Will Iran get the bomb?

stevebaby

The us a "Super power"?.The us spends more its military ,both in raw dollars and per capita,than any country in the world.http://countrydata.u.nu/stats-military_per_capita.html
Countries of the world: Military expenditure per capita
As emerging economies like china,india and brazil start to spend more of their GDP on their military what will america become? A bi-lingual nation of farmers somewhere between canada and brazil and dependent on china for manufactured goods.
The wheel always turns,and now that the us has reached its peak as a military power the only forward is down and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.The us has never faced a credible threat of invasion...its huge military is not for defence.The us is deeply in debt,a debt which cannot be sustained.
The us a "super power"? Couldn't beat a poor country like vietnam,a country which had virtually no navy or air force and isn't having much luck in iraq,a country less than 1/10 its size.Deal with that.

__________________
I'm Rooting for Chiara!
Drink!Feck!Arrse!Girls!
bastard

darkboong

We are dealing with it.

Superpower appears to mean that the US spends more on weaponry than all the other countries of the world combined and then whines about other countries spending too much on weapons ... Sounds to me like you guys are running scared despite your concerted effort to find the limit of the Diminishing Returns curve with your "Defense" Budget (which is primarily spent on wars and weaponry that is used in *Offensives*).

If anything it appears to be the US who has trouble dealing with being an Obnoxious Lying Whining Fucktard of a nation. When the US quits being an Obnoxious Lying Whining Fucktard of a nation perhaps other nations might like the US.

__________________
Free Beer !

darkboong

Don't let us stop you from toking on that crack pipe.

__________________
Free Beer !

Carrera

Hmmm, we need to keep a sense of balance here. The apparent fact the U.S. has compromised its values over the last decade is a recent development and, prior to that, the U.S. doesn't compare so badly with other super-powers.
Let's not forget how many people were deported to Gulags in Soviet Russia and also the behaviour of the Japanese Empire when they butchered countless Chinese e.t.c. I personally believe the U.S. could do far more to advance human rights throughout the globe but I don't view the U.S. as being in any way similar to, say, Stalin's Russia.
It seems to me that what happened was the 9/11 attacks caused sufficient shockwaves in the U.S. that American people simply swallowed the information they were given - that Iraq had something to do with it all. But we need to bear in mind, the majority of Americans are now coming to understand they were misinformed. The majority of Americans are now unhappy with the Bush Administration and his approval ratings have fallen considerably.
The question that needs to be considered now is whether the U.S. will retreat and become isolationist to the point it will simply not get involved in any international crisis situation. As I recall, that's exactly what happened at the time of Hitler's advances into Europe when the U.S. simply didn't want to get involved.
I believe Americans are coming to see they got their fingers burned and are probably beginning to wish they had never gotten involved in Iraq. So, I'm wondering whether the next administration might turn out to be quite isolationist.

Carrera

Another point is, it's not just the U.S. that seems to be compromising human rights. I'm getting ever more uneasy about the situation in this country to be honest. I refer to 80 year old hollocaust survivors being dragged out of parliament by bouncers, simply for disagreeing with Blair or people being attacked by police for protesting in mass.
This whole idea of Blair grinning from ear to ear and lecturing other countries on democracy basically gets right up my nose. Where, I ask, is this democracy? In what way are decisions being made that involve actual people having a say?
To be honest, Blair now seems to be out to convince the French that his sweatshop worker-rights policy of long hours, low pensions and underpar social security is the way Europeans should head. This is being strongly opposed by young people in France who have now taken to the streets - almost like a small revolution.
That to me is people power in action. Why should the French consign themselves to zero working rights so fat-cats such as Blair and his ilk can get rich through the sweat of those he claims enjoy this wonderful democracy he lectures about.

limerickman

Bush's Presidency has been a disaster - economically, diplomatically, internally.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

limerickman

Your economy is losing jobs by the bucketful abroad.
Your country's currency has been devalued by 25% against Euro.
Your country's budget deficit is at an alltime high.
Your country's trade deficit is at an all time high.
Your unemployment rate is 5%.

Diplomatically, France/Germany/EU are lukewarm : the Russians have moved away from the USA since Bush was elected.
The USA has managed to antagonise the Middle East over it's war in Iraq.
Your country is mired in Iraq - a country where democracy (Bush's definition
not mine) has failed to work.
The perpetrators of 9/11 are still at large (5 years later!).

And domestically your preseident presided over the worst US natural disaster
(katrina).

and your presidents approval rating is the lowest in living memory.

The ordinary American is being rightly screwed now - and for years to come
because of Bush's incompetence.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

darkboong

You can't blame Clinton on Europeans, Americans have to accept the responsibility for that one.

__________________
Free Beer !

darkboong

Even if you live there you wouldn't know either because you are stupid.

Check out what Paul Craig Roberts has to say on the matter. He happens to strongly disagree with you and he has considerably more credentials in the matter than you do. Oh, and while you are at it : Provide some evidence that the "economy was saved by Bush". To summarize : Bush's tenure has led to a rapidly growing trade deficit, and the government is now in debt and sinking further into debt, DESPITE raiding the pension funds to cover it.

