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.

 

Will India become a hyperpower, i.e. a country as strong or stronger than the US?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
by Ioseb_Jugashvili:


WW1 was not lost either, and they did lose in Vietnam...but so did the US.


REPLY: The VN War was lost right here in America; we won every single major battle in-theatre.


Individual liberties and freedom where born in Europe, EU has a viable economy. America is not the only place currently like that, and Russia has nothing to do with Europe the way it handles it's country.


REPLY: No European country has the same individual liberties and freedoms Americans have, because they are all basically Marxist/Socialist in nature.


USSR was a socialist country, yet they were Superpower for quite some time, China is a communist/capitalist country, and they are a likely candidate for a future superpower.


REPLY: The USSR was Communist, and ultimately failed because of thei Marxist/Socialist economic system. Galbraith was wrong. China is partially succeeding because of capitolist principles. Whether they continue as such, for centuries, remains to be seen.


Maybe people would stop thinking that if the US asked the only authority to decide, the UN


REPLY: The UN is the most corrupt and in-effective organization in history. 85% of it's "statemen" are tyrants, thugs and dictators. It's the NWO that people should be aware and afraid of.


Any proof to that? Military spending seems to be the biggest expense.


REPLY: See below:



Besides, that "marxist" social programs are needed to any countries development, without them, your poverty line would be way bigger than what you state it is.


REPLY: No, we did quite well before we had them, and since their inception America has spent trillions that would be better served if use for legitimate things. The ones we do have are un-Constitutional as it is. Look at France, Germany, etc, and see how badly those principles work; throughout history they've never worked.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by zappafan1]




posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1


REPLY: The VN War was lost right here in America; we won every single major battle in-theatre.


The whole objective of the war was to prevent the rise of communism in Vietnam, retreating and leaving South Vietnam to be invaded, they failed at this.
You might have won the battles, but you ultimately lost the war. Besides the huge political defeat it meant to have to retreat after commiting so many lifes and resources.



REPLY: No European country has the same individual liberties and freedoms Americans have, because they are all basically Marxist/Socialist in nature.

Freedom to be investigated by NSA, freedom to be arrested under suspicion of terrorism, freedom to have law enforcement infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy.

As well as other freedoms that you’re right, NO EUROPEAN country has such as: having government investigators look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities",



REPLY: The USSR was Communist, and ultimately failed because of thei Marxist/Socialist economic system. Galbraith was wrong. China is partially succeeding because of capitolist principles. Whether they continue as such, for centuries, remains to be seen.


Communist:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement.
Communism and Socialism are not the same, both the USSR and China were socialist countries, not communist.



REPLY: The UN is the most corrupt and in-effective organization in history. 85% of it's "statemen" are tyrants, thugs and dictators. It's the NWO that people should be aware and afraid of.

It’s the organization the world chose to help negotiate in the world, and regardless of their corruption it should be respected, and cleansed, not ignored.
The US only says it’s effective when it works for their interests…how convenient… but you’re right about the “statemen” on tyrant thug and dictator being Mr George Bush one of them, you nailed that just right.
NWO? Should I search next to UFOs?



REPLY: No, we did quite well before we had them, and since their inception America has spent trillions that would be better served if use for legitimate things. The ones we do have are un-Constitutional as it is. Look at France, Germany, etc, and see how badly those principles work; throughout history they've never worked.


Better served as in killing more people abroad? Nah…and if you were so much better before social security, how come you’ve had it for 70 years? I look at France and Germany, and see people with good healthcare and houses, as well as cars. I go to the US and I don’t see that, how come?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Europeans don't need the NSA, they just declare you a criminal. Under Soviet era communism, someone could could report you to the GRU or Stassi as enemy of the state and off to the gulag you went. In the UK, the royal decree still the strongest measure of the law under its legal system. Hasn't changed since the 13th century. European rulers aren't going to let a thousand years of social progress stand in the way of tradition. If they want you dead or in prison, you have very few rights garanteed under their legal systems. They bribe their populations with socialsim to maintain the status quo. Bill Gates and other entrepenuer's couldn't have never started their revolution in Europe. Internatinal law is a joke. Especially when it comes to intellectual and artistic properties.
Why do you think so many of the European countries voters have soundly rejected the EU constitution? Why are there so many illegal firearms and ammo hidden all over Europe? It's not to protect national sovereignty.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
Europeans don't need the NSA, they just declare you a criminal.

Riiight...any proof you don't get a fair trial and a chance to defend yourself, or any proof the government systematically spies it's citizens, like the US does? In fact, there's even a thread here in ATS regarding AT&T passing info to NSA...


