Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

yes, it still is a superpower. (answering only topic question here)

It definetly channels the economy of the world through it, and it's the current leader in technological advances (a few exceptions there, but generally, it is).
It's also the richest country, currently.

But if it was America vs World, meaning every other country, it would not survive.

A large percantage, 40% (making that statistic up, its probably more like 20% or so...) of the people living in America are from other countries.
That and if worst comes to worst, everybody dies because of the nukes.
I believe that the US is in it's golden age right now.

but all must come down eventually.

At 1/14/07 01:06 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: We rebuilt our ENEMY'S country with our own money, free of charge, allowed them all to have democracies.

Because of the threat of communism. And it would be idiocy to claim we are more benevolent than other superpowers. About all I can say is we are less bad. I mean, we still have the same tendencies.

Think about it, the US could have claimed Europe for itself and nuked the Soviets into oblivion (the soviets didn't have the A-bomb yet), but no, the US showed enormous mercy and the 8 most successful economies in the world, EVEN CHINA owe their prosperity to the US.

The Soviets could have rolled over our forces in Europe at the time and we had no atomic weapons at the ready after the war and wouldnt have had enough to stop the number of divisions the Soviets had on the continent at the time until they got their bombs. Not to mention the public never would have supported it.

At 1/14/07 01:06 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

But this would just lead to a gigantic war because no matter what the public opinion of the US in Asia and Europe, their governments know that if the US wasn't as powerful as it is, the world would be ALOT worse. The US is the only benevolent superpower in history, we have never taken spoils or conquered a country that we've gained victory over in our history of 43 victorious wars.

43 Victorius wars???, wat the fuck, most of those wars are shitty things like fighting pirates. lol more like '10 wars most of which were fucked up an had no reall outcome either that or we took the credit for other countries input.'

Think about it, after WWII the US emerged as the worlds most powerful country by far, and the only country with nukes. What did we do with our power? We rebuilt our ENEMY'S country with our own money, free of charge, allowed them all to have democracies. And these countries we defeated or saved are the most successful and prosperous countries in the world (Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Japan).

At the end of WW2 America had so much money there would of been no point invading europe, Anyway America wouldn't of invaded europe same as Britain wouldn't of if they had come out a super power.

Now, that was the first time in HISTORY that a victorious nation didn't use its power to conquer after a resounding victory. If ANY other country in the world was in the position the US was in, and IS in, they would most certainly have conquered and subjugated their enemies and even their previous allies. Think about it, the US could have claimed Europe for itself and nuked the Soviets into oblivion (the soviets didn't have the A-bomb yet), but no, the US showed enormous mercy and the 8 most successful economies in the world, EVEN CHINA owe their prosperity to the US.

Do you think Britain would have rebuilt Germany, Japan, and Italy and allowed them to have a Democracy if the Brits were as powerful as the US after WWII? Fuck no they wouldn't. If they did, it would have been the first time in history that the British didn't enslave their enemies.

Yes Britain would of you fuckin dick, CHurchill had already put plans on how to rebuild europe before america had entered the war,, I don't think Britain invaded europe after WW1 either. And don't start talkin about Britain enslaving people, Britain led the campaign to stop the slave trade, In fact One of the main reasons for the american independence war was because britain was bringing a law against slave trade.
Your a twat. Napoleonic wars an example, Britain invaded paris took naopleon an let france get on with buisness. You talk as if Americas such a great and kind non imperialistic nation.
As soon as you were independent you had wars with your neibouring countries over land, you Bought colonies of other european powers you used disgracefull methods to stop rebellion, America is as bad as any european country.

At 1/14/07 01:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/13/07 10:46 PM, Culpeo wrote: then why havent we? if it would be better to the whole world to creat the EUUA "Earth United Under America", then why havent we? i beleve the government is smart. Why not?

Because the US doesn't desire the rule the world, only make sure that no body with malevolent intentions rules the world in our stead.

