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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Honestly guys......

Does poverty, aids and whatever you have a problem with even matter when the problem IS BEING DEALT WITH???

Maybe you should consider the direction india is heading INSTEAD of its current state




posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   
I agree with chinawhite here. What is the advantage of being a Superpower again??

I would much rather that India & China continue their economic progress and better the lives of their citizens, than think about dominating World Politics.

Oh and i find it extremely pretentious that some posters in this thread shoot their mouths off on Internal Indian issues without the slightest knowledge of ground realities.

Honestly people, read up first.

Apparently 75% of Indians earn less than $1 a day, but as DD pointed out $1 can get you 2 full meals and also a saving of 30% in India. That too in the 'high cost of living' urban centres. It can get you much more in the rural areas.

The Caste system is a much much more complex beast than people tend to think of it as. Its a common misconception that the Caste system is a rigid heirarchial structure. Infact it is anythig but. The Caste system is a fluid structure that goes about frequent changes. What is considered high-caste today might not be the same tomorrow. Infact there are several documented cases as recent as 50 years ago when a section of society VOULANTARILY shifted its caste status from lower to upper. There are also sections that shifted the other way. Why you ask, well to get all the benfits that the government gives lower castes. ironic aint it.

Now i aint saying that the caste system is right, but that people without an understanding of the same should refrain from making sweeping general statements about it.

In todays India you have a better chance of securing higher education and a job after that if you belong to a lower caste.

India & China have got their share of problems, and they will deal with them, how they see fit. They certainly dont need any one else to tell them what to do. Especially people who need to get their own house in order first



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Hardly, as the expenditures went DOWN last year. Also, Social Security is considered a "non-governmental expense", which is crap, but if you add the Social services to the SS amount, it is DOUBLE what is spent on military and defense




BUDGETTED: Current Military, $563 billion:
• Military Personnel $110 billion
• Operation & Maint. $162 billion
• Procurement $90 billion
• Research & Dev. $72 billion
• Construction $8 billion
• Family Housing $4 billion
• DoD misc. $4 billion
• Retired Pay $49 billion
• DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
• NASA (50%) $8 billion
• International Security $8 billion
• Homeland Secur. (military) $27 billion
• Exec. Office of President $2 billion
• other military (non-DoD) $2 billion

Estimate of Funding Provided to Date for Defense Activities,
Iraqi Security Forces, Diplomatic Operations, and
Foreign Aid
The Congress has appropriated $432 billion for Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation
Enduring Freedom, Operation Noble Eagle, and other activities in support of the war
on terrorism since September 2001, CBO estimates (see Table 2).2 Those funds were
provided to the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and other agencies
in five regular appropriation acts and seven supplemental appropriation acts

Past Military,
$439 billion:
• Veterans’ Benefits $76 billion
• Interest on national debt $353 billion (80% est. to be created by military spending)
Ok, can we do that math again please?

REPLY: Condemnation or theories do not mean it has happened. I'm not surprised about the list of cities.... all bastions of Liberalism and Marxism (and poverty and welfare).
Well, we wouldn’t know since the government is not forced to divulge wether it does it not, problem is what it can do, not if it has happened or not.
Eight states and 396 cities and counties…bastions of Liberalism (which is evil…boo) and Marxism…America is communist then? And poverty (the same poverty you dismiss?) Welfare (misspent money, better spent on bombs, right?)



REPLY: Yeah...... over 30 years of research means nothing. Communism never existed
Hmmmm ..... The Soviet Union; Cuba; North Korea; China... I'll not even waste my time with that one.
Communism is a theory, not applied yet, since it’s ultimate goal is NO STATE, that’s right, no political parties, contrary to what happened in the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and China. The communism you refer to, the idea of marx, has nothing to do with what people nowadays call “communism”.
Socialism comes from capitalism, and communism is like Utopia, unreachable…maybe spend another 30 years of research to read Marx?

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.




REPLY: Why wouldn't it be? The principles of individual liberty and freedom has been shown to be the answer to the human condition, and has raised the baseline of human existance more than anything ever tried. Why do you think so many millions of people bust their asses to get here? The world would rather have the UN?? If something better was offered, it might be a different story, but we'll never know unless it is tried.


So many millions bust their asses because of economics, simple as that. Mexicans hate your guts since you stole half their country, nevertheless they go to your country merely to work, if they had the same economic opportunities in Mexico, you’d see NONE in the US.
That’s just an example, since if any of the immigrants going to the US for economic reasons had better economic opportunities, they would rather be in their country anytime, than being in a country that has an issue with immigrants,

Ironical, since the very bases of it come from immigrants as well… Individual Liberty and Freedom is something the American people are giving up, especially when their government scares them to be willing to give those liberties up.

