2 bastards dead keep it coming BUSH!!

[er1kkull 10+ year member]

on paper being in a communist government would be nice, but the fact is people are greedy and leaves to much power in the government and also another bad point who wants to spend 10 years going through medical school and still not really get paid any more then local janitor. China is becoming more and more powerful and i dont think they are clowns. they are a power in the world. they are moving more and more to socialist giving more equality to woman and since 1997 they are trying to govern according to law but it will be along time before they are a super power like the ussr and the usa were and are. china is a far call from a good government doesnt china control the news that comes on tv and didnt they down play SARS at first causing it to be worst then it had to be?and one advancments in military technology can you name. i just saw in the army times that the us as just released what new weapons will be replacing the m4 m16 m249 . they got bullets that will travel a distance and exploded right above a target. and it actually works in battlefield. people inform if i am wrong...... i like to know new things

 

[paikiah 5,000+ posts]

That's an interesting philosophy. Without history you wouldn't be able to reflect on mistakes and prevent them from happening again. But you seem to feel history means nothing. All action that occurs presently and in the future will be a part of history. Without history much of what has been accomplished in the world wouldn't have been accomplished. Scientific testing is history. THey do an experiment and see the result. Then they look back at the steps and the process to try and find what caused the result. History is very powerful.

History is good to reflect and get estimated results, but as you might know, the human mind is an infinitely variable. To look into the past to make judgements? Ok then, China would have the US for breakfast and shit down its throat if you look back into history at how powerful China once was, before their bad decision to close its doors to the rest of the world and dwindled away. But that's HISTORY, something that's gone and doesn't apply to the modern world.

Why did China dwindlw away? Communism? No, not tht alone. It's the pure fact that they closed their minds to new ideas, progress. They only believed in hostroy and thought the world will not change. THEY depended on history books to run their country. Confucianism is outdated. Even back then, they knew money = power.

Now, as for your previous thread, where you said a strong economy without anything to defend it..

Switzerland, troop number equals to less than 5,000, perhaps nearer to 1,000.

Hongkong, previous to the June 1997 takeover by Mainland China, onlyhad Her Majesty's naval fleet as military" to speak of. I do't think anyone can say the influence of HK is weak. Remember, it's also a Hongkie that made StarTV.

Singapore, mandatory Natinal Service just like Korea, the country is only a small island and the military, to me, is pathetic. All it really has is the navy good enough to keep bootlegeers at bay and illegal workers from coming into the country. A few mortars pointed towards Johore Bahru, Malaysisa, don't mean jack. Yet they've got power. How much? Ever heard of the American vandalising brat who got more than his share of rotan(caning) even though George Bush Sr. came down to talk them out of it? If a Governmnet can whip an american citizen even with such oposition from the US govt., I say that's power. No defense, good economy, good money. Works well.

Could you say that Saudi Arabia has a kickass military? I think not. Oh, but wait, why do they have so much influence, even to the US? Must be the crude oil taht they have. What's crude oil? Black gold. It's not guns, it's not tanks, it's pure money.

There are more examples of country with lots of economic power that can influence movement of the world than what I've mentioned. I daresay there are people with money in Asia that can cut the world off with neccessities.

Again, history might not be too reliable of a source for info. It doesn't tell you of current event (albeit it being false sometimes). I do think hostry is important, I also think political science is important, same as current news from reliable sources.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

History is good to reflect and get estimated results, but as you might know, the human mind is an infinitely variable. To look into the past to make judgements? Ok then, China would have the US for breakfast and shit down its throat if you look back into history at how powerful China once was, before their bad decision to close its doors to the rest of the world and dwindled away. But that's HISTORY, something that's gone and doesn't apply to the modern world.
Why did China dwindlw away? Communism? No, not tht alone. It's the pure fact that they closed their minds to new ideas, progress. They only believed in hostroy and thought the world will not change. THEY depended on history books to run their country. Confucianism is outdated. Even back then, they knew money = power.

Now, as for your previous thread, where you said a strong economy without anything to defend it..

Switzerland, troop number equals to less than 5,000, perhaps nearer to 1,000.

Hongkong, previous to the June 1997 takeover by Mainland China, onlyhad Her Majesty's naval fleet as military" to speak of. I do't think anyone can say the influence of HK is weak. Remember, it's also a Hongkie that made StarTV.

