hello, Im guessing most of you are from USA right? So you could give me your views on this question. The reason im putting it up is due to the following facts:

1) Because of Bushes economical plans and warfare USA will have a foreign debt of 3000 billion dollars over the next ten years

2) Since Bush was reelected the dollar has devaluated by more than 16% and its still loosing value, this is not just an economic thing, its also an imortant mental factor. (also considering the Euro is alot higher than the dollar now)

3) The Israel Palestinian conflict has never been worse due to failed foreign politics. The Arabian hatred towards USA is larger than ever.

4) After the disaster in Iraq hostile countries have begun insulting USA openly in the UN. Iran, Northkorea and many more have begun constructing weapons of mass destruction openly. They do no longer feel that USA has economic, diplomatic or military means to step in.

5) The relationship between Europe and USA is colder than ever. In Denmark and many other countries people are banning American goods, movies and products, and politicians here dont take Bush serious, they see him as a degenerate (not stating oppinions this is facts!)

I would say you picked the wrong president.

I think that you are underestimating the U.S. I agree that Bush has put us on the wrong path, but I don't think the U.S, the most powerful nation in all of history, will be losing that status any time too soon. So long as there is no cataclysmic event inside of the U.S. that would actually bring down the rest of the world down too (the downside of a global economy) the U.S will comtinue to be on top for quite some time. The countryies that you mentioned as openly insulting the U.S. are loose cannons whose ability to survive depends on the demoniozation of the UNited States, so they need to insult it in an forum they can. Keep in mind, politicians in Iran continue to refer to the U.S. as "The Great Satan". There are a growing number of rivals to the U.S., but none of them would present any significant threat to the U.S minlitary, economic and cultural dominance in the forseeable future.

At 12/5/04 12:10 PM, Gutmunchr wrote:

At 12/2/04 01:17 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: And this is just Americas fault. Bull fucking shit. What has the US done that made the terrorists decide to attack WTC? Pentagon? Any terrorist action in the past 10 years? Europe has treated muslims worse than America in my opinion so it really escapes me why we have been singled out.

Perhaps you need reminding of the gulf war?

You mean the UN action? Yeah, thats the reason the middel east hates america, because we listened to the UN. Makes perfect sense.

As a country that went out its way to condemn imperialism (declaring it evil etc, when we all know the real reason for this was to bring down your rivals) your recent 'stealth' imperialism.

We condemened it? Really, I didnt know that. I would love to see evidence. And to bring down rivals? Wow, I must be dumb, I didnt know this. And this stealth imperialism is called cultural and economic imperialism and it sure as hell isnt very stealthy.

The hypocrisy in limiting other nations weapons of mass destruction for instance is immense

Yeah, sorta like how we are trying to negotiate with Iran to keep them from getting nukes. WHOOPS! Thats European diplomats, silly me. And your right, let any stupid dictator get nukes, would makes the world much better place.

lets point out that your history of pushing arab powers is the most recent. European colonialism, although arguably humiliating for those who must suffer it, as far as im concerned was not evil.

I could go on for HOURS the horrible way all the European powers left their colonies. I can sum it up pretty well in a couple of sentences. Look at what Europe use to rule. Look at the state they are in now. Yeah, obviously left them in a good state. If you want me to continue with my point, I will.

Oh, and also, what I was refering to when I was refrencing Muslims are treated worse in Europe is basically the way France treats her muslims. They are degraded (cant wear turbans and burqas and stuff in school anymore) and are second class citzens there. And I think something like 80% of the criminals in prison are muslims.

Certainly under British rule power was devolved and for instance Kipling (an Indian educated in England) said India did not feel like a conquered country due to the fact India was still being ran for the most part by Indians. I do not believe that Britain treated any of her colonies particularly badly, thus I dont agree that Europeans have treated Muslims badly.

So India was treated well, thus all colonies were treated well? BS. Look at Africa and apartheid. All the home nations did was rape the country of her resources and care none for the raped nations people. And gimme a break, if India was really made in the shade, would they have wanted freedom?

Though I am unaware of how France ruled her dominions. You are also something of a back stabbing nation, where Britain, in recent middle eastern history, has helped all her allies, America I have read has left some of her allies in the cold. I cannot give you examples though, I read it in a Ken Connor book, he gave me no examples.

Hmm, no examples. How surprising. And how has Britain helped any middle eastern nation? And you show me a nation that doesnt back stab and lie steal and cheat to get ahead and I will show you a flying pig.

Recent British incursions in the area were also low key (bar our help in the Afghan Iraqi wars, where America took the majority of the thunder anyway), whereas American ones have been broadcast about the world.