How does it scare them? Different “alert” colors, constant morbid news, portraying aggression all the time, to keep the American people in fear they might be threatened.
Being terrorists, new “danger” found in foods, medicines, etc. Agreed, individual liberty and freedom are not only good but necessary, yet the US cannot be seen as the example of this. The world needs a strengthened UN, cleansed. Not the US policing the world, which is what you suggest with those United Democracies of Free People.

Yep, the world would take UN over the US


With America's image declining in many parts of the world, favorability ratings for the United States continue to trail those of other major countries. In Europe, as well as predominantly Muslim countries, the U.S. is generally less popular than Germany, France, Japan, and China.

America's global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan. The war in Iraq is a continuing drag on opinions of the United States, not only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and Asia as well. And despite growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace.



And one of those United “Democracies” of “Free” Peoples would conveniently be the US, right?. The world will rather have UN, anytime.



REPLY .... a response I would expect from anyone who still believes Socialism can work, and who doesn't mind if they are governed/ruled by people they do not elect and cannot fire; by those who feel they were born to rule. History is rife with them.


So I now believe socialism can work? Not quite, social programs against poverty are a means to an objective. They are not meant to be forever applied, but to be a temporary solution, while the problem, poverty, is solved.

Poverty being solved by increasing jobs, education and income, so people don’t need the programs. It’s not my fault if correct measures aren’t taken against poverty, which should be a priority to any country, who actually cares for it’s people.

Socialism is quite another matter, nothing to do with social care, and relating them is just dumb, sorry. I do mind who governs my country, and have the choice to both elect and fire who governs me.

Your point is taken on Germany, a situation I wasn’t aware of, yet you spoke as well of France, yet maybe you forget to mention it.


REPLY: Over 4 trillion dollars has been spent in "the war on poverty" over the past 35 years, and all we have is 4 Trillion dollars worth of poverty. You can't lift someone from poverty anymore than you can go to the gym and work out for them, and expect a result. There's a big difference between a "hand up" and a "handout." Welfare reform has worked quite well, and if much support was removed ot cut back, you'd see many of those people find jobs real quick.... jobs which are currently held by illegals.


Four trillion dollars over 35 years is not that big compared to almost one trillion going to Defense spending this year alone. As I said, social programs for poverty are not to lift them, but to aliviate it temporarily, while the causes of it are solved. Jobs held by illegals are jobs unwanted by most American people, if not all. Your point on the illegals simply doesn’t fly.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by
They won't either way. Even if the EU were to form into a super state(highly unlikely at present)at best they'd equal the US not surpass it and only if they adopt the free-market economic model(which the French and Germans wouldn't stand for). And the EU GDP per capita is significantly lower than the US.
Equalling the only superpower would make EU superpower as well, wouldn’t it? Also, free-market economic model? Like this?

The Union currently has a common single market consisting of a customs union, a single currency managed by the European Central Bank
EU GDP per capita is lower mainly because of economically weaker new members recently joining, which lowers the average of EU.



Originally posted by danwild6
Yeah and they died their as well.
OMG, did EU pass a Patriot Act as well? If so you might be right…




They were a military superpower not an economic or political. China is a fascist country. With the exception of agricultural countryside(which could be China's ultimate downfall) China has given in to the dark side of pure capitalism. China could become a superpower but I don't think it is nearly as likely as people like to predict. And Russia may achieve economic power maybe even political power in international affairs but that to is far from guaranteed.
Well I wouldn’t want to think you’re a fool, since you must know that in order for USSR to sustain big guns, many people and nukes you need money right? Not economical or political? Well, in order to manufacture the massive amount of armament, and research they did I guess they must have been very poor…Political…they were the entity that brought balance to the US, and both countries foreing policies where focused on each other…guessed that made them unimportant too…



Why? We'd be the ones to do it anyway when the collective will of the UN finally decided that the US could take action.

UN decided that the US could take action? Then why where weapons inspectors still around when US invaded?


Before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would "not be in conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their responsibilities as an occupying power.
UN inspection teams were searching Iraq for these alleged weapons for nearly four months prior to the invasion and were willing to continue, but were forced out by the onset of war in spite of their requests for more time.[6][7]
Ironically, during the ensuing conflict, the United States' used depleted uranium artillery shells, which disperse radioactive material upon striking hardened targets, and white phosphorous, an incendiary compound. Both radiological weapons and chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction. According to the United Nations, if used as an offensive weapon, as has been alleged, white phosphorous may be classified as illegal chemical warfare.[

Anything you’d like to add?





The military makes up the single largest at $400 bilion a year but if you put Social Security and Medicare together they account for aroung $600 billion at present.