I do believe the world would be better if everyone adopted an American style constitution, but then again I think that the very creation of America was a miraculous occurrence that can't really exist in other parts of the world. I think the creation of America itself was a perfect blend of the right people, at the right time who created the right thing in the right circumstances. I don't think any other country could possibly achieve what America achieved in such a [relatively] small amount of time. America turned from a subjugated nation of poor farmers, then America defeated the worlds most powerful and imperialistic empire in history, then centuries later saved the very country it defeated. The US saved the world from both the Germans and the Soviets, which certainly would have conquered if the US wasn't there.

Lol, fuckin hell americas not that fuckin amazing, America didn't defeat the British empire they won a revelotions as, did Ireland an afghanistan, Both of wich really were extremmely poor an unequiped. America wasn't poor farmers, America was the richest colony in the British empire, the people in america were richer than the citezens back in Britain and you had huge amounts of help from france as well as spain and a number of other powerful powers. America owes it's sucess to being colonised by the British on the best land in the world. If canada or australia were as habitable and rich in resources as america is then they would of easily become super powers.

As for Saving the world from both the nazi's an soviets. No you fuckin didn't in the second world war America didn't do nearly as much as you think. If america hadn't entered the war the war it may of been won anyway you don;t know, just because america entered late doesnt make america the saviours.
Russia took on the vast majority of the germans on the eastern front. Britain did the most in Africa, Italy an sicily, the med, the middle east, the atlantic and also had an equally important role in france as america. America did the most in the pacific.
I would hardly say america saved the world from the nazi's.
Fuckin biased cunt. In my opinion Russia, Britain an America were equally important to the outcome,
As for the soviets, It was Britain an america who liberated france an western europe, not jsut america not even america the most. so it was mainly Britain an America who stopped russia going on a rampage across europe.
And in the cold war, America nearly ended the fuckin world you prick.

At 1/13/07 08:17 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: For example, Canada. Canada has a very successful economy, but most of this is due to the fact that the US provides them with almost all of their investment, and almost ALL major Canadian businesses are owned by American businesses, and most of their infrastructure is tied into the US infrastructure.

Do you have ANY statistical data to back up these outlandish claims?
Or is this just more of your "I"M FUCKING RIGHT YOU DELUSIONAL DOUCHBAG BOTTOM FEEDING IMBECILE" fact base? And I will consider "almost all" to be at least 85% of all. I eagerly await your (hopefully) informative response.

At 1/14/07 09:17 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 1/13/07 08:17 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: For example, Canada. Canada has a very successful economy, but most of this is due to the fact that the US provides them with almost all of their investment, and almost ALL major Canadian businesses are owned by American businesses, and most of their infrastructure is tied into the US infrastructure.

Do you have ANY statistical data to back up these outlandish claims?
Or is this just more of your "I"M FUCKING RIGHT YOU DELUSIONAL DOUCHBAG BOTTOM FEEDING IMBECILE" fact base? And I will consider "almost all" to be at least 85% of all. I eagerly await your (hopefully) informative response.

Canada isn't a very good example, as it is close with america, America is very much its main trade partner, But thats not to say canada relies on the US, thats were the moneys at for canada, the US aren't doing them any favours. And definitly the whole world doesn't rely on the US as Cellardoor makes out.

At 1/14/07 10:01 AM, Mercator wrote: Wait, are we talking about America as a whole, or just the U.S.?

Well im pretty sure the U.S. But the topic starter is in argentina yet at the same time refers to the states as "we" and thus I would assume he could be american. So dude THE HELL ARE YOU GOING IN ARGENTINA!

At 1/14/07 10:14 AM, zeus-almighty wrote: So dude THE HELL ARE YOU GOING IN ARGENTINA!

I'll just assume you are of argentinian decent.

At 1/13/07 07:48 PM, Culpeo wrote: Most of Americas money is overseas. A number of our manufaturing plants a stationed out of the orient (i.e. China, Taiwan, Veitnam). And We have a dependincy on foreighn oil.