Singapore, mandatory Natinal Service just like Korea, the country is only a small island and the military, to me, is pathetic. All it really has is the navy good enough to keep bootlegeers at bay and illegal workers from coming into the country. A few mortars pointed towards Johore Bahru, Malaysisa, don't mean jack. Yet they've got power. How much? Ever heard of the American vandalising brat who got more than his share of rotan(caning) even though George Bush Sr. came down to talk them out of it? If a Governmnet can whip an american citizen even with such oposition from the US govt., I say that's power. No defense, good economy, good money. Works well.

Could you say that Saudi Arabia has a kickass military? I think not. Oh, but wait, why do they have so much influence, even to the US? Must be the crude oil taht they have. What's crude oil? Black gold. It's not guns, it's not tanks, it's pure money.

There are more examples of country with lots of economic power that can influence movement of the world than what I've mentioned. I daresay there are people with money in Asia that can cut the world off with neccessities.

Again, history might not be too reliable of a source for info. It doesn't tell you of current event (albeit it being false sometimes). I do think hostry is important, I also think political science is important, same as current news from reliable sources.

You bring up good points that I should clarify. YOu mention Saudi Arabia. No matter how much influence they feel they have over the U.S., if the U.S. government was wiser they wouldn't have to worry about this situation. First off we could get more of our oil from south america. It also would have been wise if we had Iraq signing an agreement to get out and stay out of OPEC. This would destroy the monopoly that oil countries have created. Also the U.S. has its own oil fields. Being that Saudi Arabia relies on us so much for oil all that we have to do is stop buying and use our own for a little while. Saudi ARabia would then drop their prices and everything would be okay. I wouldn't say Saudi Arabia has a strong economy as much as a good monopoly and knowledge of the way the american government thinks. THey know just how far they can push us. The truth is, if the U.S. was a nation that wanted Saudi Arabia as an American state it could possibly take it, but then we are looking at a possible war against the UN which isn't worth it. Both military power and economic strength are needed for a nation. What must be realized is the military strength isn't required for nations that have no economic power or appeal for being taken over.

 

[paikiah 5,000+ posts]

America has their own oilwells in Alaska. Do you think they produce enough to even California alone? Then you say Texas. Well, I still don't think they produce enough to cover what Alaska lacks. Even if you had more, there's no way you can have reserves. If you guys don't buy from Saudi, oh, they can wait out a LONG time. Storage isn't goiong to be much of a problem. Then what? GO into Saudi Arabia and bomb them to get crude oil?

Again, although I don't know much about how Amercia works, based on what you told me, there ARE things about how the govt' works that you have no idea about. How long do you think the US can stop buying from the middle east? Buy from South America instead? Oh yeah, and THEN you guys would appreciate 1300cc lean burn engines as prices shoot across the sky, then Asia would be having the musclecars.

And NOW you did say "oh, the US can make Saudi as their own state anytime". That's not taking over? Is refusal to seel crude oil a threat to national security, threatening to throw nukes over as what you said about North Korea? Nope. All they want is to conduct business.

Simple as that, you guys CANNOT take the middle east as your own state. No one can until their oilwells dry. By then, no one would want it.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

America has their own oilwells in Alaska. Do you think they produce enough to even California alone? Then you say Texas. Well, I still don't think they produce enough to cover what Alaska lacks. Even if you had more, there's no way you can have reserves. If you guys don't buy from Saudi, oh, they can wait out a LONG time. Storage isn't goiong to be much of a problem. Then what? GO into Saudi Arabia and bomb them to get crude oil?
Again, although I don't know much about how Amercia works, based on what you told me, there ARE things about how the govt' works that you have no idea about. How long do you think the US can stop buying from the middle east? Buy from South America instead? Oh yeah, and THEN you guys would appreciate 1300cc lean burn engines as prices shoot across the sky, then Asia would be having the musclecars.

And NOW you did say "oh, the US can make Saudi as their own state anytime". That's not taking over? Is refusal to seel crude oil a threat to national security, threatening to throw nukes over as what you said about North Korea? Nope. All they want is to conduct business.

Simple as that, you guys CANNOT take the middle east as your own state. No one can until their oilwells dry. By then, no one would want it.

