Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / New world Europe Vs US

Japan, is the military superpower ;)
or was that technopower?

LOL, China is not the one bombing countries with absolutely no proof of anything except the fact that they are of a different colour and religon. You Messed up Iraq really really bad. Worse then it ever was. And please dontgive me that BS that "they were already living like that" because no they were not. The avrage amarican has no clue of the history of Iraq. They think..Saddam=Bad=we need to bomb. They put Saddam in power in the first place. When he decided not to attack iran (like asked by the U.S.A) and instead to attack Kuwait (a country that was on very bad terms with Iraq) The U.S decided that it was time to bomb him.

Thats why the MAJORITY of Iraqis KILL Amarican Soilders because they messed up there country. And i dont want to hear "there only soilders there not making the choices onlyfallowing them" because the insurgents are only fallowing orders to, yet they still get killed.

They lived better when under Saddam. Yes he may have gassed his own people (in retrabution for an attempted take over) But atleast there was order, atleat every night, families could put FOOD in there childerns stomachs. Atleast there was a police force to keep the law in place. Atleast tthen children would go to school. Now amarica has *beep*ed that up. For what, the security of it's own people whitch was never under threat in the first place. Bull*beep*, alot of people in amarica think they are BETTER then anyone else and have the right to SCREW up millions of peoples of lives all on a guess.

And dont give me that "it's bushes fault" because you people voted for him TWICE. I understand the first time, not knowing what he's about and all, but the second, thats just *beep*ING DUMB.

That is why i really have no problem with amarican soilders fighting and getting KILLED in iraq.

IF some one had invaded amarica and this happened, i would be completely on amaricas side,without question,but now, im completely against it.

You people feel pain when one of your soidlers die, a son is lost. It is the same feeling for the other side. Except teh differenc eis, your in there country unjustly.

"Thats why the MAJORITY of Iraqis KILL Amarican Soilders because they messed up there country. "

Back in my day the word majority meant more then 50%. Now a days it seems to mean 3%.

isnt most of the uranium spent, i.e used fer tank armament?

amen to trigger happy

[edit] Potential superpowers

Academics predict the possible rise of new superpowers in the 21st century, mentioning three possible superpower candidates. Whether the People's Republic of China, India or the European Union will be future superpowers is a matter of ongoing debate.

[edit] European Union

The European Union has been called an emerging superpower by academics.^{[35][36][37][38]} T.R. Reid,^[39] Andrew Reding^[40] and Mark Leonard,^[41][42] believe that the power of the European Union will rival that of the United States in the 21st century. Leonard cites several factors: the EU's large population, large economy, low inflation rates, the unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent years, and certain EU members states' high quality of life (when measured in terms such as hours worked per week).^[43] The military spending of the European Union's Member States, when aggregated, is by far the second highest in the world, and two Member States—the UK and France—hold nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers, with the ability to project force in almost any region of the world. Certain reforms, as proposed in the Reform Treaty, likely to take effect in 2009, aim to provide the Union with a more powerful High Representative for foreign policy, an External Action Service and a human president, who will reside over the European Council. On the other hand Laurent Cohen-Tanugi^[44] states that the EU as a whole has consistently suffered from a growth deficit vis-a-vis the US, high unemployment, and public deficits even while most member states of the EU lagged substantially behind the US in R&D investment, technological innovation, and, since 1995, productivity gains.

[edit] People's Republic of China

The People's Republic of China receives almost continual coverage in the popular press of its potential superpower status,^[45][46] and has been identified as a rising or emerging economic and military superpower by academics and other experts.^{[47][48][49][50]} Professor Shujie Yao of Nottingham University has said "China will overtake the United States to become the world's largest economy by 2038 if current growth rates continue", and that China's GDP will overtake that of Japan by 2017 or 2018, and Germany's by 2008. Professor Yao thinks that "under an optimistic scenario", "China could become a real superpower in 30 years time".^[51]

Geoffrey Murphay's China: The Next Superpower argues that while the potential for China is high; this is fairly perceived only by looking at the risks and obstacles China faces in managing its population and resources. The political situation in China is too fragile to survive into superpower status according to Susan Shirk, writing in China: Fragile Superpower.^[52] Other factors that could constrain China's ability to become a superpower in the future include: limited supplies of energy and raw materials, questions over its innovation capability, inequality and corruption, and risks to social stability and the environment.^[53]

[edit] India

Newsweek, and the International Herald Tribune join several academics in discussing India's potential of becoming a superpower.^[54][55][56]

China and India rising to superpower status is not inevitable, according to scholars such as Professor Pranab Bardhan, Chief Editor of the Journal of Development Economics, who suggest that millions mired in poverty and ineffective government prevent China or India from rivaling the U.S. or the E.U. any time soon.^[57]Founder and President of the Economic Strategy Institute and former counselor to the Secretary of Commerce in the Reagan Administration Clyde V. Prestowitz Jr. has embraced the notion being put forth that "It is going to be India's century. India is going to be the biggest economy in the world. It is going to be the biggest superpower of the 21st century".^[58]