Under Soviet era communism, someone could could report you to the GRU or Stassi as enemy of the state and off to the gulag you went.

Mmm…though that could have happened under Stalin, after Stalin reforms were made to the Soviet Justice System.

In the UK, the royal decree still the strongest measure of the law under its legal system. Hasn't changed since the 13th century.

Maybe you’d like to share some proof on what you say on the UK, since for all I know about the UK, the last word on law is told by Parliament. The Queen only has the royal assent, which she always gives to any law approved by Parliament, and monarchy hasn’t done otherwise since 1708.


European rulers aren't going to let a thousand years of social progress stand in the way of tradition. If they want you dead or in prison, you have very few rights garanteed under their legal systems.

Maybe you’d like to name some countries with death penalty in Europe, since as far as I know, death penalty is abolished in the EU, and openly rejected.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), often referred to informally as the "Strasbourg Court", was created to systematise the hearing of human rights complaints from Council of Europe member states. The court's mission is to enforce the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
so much for very few rights guaranteed… List of Human Rights Articles in Europe by Country

They bribe their populations with socialsim to maintain the status quo.
Well, if that “bribe” means I’ll live swell, have money, and won’t have any trouble raising a family, not to mention healthcare costs reduced, no wonder people take it…


Bill Gates and other entrepenuer's couldn't have never started their revolution in Europe.

Others entrepreneurs such as? Yes, Europe is such a BAD place for business, that’s why it shares 50% of the world market with the US, and has a larger GDP…


Internatinal law is a joke. Especially when it comes to intellectual and artistic properties.
Law everywhere has miserably fail to protect intellectual property…yep, the US included.


Why do you think so many of the European countries voters have soundly rejected the EU constitution?

Ehhm…well it’s called here nationalism, fear to loose each country’s culture, due to exacerbated conservative speeches all over the EU


Why are there so many illegal firearms and ammo hidden all over Europe? It's not to protect national sovereignty.
Maybe some proof on those hidden stockpiles of weapons that are NOT to protect national sovereignty



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Huangjiaweishi

Originally posted by nightbreid
[Conventional wisdom and common sense favor the new superpower coming out of the east.


Now imagine if they merge.


I don't think it would be a bad thing as long as they don't get any imperialistic ambitions. Kashmir would certainly become a much more sensitve issue.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
If the EU had the same per capita income as the US, it would be the largest market by far but it doesn't, does it? If it such a Mecca for economic and intellectual freedom, why does the USA with less than half of Europe's population have nearly the same GDP?
Why are gov't over in Europe so afraid of allowing it's subjects the right of self-defense through the use of firearms? The last major civil conflict that happened here in the US was over 140 years ago. How many wars have the Euro's fought over the last century?
The current conflict in the MiddleEast was created after the Euro's carved up the Ottoman Empire for themselves after WW1. It really chaps my ass everytime I hear Euro's spouting off about how much wiser they are in international and social affairs when history shows them to be absolutely inept at it. WW1 was started over the killing and death of 1 man! The US got dragged into both world wars by the Euro's and their petty tribal squabbles. The multinational corp's currently in charge of both the US and European politcal systems are protecting Middle East oil fields to protect it's European markets not just the USA's. I've lived and worked in Europe, Korea and the Middle East and a poor person living in the worst ghetto in the US has a much greater opportunity of economic advancement in the US than any poor person living anywhere else in the world.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter

Originally posted by Duby78
yes, there is Russia

Incorrect. Russia's military is weak. Its military equipment is crappy. Its tanks are easy to destroy, its subs sink even if not attacked by an enemy and their fighters couldn't shoot down even one Israeli fighter during the Israeli-Syrian war in 1982.



WTF??!?!??!! That's a big fat pile of BS.


I'd love to see the look on your face when Russia becomes a super power once again. And it will.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Just leave the cows on a farm where they belong !!!



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
India is forever a (something)hole until it can obilish its caste system.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
It astonishes me at the ineptness at some people...

Never underestimate anyone.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter

Originally posted by planeman
I think that US power will decline

This will NEVER happen. Economically, the US is outperforming the rest of the world. In the first quarter of 2006 alone, the American economy has grown by 5.6%. Industrial production is growing. Unemployment is 5.1%.


This is a common misconception.

The U.S. economy is at the worst point it's ever been. We're 9 trillion dollars in debt and the private bankers who own the federal reserve (and who we owe the debt to) are soon going to engineer another depression.

