The downside of being the world's only superpower

Post Reply New Topic

A large military force is a part of being a superpower. The failure at other tasks may be a part of our downfall but at the present moment our strength is a sign of something.

The US military is probably the best in the world, and for us to attack Europe would be an unfair example as we would be attacking quite a few highly developed nations at the same time and that a United Europe would probably be a great superpower in its own right. We could probably do a good amount of damage though given our high level of technology, given no nukes were involved.

Why would we want to attack strong states? Our allies right now are the strong states and back in the cold-war when we had 2 superpowers we would have been attacking another superpower with the ability to nuke us.

The US is the only thing that comes close to a superpower and compared to the non-1st world it essentially is massively powerful, and even to other 1st world nations it still is powerful. Besides, it is considered by many a superpower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower and some even consider it a hyperpower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpower

O.K. , If the U.S.A. isn't a Superpower, then who is?? ..........Austrailia??

Yes, China scares me. 1.3 Billion people could do a lot of damage!!

No question the Chinese government is a$$holes but its clear their large trading relationship and buying US bonds and stocks means they are likely be on our side
in the future. We both would be weaker without each other.

You know, X'e, you're probably right.

They will keep the secret, too, because they most likely have their ambitions set on doing the same thing in Africa. I hope they know that we could never allow that ... unless, this country benefitted substantially from the exploitation, that is.

What (I say indignantly) you think our 214 guys in the gulf aren't doing their share?


I don't eat chinese food. I think they will take over the world soon enough without us eating their food - lol

But seriously, we have a current affairs radio program http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/ (good show - they do a podcast) that BEFORE the invasion, interviewed Professors (middle east experts) from Princeton (if I recall right) and former British Intelligence people (hardly radical lefties) that both said if Sadam still had any WMD they would be so old they would not work and basically that all claims about Iraq's ability to attack anyone was B.S. - which turned out correct. I don't know why this didn't get more coverage than it did.

This war was never about WMD.

So, Werbert - you want the truth? You can't handle the truth! - lol

Only a moron would think that taking the U.S. Army and plucking it down in the middle east for no real reason is a good idea. Oh, wait, that's my President.

Seriously, though, I know Iraqis were suffering under Saddam, but at least the place was kind of stable. I know that it would be nice to be able to liberate a downtrodden people, but sometimes you need to face facts and realize that sometimes a dictatorship is the best option. Look at Russia after the fall of Communism. Look at the political mess that France was after Napoleon III was deposed, and look at the U.S. during our civil war. I'm not saying that a dictatorship is always good, but sometimes, it's better than the alternative.

Sadam plotted to kill Bush Sr. I think even Clinton did a crusie missle attack on a mostly empty Iraq national police building to get pay back for that plot.

That was not good enough for Bush Jr he had to get some major payback for that
plot againts his dear old dad.

Hold on there, I didn't say there was no good reason, just that WMD was not it. Doesn't Iraq have the world's largest reserves of oil? Or am I a cynic?

Like I said, it was for no good reason. Other places have oil, and we should be trying to save what we have, or develop alternative energy sources, which the Bush Administration has not done.