So my Question is: I america went against the World or the World went Agaist America, would we be able to hold our own?

Please leave a reson for your answer.

America (or USA, as some prefer to call it since the continent is also called America) is way too interconnected and way too related to other nations. If such a war started out, USA Vs China, or USA Vs Europe, I think everyone would lose, in the end.

Well if american were to preserve and get back its core values and avoid the rampant division around us everhy day then we shall rise like a phenoix from the ashes without even becoming ashes! So that maybe we can lead the world and humanity into greatness as I know we can.

But it seems that only revolution can help us do that and if it comes tot hat then so be it.

At 1/14/07 11:41 AM, zeus-almighty wrote: Well if american were to preserve and get back its core values and avoid the rampant division around us everhy day then we shall rise like a phenoix from the ashes without even becoming ashes! So that maybe we can lead the world and humanity into greatness as I know we can.

Sadly there are groups, companies and politicians who seek otherwise, who seek to make people dumber, of lower moral values, poorer, and so on.

well, i apreciate the concern, but Psudalopex Culpeus is a spiecies of south american wild dog, second lagest behind the maned wolf. i just chose that location becuase of the Culpeo's nickname Patagonian Fox. i acually live in a town nicknamed lil Juarez. Jeez, Mercerator, taking things way too literal... none the less, back to the topic

Now every one. America is the most infuential country in the wourld. We can take any ONE country in the world. but with the emergence of the world market from WWII, we created a severe unability for the world to do what we have. A sizable chunk, if not all, of the world depends on the USA. in some way shape or form. World domination is more possible or impossible as it ever has been for America. But with, intellegence, strength, diversity, we CAN NOT be all united under one force. One figure. We now have the abillity to question the cababilities of our leaders, our religion, our lifestyle, every thing in general. America seems to no longer be a world power as much as it seems to be the emboidiment OF THE world.

Think about it. And find ways to tell me im wrong. This is only a conclusion i drew. im sure there is alot of flaws in it.

At 1/13/07 10:33 PM, Culpeo wrote:

At 1/13/07 10:20 PM, made-4-sex wrote: Of course its still a super power.

i said, please a reason for your answer. please.

The cash, the guns, the leader with 'cunt' written acoss his forhead.

At 1/13/07 11:43 PM, Culpeo wrote: if we are the world leader, why arent at our full capabilaties?

I think the reason is simple: why would we want to own the rest of the world? It would strain our resources and strength to time and occupy the entire world militarily when we can already do so effectively economically. Iraq is a demonstration of the difficulties inherent in attempting to occupy a hostile country. Americans in general simply don't want to own more countires; our imperial days have been behind us since we gave most of our territories independence.

However, the reasons why we don't want control of more countries breaks into four categories:
A) The country sucks and is undesirable (i.e. Mexico, Cuba, Congo);
B) We consider the country our friend already and do not wish to fight them (i.e. Canada, Britain, Japan);
C) We control the country economically and benefit from that arrangement (i.e. the Middle East);
D) It is not worthwhile to waste the effort of invading the country (i.e. China, Russia, Antartica);

At 1/15/07 01:09 AM, Draconias wrote:

At 1/13/07 11:43 PM, Culpeo wrote: if we are the world leader, why arent at our full capabilaties?

I think the reason is simple: why would we want to own the rest of the world? It would strain our resources and strength to time and occupy the entire world militarily when we can already do so effectively economically. Iraq is a demonstration of the difficulties inherent in attempting to occupy a hostile country. Americans in general simply don't want to own more countires; our imperial days have been behind us since we gave most of our territories independence.

