Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:29 pm**

why do you all blam bush for all this it has been our foreign policy to do things they way we do for almost 60 years

Posted: **Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:10 pm**

Because people just like to beat up Bush for things that are out of his control because they don't like him. Which is malarchie. And BTW, The Dixie Chicks should sing and not cause int'l controversy.

Posted: **Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:24 pm**

we should not interfere with our army uless the country is a threat to us or our allies. Hundreds of billions of $ a year could be spent on better things than bombing people.

Posted: **Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:32 pm**

qeee1 wrote:
Freetymes wrote:How about this???

The USA removes all monitary and other support, including military, from all of the rest of the world?

Then we could use it to feed, clothe, house, and give medical care to all of our people and the rest of the world can starve, die of aides, sucumb to evil neighbors or their own governments, pay full rates for drugs, and generally find out just how many billions of dollars we hand out every year.

You really believe that without the USA world would just fall apart. UK, Germany and France when combined donate more in terms of aid than USA, even though their GNP combined is less than half that of the USA. Yet you wouldn't see those three countries saying without us, the world would fall apart.

And if the US withdrew military support in many places, it might mean the people of the oppressive governments they arm get a chance to fight back.

Blah Blah, I'm not saying the USA doesn't help in some places, just yeah, you're not that great.

I really think this is one of those "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" things. Sure, the US does a lot of shifty shit the world over, and we get involved in lots of things that aren't our problem (one way or another), some are good and some are bad. However, if the US offered no military support/aid to other areas of the world plenty of people would bitch about that too.

Posted: **Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:59 pm**

hockeycapn wrote:No one here is saying isolationism. What is really being debated is does America have the duty/right to change the policy of other soverign nations?

If you are not going to pursue a policy of isolationism then, de facto, you must be pursuing one of global politicking. The whole point of foreign relations is to get other nations to change their policy to one that is more friendly to and compatible with yours. During the 1920s, the U.S. couldn't have cared less what was going on in Europe and was not at all engaged in world politics. Europe proved to be incapable of managing its own affairs, hence the inflation in Germany which got to the point where people pushed wheelbarrows filled with money simply to buy groceries and the subsequent rise in power of Hitler and the Nazi Party.

The question for the world is which U.S. would you like to see? The one that turtled after World War I or the one that it is today, engaging in global affairs? You can't have it both ways.

Who else will take the lead? The United Nations? What a joke. It has proven to be a paper tiger. They're very good at passing resolutions which rogue states ignore. The fact is that the UN can pass all the resolutions it wants telling North Korea, for example, it shouldn't be firing off nukes but until it is prepared to enforce the resolutions, it is going to be ignored.

Posted: **Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:10 pm**

richporter wrote:This "super power" business is very real and the United States is currently the only super power in the world. Its sphere of influence encompasses a broad span of the world. Its currency is widely used. It houses one of the best trained militarys in the world, is on the forefront of technology and is advanced than other nations in many many other ways.

China is not a super power. China is a regional power. In the next 30 years China will become the world's only super power, far surpassing the United States. Its currency will be of the highest value, thus propelling it into the "super power" category.

North Korea? Canada? Were they the first to come to mind or do you really think that those two countries are super powers? That's like saying Mexico or Brazil is a super power. Neither of those two nations is a regional power. China trumps North Korea, United States trumps Canada. No offense to the Canadians, you're my buddies. North Korea is an isolated communist state. It is in no way a super power. Nuclear weapons don't make you a super power. Look up Russia.

The United Kingdom has long since fallen from its super power status. After the British Empire collapsed due to mass independence of its colonies it no longer held the title. With the onset of the Cold War after WWII the United States and the USSR were worlds only two super powers. The USSR has since collapsed. It is only a matter of time before the United States falls from its throne as the worlds only super power.

you no now that i think of this i guess u r probably right......but i think that china will take a lot longer to becoming a super power depending on tecnology......actually forget what i just said i think wat u said is true.... the only thing that will modify this is technology. The farther we get the faster China is on its way to becoming a super power.

Posted: **Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:44 pm**

I used to worry about China overtaking the US in economic and military terms, because then the position of world's superpower would be taken over from a Europe-friendly somewhat-democracy, by a not-really-communist dictatorship that brooks no opposition, from anyone.

But then, a Chinese girl started at my work a few weeks ago, and let me tell you, she is a Babe. And she sits right opposite from my desk. So now I can no longer concentrate on world affairs.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:53 am**

i wondor wat would happen if there wernt any superpowers?

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:44 pm**

P Gizzle wrote:
UCAbears wrote:p_gizzle maybe you are thinking of one of those countries you named Super Power. but in this case we are talking about THE super power of the world and that is obviousaly United States for these reasons; The U.S can come into a country ANY country and fix that countries problems(or try to anyway) while sending troops into their country, bombing, and having reporters over there. now do u think that lets say saudi arabia can send troops into U.S without the U.S doing anything about it? I DONT THINK SO. also we have the most updated guns, explosives, and machines then anyone else.

im not saying that. im saying "super power" is COMPLETELY opinionated. a super power could be a rich country. a super power could be a strong defended country. ANY country could be a super power, depending on how you look at it.

and your attitude is exactly why we lost Vietnam. "We can go into any country and fix their problem" sorry, but we're not perfect, but we're as dang close as you can get to it.

We were'nt trying to "FIX" Vietnam. We were trying to stop a N. Vietnamese invasion, and slow the spread of oppression ( also known as communism ). They were our allies and we did what we could.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:43 pm**

ksslemp wrote:
P Gizzle wrote:
UCAbears wrote:p_gizzle maybe you are thinking of one of those countries you named Super Power. but in this case we are talking about THE super power of the world and that is obviousaly United States for these reasons; The U.S can come into a country ANY country and fix that countries problems(or try to anyway) while sending troops into their country, bombing, and having reporters over there. now do u think that lets say saudi arabia can send troops into U.S without the U.S doing anything about it? I DONT THINK SO. also we have the most updated guns, explosives, and machines then anyone else.

im not saying that. im saying "super power" is COMPLETELY opinionated. a super power could be a rich country. a super power could be a strong defended country. ANY country could be a super power, depending on how you look at it.

and your attitude is exactly why we lost Vietnam. "We can go into any country and fix their problem" sorry, but we're not perfect, but we're as dang close as you can get to it.

We were'nt trying to "FIX" Vietnam. We were trying to stop a N. Vietnamese invasion, and slow the spread of oppression ( also known as communism ). They were our allies and we did what we could.

we didnt say that were trying to fix vietnam i said we try to fix their problems

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:58 pm**

I apologize, i misunderstood what was stated.

Conquer Club

Should USA quit getting involved with other issues?