Do a google search on rothschild, colonial scrip, and the 1913 federal reserve banking act. It might open your eyes to the true state of the American economy.


The US debt is testament to its economic superiority and industrial strength. Countries are willing to loan billions of dollars to the US with no hope of ever seeing that money again for the simple fact that the US may or may not outsource jobs to that particular country and share military/nuclear/private sector technology with that particular country.

The 1913 FRBA is a moot point. The US did not achieve its current dominant industrial strength until post WWII after singificant amounts of jobs had been created whcih relieve the Great Depression and when the GI Bill went into effect. People began going to school and once finished found jobs on a scale far larger than that of pre WWII years and at a rate which has risen every year since WWII ended.

The big R&D of the 60's and 70's were effects of better American high eduaction. Currently, American computing hardware and computing abilty are the best in the world, which makes for the best engineering and science in the world. America, simply put, has the best universities in the world. As long as this remains true, America will always be the most dominant economic force to be reckoned with.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Im serious about the cows !!!
I beg your pardon mr.inept

We will find out in 50 years.
Until then all the wishful thinkers and pesimists will have fun.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

by Ioseb_Jugashvili:

1- The whole objective of the war was to prevent the rise of communism in Vietnam, retreating and leaving South Vietnam to be invaded, they failed at this.

2- Freedom to be investigated by NSA, freedom to be arrested under suspicion of terrorism, freedom to have law enforcement infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy.

3- As well as other freedoms that you’re right, NO EUROPEAN country has such as: having government investigators look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities".

4- Communist:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement.
Communism and Socialism are not the same, both the USSR and China were socialist countries, not communist.

5- It’s the organization the world chose to help negotiate in the world, and regardless of their corruption it should be respected, and cleansed, not ignored.

6- you’re right about the “statemen” on tyrant thug and dictator being Mr George Bush one of them, you nailed that just right.

7- NWO? Should I search next to UFOs?

8- Nah…if you were so much better before social security, how come you’ve had it for 70 years? I look at France and Germany, and see people with good healthcare and houses, as well as cars. I go to the US and I don’t see that, how come?


REPLIES: I see you forgot to mention that I proved you wrong about our expenditures, but I'll go on........

1- The military won their war. The war, itself, was lost here at home thanks to academia, politics media and law, with the help of Kerry, Kennedy, Fonda, Murtha, etc.
2- This has all been gone over, and I'm not going to explain our system to you. No-one has lost any of their "rights."
3- If you really believe that, you need to do a lot more research.
4- Yeah.... common ownership of all means of production by "the state" (government), and it is a form of Marxism/Socialism, which has never worked for an extended time.
5- It should indeed be ignored, as they have failed as did the League of Nations. The world would be better off if a "United Democracies of Free Peoples" was started, at which time there would only be about 5 or 6 countries as members. Close the UN, tear off the roof, plant flowers, and use it as a monument to failed policies.
6- Ummmmmm....... When did Bush become a member?
7- You really need to read all on what the UN has planned for the world.
8- We've had it for 70 years because of ignorance of the ideals of this Republic, and because people have become used to "the Nanny State", much to their detriment, and the detriment of the country.
Good healthcare??? Germanies doctors are leaving en masse for greener pastures; in France, too. Canadians are coming here for medical treatment.
No nice houses or cars??? where do you hang out? 68% of those "in poverty" here own their own house and a car, at least one TV, telephones, air conditioners, and on and on.
You really should do more research before you propose your theories.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by warthog911

huangjiaweishi you still haven't responded to my post.Do you accept defeat? and a country whose future would be riddled with Aids cannot be even a superpower.I guess by the end of this centuary 75% of pop would be infected with HIV virus.


I am responding on his behalf..

By the end of this century AIDS will be abolished..this century's small pox. And India is at the forefront of developing a cure/vaccine.
AIDS cannot hamper India's growth towards being a superpower..
Why?
Simple: It hasn't hampered it so far!



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
well US knows that nothing last forever so they may try other strategies and remain a superpower
they may get back stage let some one else run the world



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili


EU policy on US is trade competition, and it is applied throught all the member countries. EU does not align with the US foreign policy, most continental countries do not support it, and those who do are reducing personnel, or completely withdrawn, such as Spain. The only country that fully supports US foreign policy, is UK.


Which is still a major rift of sorts in terms of consensus.My point still holds.


Russia will not be embraced by EU simply because many of the countries which recently joined the EU were once behind the Iron Wall, and dislike profoundly the Russians. Also, Russia's centralization, and the beginning of censorship again, as well as some of it's policies, such as weapons sales to questionable countries are not appreciated by the EU, no reason for EU to embrace Russia, as I said.
But what EU will seemingly do, is keep Russia as an economic partner.