However, the reasons why we don't want control of more countries breaks into four categories:
A) The country sucks and is undesirable (i.e. Mexico, Cuba, Congo);
B) We consider the country our friend already and do not wish to fight them (i.e. Canada, Britain, Japan);
C) We control the country economically and benefit from that arrangement (i.e. the Middle East);
D) It is not worthwhile to waste the effort of invading the country (i.e. China, Russia, Antartica);

E) America isn't actually as amazing as you all keep making out and can't invade the countries. (Vietnam, North Korean)

I'm not being a cunt, But americas not that amazing, theres no way america could just invade other countries, it doesnt have that power. If america started invading random countries, There would be a strong force to stand up to them.
America hasn't actually faced a proffesinal modern army since WW2 and you still have had a fair few problems.

One of the big things about america is the fact that we are so influenced in the world. For example, our economy is so intertwined with all the others that most likely if we were to have another depression, it would hurt the world's economy intensely.

At 1/13/07 10:46 PM, Culpeo wrote: then why havent we? if it would be better to the whole world to creat the EUUA "Earth United Under America", then why havent we? i beleve the government is smart. Why not?

Because while there is every chance of America beating lots of countries militarily (although if you were against the 'world', then most of south America would be coming across from mexico) , the American army has taken 3000 losses + lots of injured in Iraq, and they didnt even like their leader. You couldn't win, you might be able to kill the armies with technology, but you could never hold it down once you put troops on the ground.

At 1/15/07 03:19 AM, tawc wrote:

E) America isn't actually as amazing as you all keep making out and can't invade the countries. (Vietnam, North Korean)

Um we didn't invade Vietnam, and that wasn't our intention. You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about as always...

And by the way, the North Vietnamese Army had the latest Soviet-Technology, as did the North Koreans. Just because their population was in the third-world doesn't mean their militaries were.

Anyway, In Vietnam the US was INVITED by the South Vietnamese to protect them from the communist North, and the US DID protect them, and basically destroyed the North Vietnamese military's ability to fight any longer, killing almost 1 million of them and destroying their equipment.

Then the US and North Vietnam came to a peace treaty, and the South Vietnam was saved, therefore militarily the US won Vietnam originally because the original intent wasn't to invade North Vietnam, but to protect South Vietnam FROM North Vietnam, and the US did that as long as it was in Vietnam.

But when the US kept its end of the bargain and withdrew, the North Vietnamese sneakily refitted with Soviet Technology again, waited 2 years until the only US presence was a few embassy staff and 1000 or so Marines. Then the North Vietnamese re invaded South Vietnam and the US didn't reengage due to domestic and international political pressure.

Therefore the US military performed well, but the US lost the political will to engage in another 10 year gorilla war.

Oh and by the way, during the ENTIRE Vietnam war, the US didn't use its full military strength against North Vietnam, the US didn't even attempt to bomb their infrastructure and get dirty like that until much later, and even then used enormous restraint, refraining from bombing civilian targets.

If the US was to full-heartedly invade a country with no remorse, we could easily invade and defeat ANY country (if no nukes were involved), including the UK who can't even operate their air defenses independent of the US.

The only reason the US didn't completely obliterate North Vietnam was to minimize civilian casualties. The US focused almost extensively on military targets (which the North Vietnamese shielded with civilian infrastructure)

If the US didn't fight with its hands tied behind its back, North Vietnam would have been completely destroyed within the first year.

And in the Korean war... the US actually did completely defeat the North Koreans who, again, were supplied with the latest Soviet technology.

The US went all the way to the North Korea-China border. Then the US was sneak-attacked by the Chinese who agreed not to get involved but did anyway. Then the US withdrew to the 48 parallel after killing hundreds of thousands of Chinese. The US once again didn't use its full effort, all in order to prevent a world war.

I'm not being a cunt, But americas not that amazing, theres no way america could just invade other countries, it doesnt have that power.

Um yeah it does. I think your bias and your misguided look at history is deceiving you. The US military could defeat ANY military in the world quit rapidly, in fact, studies and think-groups have concluded that if no nukes were involved the US could defeat every other military in the world combined. Its only politics that is America's weak spot.

If america started invading random countries, There would be a strong force to stand up to them.