Well past history has shown the U.S. can hold out. In fact we have held out in the past causing the middle east to cut their prices drastically because of the huge surplus of oil. First look at economics. In reality oil is worth very little without the fake shortages that are created by the monopoly. Now this monopoly is broken by going elsewhere (U.S. oil reserves, and south america). The U.S has oil all over the place, but we hesitate to drill for it and use it because we figure this will allow us to be the last ones standing. All that needs to be done is temporarily use our own oil decreasing the use from the middle east to a minimum which is enough to cause them to cut their prices. I'm not sure where you are trying to go. If a country really wants to it can take over the middle east if they have the military to do it and the desire to they can. The country that does this would have an abundance of oil. At this point it's not worth the trouble to most countries. Look at what lack of resources caused Japan to do. Let me tell you some of the problems that the U.S. govt. faces though you seem to think I can't begin to understand it. THe U.S. will never take over a nation like Saudi Arabia because we have people that would be pissed off. Our govt. doesn't like to piss off its people and also doesn't want to look bad globally so we don't take over nations but rather rebuild them. We probably didn't sign any agreements with Iraq to stay out of OPEC, because we have foolish people that would then say the war was all about oil. The U.S. has much like the game of golf edicate in much of what it tries to do.

 

[paikiah 5,000+ posts]

So you still seem to think that the US will have enough oil without the Middle east. Hmm, ok, I guess this is the info you got compared to what I've got.

You state again that the US can take any country if it wants to. It pretty much has, just that they've not made it their own state, trying to not piss people off, as you said amongst other reasons that should really be obvious.

If a country really wants to take over, it can. This by itself, you are talking about being trigger happy. How many other nations have done this, going into another country? You do the math.

bottomline? Yes, the US has pretty much taken up the world, be it via politics, military or economics. So you can see where this debate has actually started, when you disagreed with teh statement that the US does not control(takeover) the world.

 

[willll 10+ year member]

Military Like I said before is key. YOu can have economic power but if you don't have a military it means nothing. We were lucky Hitler didn't take over the world. He was close.

I never said that a military is everything

you're right, you didn't.

but i still don't think hitler got that close, we could have dropped a bomb on europe too once we decided that the english were thoroughly conquered by the germans, and the loss wouldn't have been that bad, but I'm sure GB wouldn't be as close to us as it is today.

One of the advantages to a communist nation is that the government controls what happens with the money the country has. It can create very few products for consumers to buy and use most of its money for military, it's up the the government. There are ways to make money.

there are ways to make money, like further opress the people of the country. the problem with communism is that the only motivation is death if they don't work their share. they can't work their way up the corporate ladder. not as stable as you would think with all that government control. but that is where military is key, if you don't have a gun to every worker's head, he probably won't want to work because he knows the money is going to the rich bastards who pay the assholes who put a gun to his head to make him work. that is where the problem arises. once they get to a certain point, they won't take it anymore, and a guy like hitler who is a good public speaker will lead the people with false hopes and empty promises. and good way to show you're serious? kill off 1/3 of the population whose religious beliefs don't coincide with yours, and take the other 2/3 hostage in the military. works like a charm.

 

[willll 10+ year member]

Again, although I don't know much about how Amercia works, based on what you told me, there ARE things about how the govt' works that you have no idea about.

sorry paikiah, the US is going to do whatever it wants because little Georgy is gonna get his way. and that is just one of the functions of the government that none of the american people understand or can explain. we have a thing in the constitution called the "elastic clause" or sometimes the "necessary and proper clause". the name speaks for itself, and that's that. anything goes, screw you if you don't like it, we're the USA!//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[awalbert88 10+ year member]

In terms of miltary power, the US could take over any country it wished to outside of the big nuclear powers (France, China, GB, Russia). India/Pakistan don't have the delivery systems yet to get nukes onto US soil, but it would be enough to severely hamper our military forces (especially a sub-surface detonation of a large bomb - 100kt+ - directly beneath a carrier group).

However, economically, there are few countries that the US could risk attacking. Iraq was so heavily isolated already that there was little economic backlash, although oil prices were a bit of a concern at first. North Korea has no real economic influence with the rest of the world, however.

Taiwan could easily be taken over by China, yet the Chinese know that even if the US did not intervene (and we most likely would), the damage to factories and power grids that would occur would completely devestate the world economy, because so many semiconductors are produced in Taiwan.

In this sense, a very powerful economy enables one nation to hold power over others, but if other nations choose it, that nation can be made irrelevant. Military force is the only thing that cannot be flatly ignored by other nations. This is why North Korea is hell bent on procuring nuclear weapons. They cannot hurt anyone economically, so most nations ignore their threats. But with a nuclear weapon, the rest of the world will be unable to simply ignore them.