Nope, I’ll have to repost figures? Ok…I’ll resume it, though the complete post is above.


BUDGETTED: Current Military, $563 billion:
Past Military: $439 billion
Iraq & Afghanistan Wars $432 billion
Grand Total: $1.434 Trillion
Policing the World: Priceless…


[edit on 4-8-2006 by Ioseb_Jugashvili]

[edit on 4-8-2006 by Ioseb_Jugashvili]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by nogirt
The USSR no longer exist and they were hardly a superpower.


Really?!!

I guess that's why they had the capability to literally walk over the whole of western Europe(all those high PCI/GDP countries) w/o anything except nukes stopping them from doing so.
And I guess the Cold War was between a Superpower(the US ofcourse) and a...
plain ol' country??!


What are you talking about? The USSR was given half of Eastern Europe after the Nazis slaughtered 12 million Soviets. The rest is propoganda. The USSR failed for a reason: horrible economy. Everything about the USSR's military strength was hocus pocus.

And in India, they do # on the streets.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Honestly guys......

Does poverty, aids and whatever you have a problem with even matter when the problem IS BEING DEALT WITH???

Maybe you should consider the direction india is heading INSTEAD of its current state


IT is quite simple: India still has a caste system, rampant disease and an overall standard of living that made New Orleans 2 days after Katrina look like a world class city compared to many parts of India.

People in India are still largely uneducated and poor. What direction is India heading in?



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: "Had" is the operative term there.... when many of those countries had less than they do now to defend themselves. I doubt very much the armed forces in Russia would be willing, or possibly able, to do so again.


Well in my opinion they can still manage that had they wanted to but they seem to be changing the world without having to resort to such brutal means.

As to your earlier numbers on the US internal revenue income...

taxprof.typepad.com.../photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg

That's my picture contribution and here is something in numbers...

www.whitehouse.gov...

Why do you think GDP has anything to do with federal revenue income? Did you really think the US government spent 11 trillion dollars a year ( well i guess they could still manage it) and still managed to impoverish it's own citizens?

Stellar



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nogirt
What are you talking about? The USSR was given half of Eastern Europe after the Nazis slaughtered 12 million Soviets.


Actually the USSR had to fight for most of that and the 'giving away' was conducted very much against Nazi wishes. I guess one can make the case for Hitler just being a Bogey man so that the World could be divided between a conquering USSR and USA but i don't believe you either think that or could prove it.


The rest is propoganda.


Most things are.


The USSR failed for a reason: horrible economy.


Economic theory does not apply to states like the USSR so don't try to pretend that it does.' Economically' speaking the USSR could have gone on as it did for many more decades had it chosen to put down the riots by force ( a easy task) but it chose instead to reform behind the guise of 'losing' all it's might.


Everything about the USSR's military strength was hocus pocus.


Well i am a patient man so feel free to tell me WHY you believe that when so few others shared your current view at the time. Why is the 'paper tiger' still readier to fight and win a nuclear war than the USA was and is?

Stellar



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Equalling the only superpower would make EU superpower as well, wouldn’t it? Also, free-market economic model? Like this?

The Union currently has a common single market consisting of a customs union, a single currency managed by the European Central Bank
EU GDP per capita is lower mainly because of economically weaker new members recently joining, which lowers the average of EU.


Yes it would but that is only if the EU goes all out and basically becomes Americanized. You'd have to sacrifice alot to gain the ability to influence international affairs the way the US does. Which I don't think europeans would like. Basically it comes down to this. Would you prefer to have a powerful military or a good welfare system. You really can't have both. And as far as the common market is merely a trading mechanism that standardizes quality control of products and other barriers to trade. The single currency isn't even EU wide and probably won't be for sometime(if ever).

And yes the additiion of new members to the EU drove the EU's GDP per capita down but it also drove the EU's total GDP(which you refered to previously)up. Sorry pal but you can't have it both ways.



Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
OMG, did EU pass a Patriot Act as well? If so you might be right…


I guess I'm right then.

EU Patriot Act


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well I wouldn’t want to think you’re a fool, since you must know that in order for USSR to sustain big guns, many people and nukes you need money right? Not economical or political? Well, in order to manufacture the massive amount of armament, and research they did I guess they must have been very poor…Political…they were the entity that brought balance to the US, and both countries foreing policies where focused on each other…guessed that made them unimportant too…


And do you know how the average Soviet citizen lived. The government devouted the vast majority of their resources to the military while controling the economy. The US devouts more to defense now then the Soviets did then and the American people are more prosperous than ever. And you do know the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore right




Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
UN decided that the US could take action? Then why where weapons inspectors still around when US invaded?


No. What I meant was why should the US wait around for permission from Russia, France and China to do something that we're going to be the ones that do it anyways.