If the US was in an actual desperate battle for world supremacy, the US would crush anyone's attempts to make a stand. Its that simple, and by the way, haven't you accused the use before of doing just that? "invading random countries"?

Because hell, the US invaded Afghanistan quit fucking successfully, the US took Kabul in less than 2 months. This is something the Soviets couldn't do over the space of 10 years and lost 50,000 troops in the process.

So hey, since you're pretending the US isn't as powerful as we say it is because it hasn't fought 1st rate militaries, if that was the case, why did the US perform so much better than the Soviets ( a 1st rate military) did?

You fail to acknowledge the fact that even though the US hasn't faced a 1st rate military since WWII (neither has any other 1st rate military), the US could quite easily defeat any 1st rate military if the US refused to use restraint like it always does.

America hasn't actually faced a proffesinal modern army since WW2 and you still have had a fair few problems.

Same goes for the UK. And to this day, your military still relies on the US for logistics, air support, technology, intelligence, over-watch, communications, the whole shabang.

And if I hear you say "we won OUR VIetnam-style war against Argentina" I'm going to laugh. That was such a small scale military conflict that it shouldn't even be called a war. In the meantime, the US did a comparable feat in Panama in 1/10th the time, and in a much more large scale operation.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. You allow your bias to cloud your perception of reality. And the reality is that the US is vastly superior and would crush any military in the world in quite a short time. You fail to distinguish between the complexities of a gorilla war, a political loss, and an actual full-scale military engagement.

At 1/15/07 05:13 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

And if I hear you say "we won OUR VIetnam-style war against Argentina" I'm going to laugh. That was such a small scale military conflict that it shouldn't even be called a war. In the meantime, the US did a comparable feat in Panama in 1/10th the time, and in a much more large scale operation.

The falklands war was nothing like vietnam it was naval warfare, using mostly royal marines.
Allthough it was a small conflict it was a milestone in modern naval warfare. Panama wasn't anything like the falklands either you twat.

If there was any war similar to vietnam then it is the malayan emergency, which not on the same scale as vietnam was similar in many ways.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. You allow your bias to cloud your perception of reality. And the reality is that the US is vastly superior and would crush any military in the world in quite a short time. You fail to distinguish between the complexities of a gorilla war, a political loss, and an actual full-scale military engagement.

I'm not saying the US isn't superoir than any other opponent, howether theres no way america could take on the world, let alone take it over.

Vietnam was a fuckin disaster, America killed huge amounts of civillians took on immense casulties and couldn't stop north vietnam, thats why the military was pulled out.

Your so delusional in how powerful america is, it's pathetic.

1st its The US saved the world in WW1 an WW2 now its America can take over the world if we want.
lol you talk out of your arse mate.

At 1/15/07 06:46 AM, tawc wrote: Vietnam was a fuckin disaster, America killed huge amounts of civillians took on immense casulties and couldn't stop north vietnam, thats why the military was pulled out.

Cellar's acctually right here. North Vietnam did not overpower the US in any way. They outlasted the US in a war of atrition in which the US had an exorbitantly high amount of obstacles, the largest being the people. I do not agree that we should have even gone, but if we had actually used our full military might adn were allowed to do so by the government without discretion we would have overpowered the North Vietnamese, even if it meant turning North Vietnam and Cambodia into Mongolia. Alas, that is not how history went. history had the US fighting onyl within the borders of Vietnam for the first large chunk of the war, meaning that when the US would clear and disarm an area, the North Vietnamese were able to resupply and rearm that area with no fear of interference from America by travelling in Cambodian lands. On top of that there were cases in which the US could only bomb certain strategic targets and not others, even if they supported the first. This leading to the destrcution of a bridge that would be rebuilt by the adjacent, off limitis factory the next week.

I in no way agree that the US could take the entire world at once, but seriously, know at least SOME facts before arguing.

At 1/15/07 08:15 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I in no way agree that the US could take the entire world at once, but seriously, know at least SOME facts before arguing.

