It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

what america needs to do this century

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
For the U.S to remain a superpower this century and stay ahead of china/india, it must do several things.
1.Leave the Middle East.It is an area full radical religion who preach peace but wage war and America can receive no good by sticking its hand in the MidEast. The only thing keeping America their now is oil and the U.S should drill for oil in anwar.I say the U.S should leave and let them continuously wage war on each other as long as they stay to themselves.
2.Wake Up. most of the world hates America and their are many powerful alliiances being built. Although currently militarily on top the U.S of ten years from now might have trouble fighting a militarized,unified europe or an Indian,Chinese,possibly russian alliance. After years of military cutbacks and the spreading of U.S forces the Us must unify its strength and strengthen its military.
3.join the alliance game. Since other powerful nations are creating alliances america should do so itself.possibly an alliance with the EU(against the mutual threat in asia) or possibly a militarized Japan, Australia and Taiwan.Also the U.S should look in its own back yard. Brazil,Argentina
maybe mexico would be helpful conidering they are rising powers.
This American Union would make an attack on the western hemisphere difficult.

I am an American and i am not for taking over the world, but at the current rate of economic and military decline we should strengthen ourselves.
p.s. also why should we give so much aid to the world if they hate us and most likely will be our enemies eventually?




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
What we realy need is a "Dont **** with us policy" if someone does, they get vaporized, no talking, no negotiating, no military action, just a simple push of a button, this would keep everyone in line, and us #1

=)

Realy though, we should just isolate ourselfs for a decade, and see what happens, let the world take over the stuff we curently do, and just take care of our own.



[edit on 17-4-2005 by C0le]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I dont think this is an option for the US, do u know how much business it does overseas? There would have to be something really serious for America to give up all its interests around the globe. Plus a totally internal economy might not be very successful i mean look at the US economy before WW2 and then after, it doubled!!



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
What we realy need is a "Dont **** with us policy" if someone does, they get vaporized, no talking, no negotiating, no military action, just a simple push of a button, this would keep everyone in line, and us #1

=)

Realy though, we should just isolate ourselfs for a decade, and see what happens, let the world take over the stuff we curently do, and just take care of our own.

[edit on 17-4-2005 by C0le]


I agree C0le, the US should really keep it's nose out of other peoples affairs.

Fortunately, I would say that the US is far more reliant on the rest of the world than the world is reliant on the US.

All empires develop arrogant self important egos and delusional states of superiority, and then they crash and burn, living in past glories of what once was and what could have been.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   

as posted by Koka
...I would say that the US is far more reliant on the rest of the world than the world is reliant on the US.


How so, Koka?
After reading these two articles, the world is more reliant on the US then you may believe?
SURVEY: THE WORLD ECONOMY: Flying on one engine
SURVEY: AMERICA: The last, best hope of earth?




seekerof



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Australian opposition leader seems to think so.

www.theage.com.au... hina-India-key-to-security-Beazley/2005/04/18/1113676699615.html



"We need to explain to Washington that there are times when it will be right for Australia to contribute to coalitions in other parts of the world . . . (and) in our own part of the world," Mr Beazley said.



[edit on 18-4-2005 by cargo]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I dont think it's smart to militarize Japan. If we allow that than we must allowe Germany this opportunity also. It's a cascade effect. Those two nation had power in the past and they abused it severely.

BTW. Japanese are not very good friends with American gaijins. They are very closed and sometimes rasist nation. And of course they think that they are the chosen and the greatest people in the world. (Just my oppinion, no disrespect intended).
I bet they feel very warm and fuzzy iside when they comemorate Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by Koka
...I would say that the US is far more reliant on the rest of the world than the world is reliant on the US.


How so, Koka?
After reading these two articles, the world is more reliant on the US then you may believe?
SURVEY: THE WORLD ECONOMY: Flying on one engine
SURVEY: AMERICA: The last, best hope of earth?
seekerof


Reading between the lines, I would say that those articles say that the US is as reliant on the rest of the world as the world is reliant on the states, but would still beg to differ.

In my eyes, there is no resource that only the US can provide, that cannot be found in abundance elsewhere on the planet.

