Should USA quit getting involved with other issues?

UCAbears · Post by **UCAbears** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:21 pm

I think we should keep things in order becasue if we dont then people like the koreans who are gonna launch nuclear weaopns will soon polute the air so much that we will have another ice age.

terrafirma · Post by **terrafirma** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 pm

i agree america is the only super power and we should use that to our advantage

UCAbears · Post by **UCAbears** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:47 pm

agreed

AK_iceman · Post by **AK_iceman** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:59 pm

terrafirma wrote:i agree america is the only super power and we should use that to our advantage

No, America isnt the only super power. :roll:

UCAbears · Post by **UCAbears** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:00 pm

name us some more then bud :roll:

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:25 pm

China, N. Korea, Canada, Britain.

the first two are there due to the fact that we'll have troubles with them due to their army size/weapons. the last two are there due to a good economy and nobody will try to kill them.

This "super power" business is completely opinion due to the fact that you and only you can decide what constitutes a "super power"

richporter · Post by **richporter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:42 pm

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.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:45 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.

like i said, "super power" can be interpreted freely. now if you said, the most powerful country in the world, by amount of influence, that's a completely different story

UCAbears · Post by **UCAbears** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:26 pm

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.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:46 pm

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.

hockeycapn · Post by **hockeycapn** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:48 pm

So you are basing the term "Super Power" solely on military strength?

If so, thenI have to think that the term should be dropped from the United States then on account of the military success they have had in Iraq, Afganistan, Veitnam, and Korea over the last half a century of war. The only great thing the US has done since was offset the power of the USSR. I don't think the US is perfect, but I'm sure glad I'm not living under a Soviet driven world.

Those days are over however, the USSR is dead.

The US needs to learn that it is not First among Superpowers, but rather First among equals for the time being. It has reached middle age and needs to accept that one day it will be surpassed by another, probably China, but who can really say for sure. The US needs to learn how to work better within the international community.

The term Super Power was only necessary when there were more than one of them.

UCAbears · Post by **UCAbears** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:50 pm

yes but as we have progressed through the years we are able to walk into countries and do what we want is what im saying but also note that i said(try to fix their problems) wich i think is ok becasue we dont they are going to end up killing us all.

DogDoc · Post by **DogDoc** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:45 pm

Should USA quit getting involved with other issues?

What you're really asking here is, "Should the United States pursue an isolationist global policy?"

The United States already tried this once with near-disatrous consequences.

After World War I, disillusioned by the losses sustained fighting the war, the U.S. drifted towards isolationism in the 1920s. Without US support, the League of Nations was a dismal failure. The Great Depression was hastened by high tariffs placed on imported European goods. And Hitler was allowed to run roughshod in Europe, essentially thumbing his nose at the French and the British as he remilitarized the Rhine, annexed Austria and then Czechoslovakia as America attempted to stay out of European affairs.

It is a matter of fact and not simply opinion that had the United States not entered World War II, Nazi Germany would have maintained control of Europe and without a western front drawing off manpower, who knows what would have happened in Russia, not to mention Japan's imperial ambitions in China, Indochina and the Pacific.

It is folly to think that the United States could ever return to isolationism even if it were so inclined to try.

hockeycapn · Post by **hockeycapn** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:03 am

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?

Some say they have that duty as the world's Super Power others say that it doesn't matter the US is on it's way out of power.

I'm of the mind that the US wields conciterable power still, but should work more within the confines of the international community. As you said one of the reasons the League of nations didn't work was that the US was not a member. Right now it is doing this with North Korea and it's testing of nukes, however I'm not sure this would be the case if it was not so close to a US election.

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:18 am

I am a world super power.

Bogusbet · Post by **Bogusbet** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:41 am

I have a super powered wang.

Freetymes · Post by **Freetymes** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:32 pm

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.

Freetymes · Post by **Freetymes** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:32 pm

Bogusbet wrote:I have a super powered wang.

And by the way.... Mike Hunt loves your wang!

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:55 pm

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.

Machiavelli · Post by **Machiavelli** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:59 pm

We could be great if we spent all our money on ourselves.

I dont think the U.S should pull out from everywhere, I just dont think we should have gone in in the first place. That is why the U.S. has so many enemies.

We "liberate" people when they didn't want our help in the first place

mr. incrediball · Post by **mr. incrediball** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:04 pm

i don't think the usa should stop trying to help, it's just the way they're helping... let's just say it's like a drunken elephant trying to clean the dishes :wink:

Freetymes · Post by **Freetymes** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:06 pm

No i do not believe it all would fall apart...
Nor do I believe that we should stop aiding others.
I just think it is amazing that we catch so much negative and so little positive even though we basically bankroll the better part of the world in one form or another.

quee1 wrote:UK, Germany and France when combined donate more in terms of aid than USA

I would love to see your referance for this "Fact"

As for teaming up I refer you to all of the great comments on WWI and II.
Europe has proven time and time again that they are unable to protect themselves alone, much less get along on something as simple as a common currency or world affairs.

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:22 pm

I would love to see your referance for this "Fact"

Well technically it's unsourced, since I heard it somewhere offline a while ago, but if you check the figures on the OECD website:

http://www.oecd.org/countrylist/0,2578,en_2825_495602_1783495_1_1_1_1,00.html

it holds up.

As regards WW1 or WW2, Europe was hardly united at that stage. As regards them uniting to do something, that wasn't my point either. I was just saying that the US doesn't... hmm...

basically bankroll the better part of the world in one form or another.

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:51 pm

Freetymes wrote:I just think it is amazing that we catch so much negative and so little positive even though we basically bankroll the better part of the world in one form or another.

Doesn't China bankroll the US these days??

UCAbears · Post by **UCAbears** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:24 pm

I think Bush is doing the right thing with Korea with not letting them shoot their nuclear missles and polute, and burn a hole in the atmosphere so we can ALL die. thats where Bush and the US are doing the right thing. but the thing with afganistan and iraq I dont think hats any of our buisness besides the fact that they have threatened to shoot nuclear weapons at us.