I know the facts, america couldn't handle vietnam, numerous operations wer lost in the vietnam war. America protected south vietnam at huge expense and eveunutally the us goverment pulled them out. They could of carried on fighting but it would of cost many more lives. And america didn't really distinguish them selves there did they.

The fact Is think how hard it was for america to try an keep control in a small third world country, how the fuck does cellardoor think the US can take over the world.
The US couldn't even take out Europe with out Nuclear missiles.
It's so stupid.

At 1/15/07 05:13 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: The US military could defeat ANY military in the world quit rapidly, in fact, studies and think-groups have concluded that if no nukes were involved the US could defeat every other military in the world combined. Its only politics that is America's weak spot.

Do you have links to these studies that say the US can "defeat every other military in the world combined" You ignored my first post here, probably due to lack of actual data, try not to miss this one please.

I'm not saying the US is not a superpower, but I highly doubt you could take on the world and win.

At 1/15/07 08:52 AM, tawc wrote: The fact Is think how hard it was for america to try an keep control in a small third world country, how the fuck does cellardoor think the US can take over the world.

The only reason you think the US is having trouble keeping control of Iraq is because you've been brainwashed by propaganda from the media. The US is not having any trouble keeping control of Iraq-- what we can't achieve is tranquility in the region. We can't stop the petty fighting, but there is absolutely no threat at all to our ability to control the region.

Also, the Korean and Vietnam Wars should be considered in a much more complex way than you have. Both were fought against "false" enemies-- we fought the North Koreans, but we were really fighting the Chinese and Russians as well. Especially in Vietnam, the US was attempting not to fight a war while fighting a war, since they didn't want another world war. Defensive, hands-tied wars like that are never winnable, and invading Vietnam was an idiotic choice (S. Korea was not, for other reasons).

At 1/15/07 09:31 AM, Draconias wrote:

At 1/15/07 08:52 AM, tawc wrote: The fact Is think how hard it was for america to try an keep control in a small third world country, how the fuck does cellardoor think the US can take over the world.

The only reason you think the US is having trouble keeping control of Iraq is because you've been brainwashed by propaganda from the media. The US is not having any trouble keeping control of Iraq-- what we can't achieve is tranquility in the region. We can't stop the petty fighting, but there is absolutely no threat at all to our ability to control the region.

I didn't mention Iraq once,

Also, the Korean and Vietnam Wars should be considered in a much more complex way than you have. Both were fought against "false" enemies-- we fought the North Koreans, but we were really fighting the Chinese and Russians as well. Especially in Vietnam, the US was attempting not to fight a war while fighting a war, since they didn't want another world war. Defensive, hands-tied wars like that are never winnable, and invading Vietnam was an idiotic choice (S. Korea was not, for other reasons).

Korean an Vietnam were complex, think how complex a war with the rest of the world would be.

America wouldn't be able to succesfully invade europe. America wouldn't even be able to win Air superioity in europe. In the wars americas been in since WW2 the opponents havn't even had an air force or as good as no air force so americas been able to control the skys.
But europe have high-tech airforces, something americas nether been up against.

At 1/15/07 10:01 AM, tawc wrote: America wouldn't be able to succesfully invade europe. America wouldn't even be able to win Air superioity in europe.

Yep, someon'e speaking out of their ass to salvage their pathetic nationalism.

At 1/15/07 10:01 AM, tawc wrote:

America wouldn't be able to succesfully invade europe.

Yes the US could, quit fucking easily. Europe's combined militaries are shit, the only slight threat would be the UK and France, and both of which are years behind the US and lack all of the force multipliers that the US possesses.

Europe has no ability to even strike the US mainland other than with nuclear missiles (most of which are American designed). Europes aircraft carriers are small and pathetic compared to the 12 supercarriers the US has, and the 30 amphibious assault ships that the US marine Corps has that are actually BIGGER than European carriers.