Low key because they have like 1/100th the military power US has. The US is expected to police the world for the UN simply for the fact we CAN. But we are relagated to the same powers as worthless nations like France and Russia. Go figure.

I can see plenty of reasons for your bad reputation in the middle east.

Yeah, I can to. Its called jealousy of power and envy of our wealth and our symbolism of everything that the people like Bin Laden loathe. Freedom, Christianity, good standard of living, and definately most of all power.

At 12/1/04 06:03 PM, Willsphermalothohnyu wrote: Hello, Im guessing most of you are from USA right? So you could give me your views on this question. The reason im putting it up is due to the following facts:

1) Because of Bushes economical plans and warfare USA will have a foreign debt of 3000 billion dollars over the next ten years

We've had a deficit for a large portion of our history. The inflation rate rises, and the dollar loses it's value, and that's pretty much it. No biggie. We do really need a balanced budget ammendment

2) Since Bush was reelected the dollar has devaluated by more than 16% and its still loosing value, this is not just an economic thing, its also an imortant mental factor. (also considering the Euro is alot higher than the dollar now)

The Euro is the currency of the combined economies of Europe. I would be worried if it wasn't worth more. Just like I would be worried if all of Europe combined didn't get more medals than the US at the 2004 Olympics. Again, see number one. The good thing about this is that the Euro won't work in the long run for exactly that reason. More than a dozen different economies, and they aren't even that strong.

3) The Israel Palestinian conflict has never been worse due to failed foreign politics. The Arabian hatred towards USA is larger than ever.

That doesn't have much to do with our superiority. It's not like those Arab nations have anything to compete with us economic-wise.

4) After the disaster in Iraq hostile countries have begun insulting USA openly in the UN. Iran, Northkorea and many more have begun constructing weapons of mass destruction openly. They do no longer feel that USA has economic, diplomatic or military means to step in.

The UN is filled with a bunch of douchebags. They openly insult us because they are up to their knees in scandal and irrelevence. We own every single one of those countries. I don't know what Iran is up right now, in all honesty. North Korea has nothing that can threaten our economic superiority. The real problem is China.

5) The relationship between Europe and USA is colder than ever. In Denmark and many other countries people are banning American goods, movies and products, and politicians here dont take Bush serious, they see him as a degenerate (not stating oppinions this is facts!)

Yeah, the US is a very different place from other countries. That's one of the reasons we flourish as a superpower while other countries will never be able to compete with rising-power China. Capitalism and a very strong economy is what makes us great. So even though we don't have universal health care, we still own all other countries with the exception of China in about 10 years. When China becomes a superpower, it will be a very humbling moment for the US, but as it stands, we're the only nation that can stand to compete with its growing economy in 10 years.

I would say you picked the wrong president.

Shut the hell up. The world knows nothing about American politics. Mind your own damn business.

"The US is expected to police the world for the UN simply for the fact we CAN."

Actually, the US has decided to police the world on its own. You dont really support the UN, and you definately do not support the peacekeeping missions. USA lack of participation is proof of that.
Tunisia, Ireland, heck even Niger has more UN peacekeepers than USA.

At 12/1/04 06:39 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Just you know, more people voted for Bush than for Hitler.

Hmm...that sounds cool, but I don't know that I can whole-heartedly accept that. Wouldn't there be more people in the United States voting than there was in Germany, anyways? Or are we talking proportionally?

Nevertheless, it caught my eye. Makes a nifty quote.

At 12/5/04 12:09 PM, drDAK wrote:

:Becuase we have a war against all signs of terrorism, we can't let things go by us anymore. Remember what happened to America (If you know this) in WWII? We were attacked on December 7 (My birthday ^^) in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

I'm so tired of hearing this. This is your justification of falsely claming that another country had WMDs? A preemptive strike based on total bullshit claims is ok just as long as no one in the United States boarders gets hurt?

I'm sure you mean well, but all I see is this nation further perverting what patriotism really is.

one question. who do you think will kick the U.S. out of being a world power? one thing you have to consider is Manpower does not equal super power. maybe back in WW1 you could have gotten away with man power. anymore you have to have technology, and the US is the most technilogically advanced nation at this point in time.

At 12/5/04 11:54 PM, BigDRanch wrote: one question. who do you think will kick the U.S. out of being a world power? one thing you have to consider is Manpower does not equal super power. maybe back in WW1 you could have gotten away with man power. anymore you have to have technology, and the US is the most technilogically advanced nation at this point in time.

No you couldnt, when creating our empire in Africa (pre WW1) armies of 500 men beat African armies 14 times bigger, that clocks in at 7000 men. The maxim machine gun gave this power. WW1 saw land advancement through the use of the tank, through the use of gas, not to mention devasting artillery bombarding. Tunnels were dug under opposition trenches and bombs were placed beneath them, technology was very useful.