Maybe 'embrace' was a incorrect term. I meant something like this:
France co-operates with Russia to a much greater extent than any other west european country. Its a simple example of majorly differing foreign policy within the EU.



Unquestionable nationalism doesn't exist either in China, India, or EU, I do not see why should it be a factor important to be a superpower, proof is there are loads of people who might be deemed "not" nationalistic in the US, as well as a dispute between nationalistic radicals, and liberals. This has no effect in the US status of "superpower". NK is supposedly wholy nationalistic, yet it's one of the poorest countries in the world.


I beg your pardon but there is no diluted form of nationalism. It may have levels of fervour but, basically you're either patriotic or not. NK is a poor analogy. When you have populations of the size of India/China, nationalism counts for a lot.
You need to be a country to be a superpower. That's my point..



I did NOT mention France as part of the Eurofigher program, yet France was part of the ECA, and the F/EFA, predecessors of Eurofighter. India, yes participates in Galileo program, yet China is a bigger participant than India, and puts a fifth of the budget for it, India’s contribution being lower, and the rest being EU funding.

I agree with the Joint military programs isssue, yet EU has a longer history of military cooperation than India and Russia have.


That's because EU member states existed before India ever became independant. The duration/history of military co-operation is again skewed. It doesn't give more weight to the EU being more of an entity today or give its military programs more cohesion than any other military programs. Israel and India are into military co-operation bigtime nowadays.



SAARC by no means can be possibly compared to EU, firstly because with the exception of India, all it’s members are poor. China and US are just observer nations, so they are not included. ASEAN’s total GDP is smaller than Germany’s, so it’s not credible that if a currency was developed in ASEAN, it would have a similar currency value. Again, India is in ASEAN, but only as an observer nation, so I’m talking of the present members. Same situation with SCO, with plans for an economic free zone , but no major monetary implementations, and no plans I could find, to implement a single currency among members.


I'm not comparing SAARC/ASEAN/SCO as competitors to EU superpowerdom.
I'm saying that the EU is body equivalent to these bodies, and just that;a collection of member states. Infact I definitely agree that SAARC,ASEAN,SCO etc can never be considered to be superpowers.




The EU has been in the works since 1951, and barely established in 1992.. It will accomplish much more than it already has, and it’s growth potential is big. China and India have enjoyed growth for the last 10 years, yet they are still years behind EU and US, economically and militarily. China is a country integrated by force, which is to be proven by time, maybe people in 10 years won’t like to be forced into things.


Irrelevant in terms of whether the EU can be a superpower. What you said still supports what I said before. The EU capability is not because of the EU. Its because of individual capability.



Also not to forget that EU has no internal strife, unlike India, which recently suffered a terrorist attack, and has a separatist faction in Kashmir.
Also, the instability in the region, primarily Pakistan, with which the latest conflict was in 1999 , instability the EU doesn’t have in it’s region.

C'mon.. If you pull Kashmir then I'm pulling the balkan issue,the IRA,the gibraltar issue,Cyprus(Greece/Turkey).. there's loads of strife there.
Kashmir is NOT an internal strife... maybe external but not internal..You have the world's 2nd largest muslim pop in India and that community whole-heartedly(along with other states,communities etc.) support the Indian cause in Kashmir.
The kashmir analogy fails.

Again maybe I should make myself clearer I feel.
IMHO you need to be a country or an entity equivalent to it to be considered as superpower. By your definition NATO is a superpower.



[edit on 3-8-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   
700 million live below poverty line,75% of population belongs to backward caste,millions of female infanticide,highest pop of AIDS in the world, Yeah it will become superpower


[edit on 3-8-2006 by warthog911]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

You are stigmatised by the current status of the US superpowerdom..


By all countries.

Every little matter in the world and a superpower is there providing money or doing the actual fighting. I would prefer no one noticing china and just doing business with them.

If indians feel their country should be a superpower there is nothing stopping them, although it will lead into conflict with other countries. Friends and enemies change fast in this modern day alliance system



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLIES: I see you forgot to mention that I proved you wrong about our expenditures, but I'll go on........
Seems like I did, but maybe if you added the increase in debt war or “defense” has caused, you’d see social programs would not be on top…


1.-The military won their war. The war, itself, was lost here at home thanks to academia, politics media and law, with the help of Kerry, Kennedy, Fonda, Murtha, etc`


The most immediate and enduring war aim was the preservation of a noncommunist South Vietnam. Satisfaction of this objective, policymakers believed, would not only save yet another people from the yoke of communism, but also serve such broader and more abstract war aims as demonstrating resolve and the credibility of US commitments, thwarting the fall of other Asian dominoes to communism, containing Chinese expansionism, and meeting the challenge posed by communist-inspired wars of national liberation
By retreating, and losing it’s primary war aim, the military did NOT win the war, regardless of what caused the withdrawal. The US made no progress in suffocating resistence, and even govt offcials accepted they even wanted the defeat to be mitigated.