[edit] Russia

Occasionally, Russia is suggested as a potential candidate for achieving superpower status in the twenty-first century. According to Steven Rosefielde of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Russia intends to "reemerge as a full-fledged superpower," and "contrary to conventional wisdom, this goal is easily within the Kremlin’s grasp, but the cost to the Russian people and global security would be immense" (Rosefielde 2005:1). Rosefielde further argues that "Russia has an intact military-industrial complex...and the mineral wealth to reactivate its dormant structurally militarized potential," and that "supply-side constraints don’t preclude a return to prodigal superpowerdom" (Rosefielde 2005:9).

Alexander Golts of the St. Petersburg Times argues that Putin's confrontations with the US on nuclear issues are in pursuit of regaining superpower status for Russia.^[59]

However, some argue that Russia's current social and political difficulties and its lacking material and institutional capabilities means that Russia is not likely to achieve a status above that of a "great power" in the near future. As Barry Buzan, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, states:

Russia is the least likely candidate for (re)promotion to superpower. Indeed, it remains a plausible candidate for further demotion into the ranks of big regional powers alongside India and Brazil. To achieve promotion back to superpower status would require Russia to stage a miraculous across-the-board recovery from the very severe economic, political and status shrinkage that followed from the implosion of the Soviet Union...Russia's problem is the huge disjuncture between its status needs and its economic and military weakness. Except for nuclear weapons, the massive military legacy from the Soviet Union has largely decayed...Aside from its nuclear weapons, and its enormous political geography, Russia does not really have the material capability to sustain even its great power status, which is consequentially something given by its peers than taken by right...Therefore, and even though its position has improved a bit since the nadir of the 1990s, Russia is too weak to bid for superpower status during the foreseeable future.^[60]

For these reasons, Buzan argues that it is unlikely that Russia will attain superpower status anytime soon.

Russia is often considered to be an energy superpower and a nuclear superpower due to its large nuclear *beep*nal

Sources. Wikipedia.

lol, if your going to argue, do it right. =)

The US should leave Iraq because they can't afford to stay. The US's supposed military uberosity is fiction since they can't afford to use it. The senate won't approve any more spending on it.

A lot of funding for Iraq and other occupancies going on today (the coal-producers in south america for example) are coming from fund-raising targeted at those who have something to gain (energy producers who want cheap oil and coal). The US is dead, only its corporations are left and even they are failing. It's military is basically a privately-owned militia at this point shared by citizens with money.

Something's wrong with my computer sorry.

Iraq was no utopia to begin with.&nb*beep*erica has been trying to rebuild the country since the invasion, but it's not easy when terrorists keep bombing buildings all over again.

You shouldent have gone there in the first place. It was better befor.

So the typical European is an expert on Middle-East history and is fully informed on the history of Iraq?  Doubt it.  You're falling into a stereotype here.

Well, It was not Eurpou who put Saddam in Power in the first lace. America Put him in power (yep it's true look it up) and when he decided not to listen to america anymore and not attack Iran again, but instead attack kwait because there was a problem betwen those 2 countries, thats when america decided that Saddam was no more use. You guys GAVE him Chemical Wepones to use on iran and he destroyed them all like asked by the UN weponesinsprectores (look it up). He was gassing people forever and you dident care until he stopped listening to you guys, thats when this came up "OMG he's gassing people...We better go Bomb him" (look it up)

Don't forget that the Iraqi people cheered when American troops entered Baghdad and threw down Saddam's regime.  If you are trying to justify Saddam as being a just leader, you should have absolutely no problem accepting what Bush has done as being justified.

I never tryed to justifiy that Saddam was a good ruler. Infact he's not. He was a very bad and evil man. However, thae fact remains that the avarge Iraqis life was BETTER UNDER SADDAM then now. Here is what teh UN had to say about it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16035086/

The political environment in 2004 was different than it is now.&nb*beep*erica was not nearly as exhausted from the Iraq war and Bush's standing was much higher.

And it's always easy to call someone an *beep*.  In retrospect.

First off, he was clearly showing hostlities towards iraq and you still re-electd him. So it only matters when the U.S is starined from the war. You dont think of the effects it would have on others? Secondly...You saying bush is not an ass?

Suppose you lived under a harsh dictatorship where your family was gassed and your friends shot, and you have no choice but to submit to the government or be tortured and killed.  Should I be fine with that?  Not my problem, and if my country were to go to war wouldn't we be there "unjustified?"

He was very bad, i am not deabting that. I am saying that the U.S shouldnt have went in Iraq. And if they did, they should have had a better plan of action. on avarage it was better under Saddam.

Should America have been "fine" with Hitler exterminating the Jews?  Wasn't their problem either.