The US has stealth aircraft, long-range bombers, a ridiculously large fighter force that is YEARS ahead of anyone else. Ridiculously large amounts of strike helicopters, a ridiculously large amount of tanks, APCs, and all these operate together under a highly coordinated battle network that Europe can't even gain access to unless they are operating under US command.

America wouldn't even be able to win Air superioity in europe.

You're joking right? Either that or you are a complete fucking moron.

The US would crush the European Air Forces so easily its not even something that can be debated. The US has hundreds of stealth aircraft that Europe lacks, far superior air-born radar, far more numerous fighter planes.

The air defense systems of Europe themselves rely on the US in the first place, and ever since the onset of the the Cold War, the US has been given fast influence over the European militaries themselves. In the invent of a large scale war, the US would be given operational command of the ENTIRE NATO alliance through the administration of EUCOM (American European command), therefore in preparation for such a possible attack, the US has vast control over the air defense systems of Europe, the air bases, and even domestic ground forces.

You are so incredibly naive to think Europe could defend itself in an air war against the US, its fucking hilarious. Hell, the European NATO countries can't even operate in Afghanistan without the US providing air support. Europeans can't even TRANSPORT their troops to Afghanistan without the US!

Europeans don't even have long range bombers... let alone stealth long range bombers that the US has. The US has over 500 F-117 stealth fighters (they are actually bombers), and over 20 B-2 spirits. Only one single f-117 was shot down in Kosovo, during a campaign that the pussy ass British were to afraid to even commit their air force to for fear of being RAPED by the Yugos that had the latest Soviet anti-aircraft missiles.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that the US wouldn't even need to penetrate European air defenses because the US already controls them in Europe and is IN EUROPE already. Almost all European AA systems are based on, or rely on US technology. Hell, most air bases in Europe are MANNED by Americans. The US has over 100,000 troops in Germany that are still equipped and organize to take on the Soviets, so the US would fucking rape any feeble European attempt to fight back.

In the wars americas been in since WW2 the opponents havn't even had an air force or as good as no air force so americas been able to control the skys.

Dude you don't have ANY fucking clue what you're talking about. In the Korean War the North Koreans had THE LATEST Soviet aircraft. In Vietnam the North Vietnamese had THE LATEST Soviet aircraft.

Meanwhile, the UK hasn't even fought a large-scale independent war for over 100 years. Let alone an airwar worthy of comparison to the engagements the US had in the past 60 years.

The European air forces are so laughable I can't even believe you are that stupid, you must just be intentionally being full of crap just so you can carry on with your laughable faith in your EU combined military force. Meanwhile, the European allies can't even communicate, supply themselves, navigate, and coordinate their forces in the fucking ridiculously small operations that are taking place in Afghanistan without US help.

Europeans lack any significant force projection, period. They wouldn't even be able to reach the US, meanwhile the US would completely obliterate Europes defenses after the quick and inevitable air supremacy that would be gained.

But europe have high-tech airforces, something americas nether been up against.

Um, the US defeated the latest soviet technology every time the US faced it. Just because the technology was in the hands of countries whose populations lived in the third-world doesn't make their military any less advanced.

Hell, Britain couldn't even fight the Iraqis in 03 without the US leading the way, and providing air support. Most British forces were UNDER US COMMAND because the Brits lack the ability to coordinate such a large scale war because the lack the control of the battle networks, GPS, and integrated communication systems that the US has.

And as pathetic the UK is compared to the US militarily, they still represent the best Europe has.

Europe would get raped by the US, period. Anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously on crack.

Your bias against the US causes you to actually intentionally distort reality. Sorry to tell you, but now how matter how fervent your pathetic European attempts to balance the power of the US are, you are so vastly inferior that you still rely on the US to protect you. How are you going to defend yourself against the people that defend you?

You're a fucking joke.

At 1/14/07 01:06 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: end rant.

I'm sorry cellardoor6, I do believe you are a very intelligent person, but I don't think you can label all Democrats as blood-thirsty corrupt officals that are trying to get power by any means. Also, I haven't heard anyone trying to give non-American citizens the right to vote, and i highly doubt that would change any time soon.