 

[paikiah 5,000+ posts]

In terms of miltary power, the US could take over any country it wished to outside of the big nuclear powers (France, China, GB, Russia). India/Pakistan don't have the delivery systems yet to get nukes onto US soil, but it would be enough to severely hamper our military forces (especially a sub-surface detonation of a large bomb - 100kt+ - directly beneath a carrier group).
However, economically, there are few countries that the US could risk attacking. Iraq was so heavily isolated already that there was little economic backlash, although oil prices were a bit of a concern at first. North Korea has no real economic influence with the rest of the world, however.

Taiwan could easily be taken over by China, yet the Chinese know that even if the US did not intervene (and we most likely would), the damage to factories and power grids that would occur would completely devestate the world economy, because so many semiconductors are produced in Taiwan.

In this sense, a very powerful economy enables one nation to hold power over others, but if other nations choose it, that nation can be made irrelevant. Military force is the only thing that cannot be flatly ignored by other nations. This is why North Korea is hell bent on procuring nuclear weapons. They cannot hurt anyone economically, so most nations ignore their threats. But with a nuclear weapon, the rest of the world will be unable to simply ignore them.

ah, thank you Albert. I can always rely on you to explain a little bit better.

And Willl, very "interesting" concept. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[willll 10+ year member]

it's not just a concept, it's a signed document that gives them the power to do whatever is necessary. it was one of our countries foundations, and that is still apparent today.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/frown.gif.a3531fa0534503350665a1e957861287.gif but only a couple more years and we will probably have a more conservative president, and everybody will be happy and live in peace. until then, we better just keep duckin'.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Pakistan has a delivery system, it's called terrorists. India doesn't plan on hitting us with a nuke anyway. Your logic doesn't make sense. I say the U.S. has the power to take over a country and you call that trigger happy? So if I own a gun to protect my house I'm trigger happy? If by trigger happy you mean having weapons for self defense then yes. Now this military power helps prevent people from attacking the U.S. and if by preventing attack you mean ruling the world then yes I would say the U.S. pretty much rules the world. It's funny how philosophy enters into this argument. SOme would say the U.S. going into Afghanistan was a plan to take over the world. That really wasn't the U.S's plan at all. If you think this you do not understand the U.S.. THe u.s. went in because the people had no rights, terrorists were ruling there, and we wanted to civilize the nation. We put in a government that does benefit and tends to agree with the U.S. but I would say this is much better than the previous government that gave the people few rights.

 

[paikiah 5,000+ posts]

"THe u.s. went in because the people had no rights, terrorists were ruling there, and we wanted to civilize the nation. We put in a government that does benefit and tends to agree with the U.S. but I would say this is much better than the previous government that gave the people few rights."

And you think the Afghans are really happy? You decide if they ARE happy? Or did the news or the history channel tell you that? I give up. You do not understand the way Islam works.

having weapons for defence? Oh yeah, that's different. DOes the US keep weapons for defence, or do they let the empty shells flood regions of another country?

GOing into another country, bombing, shooting self defence? I think not.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

"THe u.s. went in because the people had no rights, terrorists were ruling there, and we wanted to civilize the nation. We put in a government that does benefit and tends to agree with the U.S. but I would say this is much better than the previous government that gave the people few rights."
And you think the Afghans are really happy? You decide if they ARE happy? Or did the news or the history channel tell you that? I give up. You do not understand the way Islam works.

having weapons for defence? Oh yeah, that's different. DOes the US keep weapons for defence, or do they let the empty shells flood regions of another country?

GOing into another country, bombing, shooting self defence? I think not.

So the people dancing in the streets meant nothing right? The people and women had no rights. I'd say they are happier than they were. I have a problem with unstable nations having womd's and if you were wise you would to. The U.S. doesn't care about regular weapons the U.S. doesn't like unstable countries that have womd and chemical weapons.

 

[paikiah 5,000+ posts]

So the people dancing in the streets meant nothing right? The people and women had no rights. I'd say they are happier than they were. I have a problem with unstable nations having womd's and if you were wise you would to. The U.S. doesn't care about regular weapons the U.S. doesn't like unstable countries that have womd and chemical weapons.

People dancing in the streets cause they don't want to be labelled as a taliban and get shot.

Half the people dancing on the streets that you saw on the TV ARE the taliban, shaved just before. You just proved to once again that your source of info is far too inferior to go on.