I think C0le was onto something when he mentioned changing US policies, anything is better than the present "Do as I say, not as I do" policy.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Reading between the lines, I would say that those articles say that the US is as reliant on the rest of the world as the world is reliant on the states, but would still beg to differ.

In my eyes, there is no resource that only the US can provide, that cannot be found in abundance elsewhere on the planet.

I think C0le was onto something when he mentioned changing US policies, anything is better than the present "Do as I say, not as I do" policy.


Your eyes decieve you Koka. First of all the same resources you say can be found anywhere else in the world... It works both ways - if they are so common, suply and demand kicks in and ours are worth as much as everyone elses. IF anyone tries to isolate us, the US is capable of feeding it's own population and has the raw materials to exist without imports. And this brings me to another thing.

The rest of the worlds economy rests on the shoulders of the US. Don't believe me? Well, take China for instance. Who do you think buys the things made by their low cost labor? The US accounts for roughly 20% of the TOTAL world economy! You can't just take away that 20% and say everyone will get along fine - they won't!

If you were trying to imply that the US has no oil, well, think again.



Utah, Colorado and Wyoming sit on a massive fortune in untapped oil — maybe more oil than in the Middle East

Link

In response to the authors, thread I disagree with some of his assesments.

First off, to say that in 10 years we would have trouble fighting ANYONE is just plain wrong. The technological lead the US enjoys has been built over DECADES of research and development. China (or the EU for that matter) can not hope to close that gap in just ten years.

The US spends as much as the next 20 odd countries COMBINED on their military. So in order for anyone else to even make headway, they are going to need to spend MORE then that. Who can do this? 460 BILLION dollars can not be spent on defense by anyone but the US.

Secondly, the author acts as if the US does not have any allies. Ever heard of NATO? It is the most powerfull military partnership in the world.

Thirdly, he is wrong about the ME. Pulling out of there completly would only be viable if we had an alternate energy source to oil. Untill the day that we can find an equally cheap source of energy, not only should we NOT leave the middle east, but we should look to expand our influence over it. If we don't, someone else will.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
If you were trying to imply that the US has no oil, well, think again.


Utah, Colorado and Wyoming sit on a massive fortune in untapped oil — maybe more oil than in the Middle East

Link


No, I wasn't trying to imply anything regarding oil, as you have plenty of reserves under what use to be a nature reserve.

As for your statement regarding 20% of the world's economy. There is no such thing as a world economy, unless you are aware of other worlds we are competing with. Economies are based on the individual country.

If the US has it's fingers in 20% of the worlds imports/exports, what percentage of that twenty is the US reliant on? It must make up a pretty high percentage of the US economy, which I'm sure would have more than a slight knock on effect should the US choose to withdraw from the global community.


[edit on 18-4-2005 by Koka]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
The USA only needs to do ONE thing this century to totally secure its self:

Replace its dependancy on OIL with a cheap, renewable energy source. The USA will "own" the world if this happens. Period.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
The USA only needs to do ONE thing this century to totally secure its self:

Replace its dependancy on OIL with a cheap, renewable energy source. The USA will "own" the world if this happens. Period.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by skippytjc]


And there in lies the real problem....
, a desire to "own" the world.

The US has gotten rich on exploitation of 3rd world resources and labour forces, it's about time the US paid a fair price for what it has taken.

Sure, invent a cheap and renewable energy source, then show your commitment to world peace and poverty by giving that technology to those that need it, without taking anything in return.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   


And there in lies the real problem...., a desire to "own" the world.

The US has gotten rich on exploitation of 3rd world resources and labour forces, it's about time the US paid a fair price for what it has taken.

Sure, invent a cheap and renewable energy source, then show your commitment to world peace and poverty by giving that technology to those that need it, without taking anything in return.


In theory, sounds great, but will never happen. As far as a cheap renewable energy source goes. It looks like hydrogen has the best potential as of right now. I also am curious where technology for wind, and solar power is heading.
Now the problem would still exist though for a need for oil. There are so many things which are made from petroleum based formulae - take plastic as an example - Plastic cannot be made without oil - think about how many things are made from plastic.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Go around the world bombing and killing (directly or by proxy) people in ungodly numbers, then feigning shock and indignation when they have the temerity to do the same to us....