I don't think I'm taking too big of an assumption by saying that you are a Republican. Not everyone that disagrees with your viewpoints is a pussy socialist.

At 1/15/07 09:22 PM, LordGilingham wrote:

At 1/14/07 01:06 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: end rant.

I'm sorry cellardoor6, I do believe you are a very intelligent person, but I don't think you can label all Democrats as blood-thirsty corrupt officals that are trying to get power by any means.

Maybe no blood thirsty, and maybe not by any means. But from what I see, getting political power is more important for Democrats than upholding the values and the well being of their country.

Also, I haven't heard anyone trying to give non-American citizens the right to vote, and i highly doubt that would change any time soon.

No, you see they want to make illegal immigrants or "non-Americans" LEGAL, giving amnesty and ignoring our own laws. Therefore tens of millions of illegal immigrants would immediately provide an enormous amount of votes for Democrats. Not only because Democrats gave them want they wanted, but because Hispanic US citizens are like 90% likely to vote for Democrats.

Democrats KNOW that illegal immigration is hurting our country, they KNOW that the millions and millions of illegals here are putting enormous strain on our social services, are contributing ENORMOUS amounts of crime. But all this means nothing as long as the Democrats can stay in office by attaining votes by the people who are creating this plague.

I don't think I'm taking too big of an assumption by saying that you are a Republican.

No I'm not, I'm actually a Libertarian. But I am usually on the side of Republicans because Democrats are wrong, always, wrong about fucking everything, and the Republicans which are basically the only alternative are the lesser of two evils by contrast.

Republicans do some things I disagree with, but they actually care about their own country. They actually try to work with Democrats. Democrats just cunningly try to destroy ANYTHING their political opposition does, regardless of how it effects the US.

I read that in the 5 voting sessions we've had since the Democrats gained office, there have already been more cross-party initiatives than in the entire 12 year majority of Republicans. This isn't because Republicans aren't good when they are in power, its that the Democrats try to destroy and obstruct EVERYTHING that the opposition does when they are in the minority.

Democrats care more about politics and world opinion than they do about the US itself. Republicans care more about the US than they do about anyone or anything else. Both are flawed, yet Republicans are better for America because they are actually looking out for America. Democrats are only looking out for themselves.

Not everyone that disagrees with your viewpoints is a pussy socialist.

Most of them are.

To the topic title: Yes, it is.

Currently, the US is still the worlds dominant military, economic and soft power, and will probably be for at least another 30 years. For better or worse, that is an undeniable fact.

Although the world is growing more multi polar, the US will still be a large power for quite some time.

At 1/16/07 11:18 AM, sdhonda wrote: To the topic title: Yes, it is.

Currently, the US is still the worlds dominant military, economic and soft power, and will probably be for at least another 30 years. For better or worse, that is an undeniable fact.

Although the world is growing more multi polar, the US will still be a large power for quite some time.

It's only the domininant Military power. the EU has a slightly higher Economy and as much if not more influence on the world. As for Military the EU doesn't need a paticulaly big military, allthough it is starting to go towards a unified military. At the moment the EU only spends about 1% of it's Budget on military where as the US spends 3% howether the EU spends only half as much on military as america does, So the EU could easily take over in the next 30years.

And they probably will with the rise of China.

And Cellardoor America couldn't Attack European mainland succesfully you fuckin dick, theres an Ocean in the way, and if a war was brewing between the EU an the US any bases loaned to america would be secured extremmely quickly.

Stealth planes are becoming easier an easier to detect, America wouldn't be able to win air superiority over europe. And the Navy would be sitting ducks, being the only secure bases for the US.
Even so america has immense power projection it still wouldn't be possible for america to overwelm the European air forces with out nearby secure bases.

Also give me a source on how america controls britains air defense you fuckin dick. Stop talkin out of your arse.