Originally posted by Ioseb_jugashvili
Before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated blah, blah



Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Anything you’d like to add?


Bullocks...


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Nope, I’ll have to repost figures? Ok…I’ll resume it, though the complete post is above.


So you added the past 5yrs of expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan together. If I did that my figures would have been alot different as well. Anyone can play with figures my friend but it looks like you need some practice.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   


The US devouts more to defense now then the Soviets did then and the American people are more prosperous than ever.


Were you being serious or sarcastic with this statement? Even Nicole Richie would have to admit the U.S. economy is not doing very well at this moment in time.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Were you being serious or sarcastic with this statement? Even Nicole Richie would have to admit the U.S. economy is not doing very well at this moment in time.


Nicole Richie? Oh I see your trying to tell me how the economy is so bad even no talent media whores like Nicole Richie are down on their luck. Well since the stock market is up about 10% from its high at the end of ninties I would suggest she invest her money in a 401K instead of putting it up her nose.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Wow this really got off topic.... I thought it was about India.....



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   
yeah and the stuff on India is all abt # on roads..

I mean if you have a miltary that is formidable by any measure(numerical/technological/skill),an economy that is growing at rates seconded by no 'develpoed' country,you have a middle class that's greater than the population of the US,you churn out 3 million graduates(400,000 engineers) every year; looks like you're on your to becoming a superpower..
NOT!!!
You still got a bunch ppl sh*tting on the road!! Can't be a superpower now can you?


..no wait there's more..

New Orleans AFTER Katrina is a world class city in comparision to some parts of India
So?
Now I've heard it all!!!

And to sum it up..
The USSR was hardly ever a superpower it seems!!! 'hocus pocus' aye?
StellarX there's no point being patient here. He's even not talking about Russia here; He's saying the USSR was hocus pocus!!

This is the military forum. Statements like that will get you nowhere.
Nogirt, really enlightening you are..



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
yeah and the stuff on India is all abt # on roads..

I mean if you have a miltary that is formidable by any measure(numerical/technological/skill),an economy that is growing at rates seconded by no 'develpoed' country,you have a middle class that's greater than the population of the US,you churn out 3 million graduates(400,000 engineers) every year; looks like you're on your to becoming a superpower..
NOT!!!
You still got a bunch ppl sh*tting on the road!! Can't be a superpower now can you?


..no wait there's more..

New Orleans AFTER Katrina is a world class city in comparision to some parts of India
So?
Now I've heard it all!!!

And to sum it up..
The USSR was hardly ever a superpower it seems!!! 'hocus pocus' aye?
StellarX there's no point being patient here. He's even not talking about Russia here; He's saying the USSR was hocus pocus!!

This is the military forum. Statements like that will get you nowhere.
Nogirt, really enlightening you are..


Half the adult population in India cannot read.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by risitar
Long live the British East India Company!

Now that's just pathetic.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by risitar

Originally posted by risitar
Long live the British East India Company!

Now that's just pathetic.


You do realize you posted that yourself



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6

Originally posted by risitar

Originally posted by risitar
Long live the British East India Company!

Now that's just pathetic.


You do realize you posted that yourself

wow



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by nogirt
Half the adult population in India cannot read.


Really?..
I thought it was 40%.. thats 60% literate.. Thats 600million+..
its ok nogirt..
you had me at the road-sh*t bit... you had me at the road # bit...



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by nogirt
IT is quite simple: India still has a caste system, rampant disease and an overall standard of living that made New Orleans 2 days after Katrina look like a world class city compared to many parts of India.

People in India are still largely uneducated and poor. What direction is India heading in?


For the stake of agreement, they are all true. But for certain areas of india they are improving. Agree now?



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by nogirt
IT is quite simple: India still has a caste system, rampant disease and an overall standard of living that made New Orleans 2 days after Katrina look like a world class city compared to many parts of India.

People in India are still largely uneducated and poor. What direction is India heading in?


For the stake of agreement, they are all true. But for certain areas of india they are improving. Agree now?


THe certain areas of India that are improving are those at the top of the caste and those of the (American) white collar caste. They still have caste system. There are people in this caste system forced to live in ghettos amongst themselves and because of the rules against touching (and seeing) these people, they are denied certain medical care because they cannot be touched.

It is a large country, and I do not believe that if they continue to abide by the caste and as long as half the adult population remains illiterate, that they will ever make any significant improvements. They are also appear to be very stubborn people (outside of still having a caste). For some reason, Bill Gates has to donate hundreds of billions of dollars to 'Indian charities' in order for him to establish a call center, tech support and outsource whatever other jobs Americans will not take.

As for India becoming as strong or stronger than the US: not in my lifetime.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join