I intend to respond fabulous, though I cannot be bothered right now.

At 12/5/04 10:46 PM, bcdemon wrote: "The US is expected to police the world for the UN simply for the fact we CAN."

Actually, the US has decided to police the world on its own. You dont really support the UN, and you definately do not support the peacekeeping missions. USA lack of participation is proof of that.
Tunisia, Ireland, heck even Niger has more UN peacekeepers than USA.

Im not talking of little actions that no major power is involved with. You know why all those little countries have more peackeepers? Because they UN pays the countries for their service. They are basicaly hired mercenaries serving the UN for cash.

What I was referring to was any major action where the UN needs a strong fist hammering someone down. Name a major UN peackeeping action that the US has not been the major player in. Maybe Im wrong with my assertion, but I have yet to see proof.

At 12/6/04 03:07 PM, Gutmunchr wrote: The maxim machine gun gave this power.

The maxim sucked donkey balls. Worked though : )

WW1 saw land advancement through the use of the tank,

Very little action in the war. Only worked for like 10 miles then they broke.

through the use of gas, not to mention devasting artillery bombarding.

Also didnt work. The German High command believed they could literally kill all men with artillery barages. Was shown not to work at Verdun and almost any action of the war.

Tunnels were dug under opposition trenches and bombs were placed beneath them, technology was very useful.

Believe this was only tried once at Messiness I think? May be wrong.

I intend to respond fabulous, though I cannot be bothered right now.

Just a-waiting the reply :) The anticipation hurts.

Oki my bad Fabu, I was thinking UN peacekeeping missions, not UN missions in general.

And as far as past UN peacekeeping missions go, Im not sure on which if any the US was a major contributor to. But I do know as of now you only have 350 UN Peacekeepers (10 of those are soldiers, the rest are civilian police and moderators), Canada has 323 and Bangladesh leads the pack with 8200, followed closely by Pakistan with 8178.

Damn, learn something new everyday...

At 12/6/04 07:25 PM, bcdemon wrote: Oki my bad Fabu, I was thinking UN peacekeeping missions, not UN missions in general.

And as far as past UN peacekeeping missions go, Im not sure on which if any the US was a major contributor to. But I do know as of now you only have 350 UN Peacekeepers (10 of those are soldiers, the rest are civilian police and moderators), Canada has 323 and Bangladesh leads the pack with 8200, followed closely by Pakistan with 8178.

Damn, learn something new everyday...

Yeah, like the fact they are nothing more than higherd mercenaries? Yup, you do learn new things...

The fact that the poorest nations have the most peackeepers should have set off alarm bells immediately.

At 12/7/04 03:27 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 12/5/04 12:09 PM, drDAK wrote: Fact I bet you don't know:
4 out of every 5 of our (I mean America's) troops overseas voted for Bush.

Fact I'm sure you don't know:

Troop votes were massively withheld.

Sorry to lazy to find DrDAK's post to reply directly to it, but this is towards DrDAK. Where did you come up with the "fact, 4 out of every 5 of our (I mean America's) troops overseas voted for Bush.

Most of the people from my old shop cannot stand President Bush. A lot of them are currently overseas. I know a lot of military people who simple cannot stand the President, even a lot of them that supported the invasion of Iraq.

No, I'm not taking 4 out of every 5 soldier's opinions, but I a majority of those in the military that I know, both in Iraq and in the US do not like President Bush. See my signature for where I think you got your "facts" from until you can show me that the military voted 80% in favor of President Bush. Thats a real high demographic for votes. And if 4 out of 5 voted for the current President, then I am almost willing to bet that those that got their votes to count were very high ranking, and very few and far in between.

As for the military absentee balats not being counted, that happened in 2000 as well with a lot of the votes since we had to vote out of state anyways. I mean why would anyone care who the military wants as President, I mean its not like he affects the lives of the military more than most civillians.

At 12/7/04 02:55 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:: Yeah, like the fact they are nothing more than higherd mercenaries? Yup, you do learn new things...

The fact that the poorest nations have the most peackeepers should have set off alarm bells immediately.

Actually, learning that Bangladesh has the most amount of UN peacekeeing troops was teh shocker. As far as the mercenaries thing goes, thats ones perception.

And you're right on the second line though, I thought the US would be leading, I had no idea one of the richest countries in the world, best military blah blah blah would only have 10 troops in the UN Peacekeeping role. But it's understandable why the Bangladesh people would join UN peacekeeping missions at an amazing rate, it keeps them out of Bangladesh.