Oh wait, that's what we did in the last century...

[edit on 18-4-2005 by xmotex]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I think it's about a third thread in as many days which advocates nuking somebody (feel the blank) in order to preserve the US supremacy.

I feel a little dismay to discover such overly simplistic, non-constructive, arrogant attitude here on the ATS.

Nuking as a retaliation against a conventional attack would alienate the US for a century if not more. NATO would probably break up. The nuclear-capable states will redouble their effort to develop bigger and better nukes. Which in turn would make the US more paranoid. In short, it all doesn't make sense.

How about a simpler way to be no.1? Secure borders, enforce immigration control, divert moneys squandered in military operatons overseas, into education and healthcare, and alternative fuel. The US would become Switzerland on steroids



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Let me add to me previous sentiment:

Oil powers the world, literally, financially, and politically. Period. If every nation on the planet had equal and unlimited access to it, 90% of all wars and conflicts would never happen. Nearly 100% of the USA’s foreign policy is driven by oil, just like every other nation.

This is the MAJOR reason why the Middle East is nearly always in conflict. They have oil, we all want it. And don’t fool yourself: YOUR nation would intervene in the Middle East too if in the same position as the USA, even military actions.

If the USA finds a way to replace oil as the primary source of energy cheaply and abundantly, the USA would require almost nothing from the rest of the world. Financially the USA could easily “own” the planet. Nations would scramble to get the technology or buddy up to share the benefits. Imagine how powerful the Middle East would be if they had ANYTHING at all of value beyond oil? They don’t, and that’s why they will never be world powers. Well imagine the USA having the “power” of controlling the next power source on top of all the other leading technologies and industries.

The solution to the USA’s foreign policies and issues is the next energy breakthrough. The moment the USA changes its focus to finding that new tech, the “Axis’s of Evil” out there better figure out a way to make buddy- buddy with the US, because their days as secure nations would be numbered.

Don’t like the way this sounds? Too bad, because that’s the way it’s going to go down. In the near future there is only going to be two sides of the fence….Which side will your nation end up on?


[edit on 18-4-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   


The solution to the USA’s foreign policies and issues is the next energy breakthrough.


I agree, but with an executive branch dominated by former oil industry hacks, I wouldn't hold my breath till this happens.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
what America needs to do in this century is to maintain and improve alliances, deactivate old cold war based military facilities that are not related to current threats, let Japan take over responsibilites in Asia, military alliance with India even if it makes Pakistan mad, better to be safe. withdraw from Iraq once Iraqi forces are capable of taking on insurgents and terrorists, which would draw resources from Al Qaeda and other organizations who spent resources to try to achieve victory in Iraq, thousands of extremists are goin or bein sent there to be killed and money spent on it. more time spent on restricting the flow of money to Al Qaeda and other organizations who share similar views of Bin Laden. spend more resources on intell and train more special forces, get more troops to speak
Arabic to understand the language. new technology to maintain military advantage. shift the forces from Europe and closer to threats like Asia and Middle East by temporary base and not permanent just like in Germany for example where military personnels' families live with them. more training for conventional troops to deal with unconventional threats like urban combat training and convoy escorting. get troops from Asia like Japan and Korea and shift them close to Middle East by basing in Afghanistan and Central Asian nations and help train the local forces to combat terrorists. some of the advice i presented are implemeted already others are not. got much work to do for America.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex



The solution to the USA’s foreign policies and issues is the next energy breakthrough.


I agree, but with an executive branch dominated by former oil industry hacks, I wouldn't hold my breath till this happens.


You assume that these same oil companies don't control the research and patents to the technology. Check out the US patent office - they do!

The reason we have not switched over yet is because it is still cheaper to use oil. As the technology matures, oil will be faded out. This will probably happen over 2-3 decades. Thats why the US needs, in the mean time, to secure oil sources. The more of those that are under our influence (either directly or indirectly) the more we can corner the energy market in the future. And make no mistake, the US will corner that market.

Once this happens, the US economy will grow at rates never before seen. The energy market is the only high profit industry the US does not dominate. Once we do, game over.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
sounds good. of course we cant sit on our butts for 3 decades waiting for another energy source. the world will be much different then and we must prepare ourselves



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join