If you were a pervert you might claim that economy failure that has accompanied Bush's terms in office as a success.

__________________
Free Beer !

Carrera

The truth is there were hardly any terrorists at all in S.H.'s Iraq whereas Iraq is now a major terrorist-sponsoring environment. This is because Iraq was destabilised by intervention but was the intervention worth it?
True, Iraq under S.H. was repressive and many Iraqi people were living in fear. It may even be the case the Iraqis as a whole may be glad S.H. is gone.
But the problem that remains now is the instability.
Bush Junior didn't think it would be as tough as it has turned out to be. The plan was simply to get rid of S.H., introduce a pro-western democracy into the country and use Iraq as a role model that would cause other repressive regimes to crumble. As John Kerry stated, force without wisdom isn't always the best path to take.

roadhog

desert_RAT,

Let me start by saying I'm a proud American and the people with whom you are debating on this thread are among the folks here with whom I disagree often on many issues.

However, surely you understand how people like them develop their own negative opinions of Americans based on hearing mantras similar to yours. I honestly can't decide if you are being genuine or if you are just trolling for reactions. I suspect it is both. Either way, you are doing nothing to promote any "goodness" about America. You are mostly showing yourself to be an example of an arrogant, narrow-minded, pompous jerk who is not very wise to the ways of the world outside of our borders. I literally cringe when I see people carry on conversations the way you do with non-Americans. It is quite embarrassing to be honest.

And before you accuse me of being some sort of weak sympathizer or whatever I should tell you I am nothing of the sort. I am voluntarily in a profession which requires me to "put my money where America's mouth is" on a regular basis. And it makes me sick to my stomach to think that when I am "out there" doing so, that the world thinks I am doing so in support of pompous views such as those you display. I am not. Do a search on here for my posts and you'll see where I stand.

I am not one to run from a fight, but I also value humility and a common sense approach to reality. There is certainly nothing wrong with showing pride in your country and in your heritage, and for standing up for what you believe. I debate with these folks fairly regularly, but don't expect an ounce of respect from them until you show a little bit yourself. So many people have an inaccurate perception of the common American attitude because of people like you. If you were in fact representative of the American culture I know and live in and fight for (which you are not), then I wouldn't blame them a bit.

Carrera

"I honestly can't decide if you are being genuine or if you are just trolling for reactions."

I'm pretty sure he's simply winding people up for a bit of fun (probably on a rainy day). I don't believe he's expressing his own serious opinion. Besides, the news I hear day by day states the majority of Americans are unhappy over the entire Iraq war saga and are likewise deeply troubled over Louisiana. The fact is, attitudes in the U.S. have changed over the last few months and most people over there feel the troops should be brought home.
If the said poster really does hold the views he expressed, I believe these are minority views in his country and I reckon the only way the Republicans could save their sinking ship would be to forward Schwarzennegger (who seems to have retained some popularity as a healthy blend of conservative/liberalism.

Carrera

Hmmm, and your posts are worded very typically of a teenager who's probably at school right now passing an idle moment or two, correct?
It is interesting you picked up on Anti-Americanism, though. There was a letter I read in The Mail the other day from an American female living in London. She claimed she had constantly gotten into heated arguments with Londoners over Iraq and that other Americans were advising her they got a friendlier reception if they claimed to be Canadians.
If it's true, it's a little sad. Americans are generally well-liked as tourists to Europe as the majority are quite polite and don't get drunk in the streets as much as, say, the Germans who used to upset the Spanish with their drunken shouting in bars ( so the Spanish used to tell me).

roadhog

I guess you haven't read any of my post history yet. But, if they hate us (which I'm not even necessarily agreeing with - they are your words), how is this attitude going to make them hate us less? Your response will be - "who cares if they hate us." And that, my friend, shows a complete lack of understanding of many areas.

The notion that the fact that a person is a liberal makes them un-American is about as childish and shallow as they come. Get a grip. People enjoy all their little labels too much. I am affiliated with neither of our major political parties. I am generally conservative on many issues in the traditional sense of the word - though that is not an all-encompassing description of me. That has nothing to do with the "neo-con" label that has become fashionable as of late. That doesn't mean I always vote Republican (in fact I haven't voted for any Bush since '92, but also never voted for Kerry or Gore - go figure). Did you know it is possible to be Republican and not agree with the current President on issues? Did you know you don't have to be loyal to a silly party in order to be loyal to your country? This is a little known fact that it seems you (and most members of our Congress) don't understand. I could care less about everybody's beloved parties and labels. They do us more harm than good.

Completely understand you frustration with constant ridicule, although I think it is pretty foolish to say *any* nation is the best on the planet. How do you quantify that? What is the definition of "best"? Do you not understand people's justified feelings for their own proud nations and history? Do you know what a small blip the U.S. is on the screen of world history so far? You need to get out more if not. We have several centuries of work still to prove if we are to rival the pasts of some nations in history. Steve's posts are indeed unnecessarily provocative. He is trolling your emotions. No different than what you are doing. And I've disagreed with him plenty. Again, I refer you to my post history if you're interested. It's easy to view.