At 12/2/04 08:47 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 12/1/04 06:03 PM, Willsphermalothohnyu wrote: I would say you picked the wrong president.

Based on your facts, I would agree. Then again, it would have also been hard as hell for John Kerry to do things any different. An economical recovery would be a slow and painful process that would take about... 10 years, not to mention a new administration and re-strengthened international ties.

People are somewhat blind. John Kerry had an opposite and well thought out to almost every issue possible on his website. If Bush makes thing suck, then Kerry, by doing the opposite, will reverse the effects od Dubya. Sorry, I meant would have reversed......... God HELP America...

At 12/8/04 12:31 AM, CapnJack wrote: People are somewhat blind. John Kerry had an opposite and well thought out to almost every issue possible on his website. If Bush makes thing suck, then Kerry, by doing the opposite, will reverse the effects od Dubya. Sorry, I meant would have reversed......... God HELP America...

If you honestly think any of his ideas would have passed Congress or actually worked any better than GWB's plans you are as blind as the rest. Like the healtcare plan, where would the cash come from? Just taxing the rich a little more?

News flash, creative accounting is rampant throughout both major parties. Also, if the numbers dont add up, what the hell. China will pay for us, right?

Vote for some actual change next time. Like a 3rd party. More of the same is what you will get no matter Democrat or Republican.

At 12/8/04 03:54 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: If you honestly think any of his ideas would have passed Congress or actually worked any better than GWB's plans you are as blind as the rest. Like the healtcare plan, where would the cash come from? Just taxing the rich a little more?

I stick by this motto: No Bush is a good Bush, no matter what.

News flash, creative accounting is rampant throughout both major parties. Also, if the numbers dont add up, what the hell. China will pay for us, right?

lol. The deficit is gonna be scary after Bush is done raping America and the Middle East

Vote for some actual change next time. Like a 3rd party. More of the same is what you will get no matter Democrat or Republican.

I can't vote. I'm 16. I'm Canadian. I completely agree though, I watched the elections and Ralph Nader actually looks like he cares about the country, while everyone else cares about the election. Too bad people suck.

I like how evryone puts down the Super power or the US its funny.. And then u say ur from canada whats that? You mean US .... I think the war in iraq was a good move and bad move 1 is saddem is gone 2 BAD that we are going to be there for alot of time.. But i am tired of hearing people say get our troops out they are dying last time I looked but dont U join the Army? You dont have anyone FORCEING u to join... And when ur in the Army I wonder what U have to do hmmm Its like a Cop or a Fireman ITS there JOB what do people think they do in the Army Sit around and play video games um no... And the war hmm Weapons mass destruction well DAM if you DAM if you dont if you dont go into Iraq and lets say they do have them and they use them take out lets say 10 city blocks who are you going to blame? You cant win And we did try to do it peacefully BUT they didnt want to.... Remember the President always gets the crap if he screws up.. Who do you think gets the INtel HIM you think he is in Iraq or checking out the satalites um no Super power seems to always be hated and FREEDOM IS NEVER FREE!

At 12/4/04 09:29 AM, drDAK wrote:
Real old (Not really, 300 years). Younger than Britain, becuase we beat 'em up to win Independance in 1776 or some-odd year.

Math is hard, durrrrr.

In 10 years? yeah.

50? Maybe.

150? Probably not (given the status quo of things)

with the death of one superpower, empire, hegemon, etc there invariably rises another almost immediately. If not immediately, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place guys usually go at it to see who gets the top dog spot.

I doubt we'll fall in 10, because there is simply no one to depose us as of yet, nor is there anyone to fill the void. Nearly all European powers rely on the US to some extent or another, and the EU is far too disjointed to become an effective hegemonic force.

In the East China and India are racing for power and prestige, but from what I've heard (CNN, MSNBC, newpapers, class, hearsay and gossip), both are more than 10 years behind the US in several respects, most significantly militarily.

So I would answer with a question: Is there anyone able to succeed us in 10 years? If not, then no, we won't fall.

At 4/3/07 04:42 PM, Imperator wrote: In the East China and India are racing for power and prestige, but from what I've heard (CNN, MSNBC, newpapers, class, hearsay and gossip), both are more than 10 years behind the US in several respects, most significantly militarily.

Yeah, but that is what you consider to be the #1 country, because the US isn't the best in every aspect. The Chinese have a decent military, not much US dependent if I'm not mistaken, are are decided to improve it, that's why they are spending so much money in it.
And economically, they will probably be more powerful than the US. They are also gaining political weight around the world looking where to put they gigantic reserves of US Dollars.

I'm actually quite fine with America no longer being a superpower.

As long as we can enact an isolationist foreign policy, then I will be peachy.