"America only entered  WWII AFTER pearl harbour.

Untill then (Befor the Axis where seen as a threat) America was happy to contain the war to simply Europe."

I would have hoped you'd have had at least a BASIC humanity about you in which you desire no one gets killed at all.  But I see you actually do want to see Americans die.

I do, Iv always wanted no one to die. If iraq was never invaded, all this would not have happened. But for you to ask someone to only feel sorry for amaerican soilders dieing, is pathetic. It would be better if no one died and that would oly be possible if america never went into iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/29/iraq.poll/

55% is a majority

And might, your just a loser. Even though i may disagree witg Lady Lancewing and some others, atleast i respect them because they are puting some intellectual points into the conversation. They may have a different view but that dosent make them bad in any sense. However, what you said was just plain dumb. That did not generate any  intellectual covesration. If i had reacted the wrong way, it would have just caused a whole lot more problems and added fuel to the fire. But im not as pathetic as you seem to be. Im not going to retaliate by hurlling back nasty presoanl attacks on your self. Grow up.

Yes Might, It's a conspiracy to derail you from the truth. They new you would read this in the future so they went out and handpicked 100 people so they could prove you wrong and get the better of you. 

It's all a  conspiracy Might, It's all  conspiracy. Now put on your tin-foil hat and wait for the aliens to come.

lol

The ignorance that permeates this thread is staggering.

Why is that Dakarius and who exactly is this ignorance directed toward?

Yay I wasn't included in the half baked crap people ^.^

No, I am not saying America is the only place that has had its bubble popped.  It's just that America has the money and the power to go out and do something, unlike the EU which stalls and gets nothing done.  (You seen Star Wars III:  Revenge of the Sith?  It's like that.  Lucas ain't that creative :p)

While I agree with most of your post I just thought I'd center in on this part. Thank god someone see's just how much the EU is a joke. They could be a superpower (not that it's likely, there's just way to many problems with it). But they'll never be a superpower in anything more then on paper if they don't get a backbone.

Mr.Sighert: The reason we didn't enter WW2 until then was for 2 reasons. The first reason we didn't want to get involved in something that wasn't our problem(at the time Europe seemed to be a bunch of war mongers which is remeniscent of what's happening right now so shut up ) and the second reason was because when we got involved  in WW1 we got hit by the great depression because of Europe. We were worried that after what happened the first time then the second time our Economy would be completely destroyed. Even after we joined 90% of our Army was not sent towards Japan who were the greatest threat to us but towards Germany who we considered the greater evil.

Like I said America couldn't give a Dam about the millions of innocent people killed in the Holocost.

Aben V: The Holocaust wasn't even known about until after Normandy when we found the first concentration camp you *beep*. Hitler made them seem like wartime villages to us.

Again all we knew about it was that they were Wartime Villages, perhaps with prisoners but they were working for Germany and did not seem to be treated badly. This was the image Hitler sent to the world, as such we found nothing wrong with it. There were rumors of it but no substantial proof of it happening to back it up until after Normandy. We also suspected that they weren't being nice to the prisoners but we never suspected genocide nor anything approaching genocide .Don't continue with this arguement because it's a lost cause.

well it WAS bout having a new world but its gone a teeny bit off track

OMG really cant belive that the situaltion still hasnt cahnged and some people still think the exact same things if not more..
I honostly have to say i disagree with all of for example lacewings
starting 'facts'/axioma's so whatever she makes of those ofc could be logical if you asume all those thing are true. but like i said i desagree with your ''facts'' adn i also disagre with most other people who share your view/ you television channels and other propaganda methodes (and yes people from the same countries have the same of those wich is why i say this instead of useing the word ''americans''.)

if i read your post all i can say is..
no i dont think america brings freedom but the opposite. and think the opposite in many more things.
I also cant understand nationalism in the way that you some people somehow feel offended when someone says the military kills people. like (in my piont inoncent even who where forced to adapt to the war zone by resorting to violence themselves(wich is still a very small persentage of all the people who still suffer from it)...
my problem is the thing done in the name of america and those thing you dont really know about. even if to some war is something normal or simple dont know what it really is.. and it cant be explained with just words amybe you should one try to see what is going on (not that its ez with ''american'' (another group useing that name) media coverage who only scares  you with terrorists(/moslims) who if they use violence seem to do it for no understandable(for no human) reason.

A few things wrong with your statement.

A. When I press on that like I go to  a place called Army Ranks and Ensignia's which has nothing to do with armies.

B. America is the strongest Military Power.

C. Europe has proposed above what 100 ideas? How many have gone past the proposal stage and then later bee completed? 0. Great track record there.

ow ok but in my piont of vieuw that philosophy has already been preached for probably even more then for god these few years and i really dont see how repeating it even more would help or anything.
exept maybe point out that it makes people think more ''positive'' about war.