John McNaughton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, declared in a memo that "70 percent" of the US purpose in Vietnam was "to avoid a humiliating defeat

In the end, the United States failed either to avert a communist takeover of South Vietnam, or to avoid humiliation, loss of prestige, and domestic recrimination. Finally, something acknowledged by the US Army War College:

The communists may not have won the war in 1973, but they certainly did in 1975, and they did so in part because they correctly gauged the depth of American public and congressional aversion to jumping back into the war.




2-

This has all been gone over, and I'm not going to explain our system to you. No-one has lost any of their "rights."
Eight states certainly don’t feel that way.

Eight states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana and Vermont) and 396 cities and counties (including New York City; Los Angeles; Dallas; Chicago; Eugene, Oregon; Philadelphia; and Cambridge, Massachusetts) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.

3-

If you really believe that, you need to do a lot more research.
I did, in fact, I read the The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, also known as Public Law 107-56. I researched about the full scope of what “law” enforcement agencies can do, in case they even suspect someone “could” be related to terrorism. Even if that suspicion comes from ethnicity. My mind did not change…
4-

Yeah.... common ownership of all means of production by "the state" (government), and it is a form of Marxism/Socialism, which has never worked for an extended time.
If you knew anything about Marxism/Socialism, you’d know Communism is the Evolution of socialism, in Communism, there is no state, that’s why it has never existed. Socialism didn’t work in Russia because of over expenditure, not the case in China, which remains ideologically socialist, barely implementing capitalist measures, yet not nationwide.
5-

It should indeed be ignored, as they have failed as did the League of Nations. The world would be better off if a "United Democracies of Free Peoples" was started, at which time there would only be about 5 or 6 countries as members. Close the UN, tear off the roof, plant flowers, and use it as a monument to failed policies.
And one of those United “Democracies” of “Free” Peoples would conveniently be the US, right?. The world will rather have UN, anytime.
6-

Ummmmmm....... When did Bush become a member?
Since you said statemen, I assumed you meant Country leaders with representation in UN

7-

You really need to read all on what the UN has planned for the world.
Maybe you’d like to share your insight on what evil plans has UN for the world, I found none.
8-

We've had it for 70 years because of ignorance of the ideals of this Republic, and because people have become used to "the Nanny State", much to their detriment, and the detriment of the country.


Good healthcare??? Germanies doctors are leaving en masse for greener pastures; in France, too. Canadians are coming here for medical treatment.
I was not aware of the German and French situation, maybe you’d like to share proof on that masse movement of doctors? I didn’t mention the Canadians at all, I don’t know why you brought it up.


No nice houses or cars??? where do you hang out? 68% of those "in poverty" here own their own house and a car, at least one TV, telephones, air conditioners, and on and on.
You really should do more research before you propose your theories.
My bad, I did not mean there were NO nice houses or cars, I’ll address it correctly.

Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country, a small increase from the preceding year.
I understand your view on “poverty”, yet the fact they have those facilites is because of the same social programs you criticize, without which they would have not any of those, and poor population would be significantly larger.

The purpose of most social programs are to reduce poverty, and help empoverished people attain sustainability, you think your country would do better with more poor people?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by warthog911
700 million live below poverty line,75% of population belongs to backward caste,millions of female infanticide,highest pop of AIDS in the world, Yeah it will become superpower


[edit on 3-8-2006 by warthog911]


not that this deserves a reply but we're denying ignorance here..
Could you source the info you've posted?

700 million Below poverty line: WRONG its around 25% now which is 250 million..
millions of female infanticide: ok..not deniable and a problem;but a show-stopper?investment-inhibitior, growth inhibitor, condoned and ignored by governing bodies?
NO,NO,NO,NO..

highest population of AIDS in the world: No South Africa has that..anyways this isn't impeding anything in terms of growth as well..

1). It is a serious offence on ATS to knowingly post incorrect info.
2). If you're looking at a orthodox definition of a superpower then get with the times..
3). You're talking about a utopian ideology which doesn't equate to being a superpower in the first place..



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join