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.
WW1 was not lost either, and they did lose in Vietnam...but so did the US.
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.
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.
Maybe people would stop thinking that if the US asked the only authority to decide, the UN
Any proof to that? Military spending seems to be the biggest expense.
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.
Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: The VN War was lost right here in America; we won every single major battle in-theatre.
REPLY: No European country has the same individual liberties and freedoms Americans have, because they are all basically Marxist/Socialist in nature.
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.
Communism and Socialism are not the same, both the USSR and China were socialist countries, not 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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by crgintx
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.
so much for very few rights guaranteed… List of Human Rights Articles in Europe by Country
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.
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…
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.
Law everywhere has miserably fail to protect intellectual property…yep, the US included.
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?
Maybe some proof on those hidden stockpiles of weapons that are NOT to protect national sovereignty
Why are there so many illegal firearms and ammo hidden all over Europe? It's not to protect national sovereignty.
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.
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.
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.
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 and Socialism are not the same, both the USSR and China were socialist countries, not 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Daedalus3
You are stigmatised by the current status of the US superpowerdom..
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…
Originally posted by zappafan1
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`
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.
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
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
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.
Eight states certainly don’t feel that way.
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 (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.
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…
If you really believe that, you need to do a lot more research.
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.
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.
And one of those United “Democracies” of “Free” Peoples would conveniently be the US, right?. The world will rather have UN, anytime.
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.
Since you said statemen, I assumed you meant Country leaders with representation in UN
Ummmmmm....... When did Bush become a member?
Maybe you’d like to share your insight on what evil plans has UN for the world, I found none.
You really need to read all on what the UN has planned for the world.
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.
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.
Good healthcare??? Germanies doctors are leaving en masse for greener pastures; in France, too. Canadians are coming here for medical treatment.
My bad, I did not mean there were NO nice houses or cars, I’ll address it correctly.
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.
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.
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.
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]