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

en.wikipedia.org... (Global Power)
en.wikipedia.org... (Superpower)
en.wikipedia.org... (Hyperpower)

-

[edit on 7-8-2006 by Sepiroth]

Originally posted by danwild6
Yes it would but that is only if the EU goes all out and basically becomes Americanized.

Americanized? Care to explain further? I could interpret you mean Americanizing would be…invading foreign countries over oil…mmm, putting a trade imbargo on an evil island off EU’s coast? Putting up puppet friendly governments after invading a country? Jailing foreign citizens without rights or trial in the same evil island before mentioned? The list goes on…maybe you’d like to explain what you mean by “Americanizing”

You'd have to sacrifice alot to gain the ability to influence international affairs the way the US does.

Sacrifice? Europe already influences international affairs, but you can rest assured, it doesn’t want to do so the way US does (basically, your on my side, or I try to sink you…not good diplomacy)

Which I don't think europeans would like.

You think right, the Europeans (except zibi…lol) do not wish to meddle in foreign affairs the way US does

Would you prefer to have a powerful military or a good welfare system.

Mmm…tough choice…how about this? I cooperate with my neighbors so I don’t need a huge army, and can have a good welfare system. Seems rights, doesn’t it?

You really can't have both.

You’re right, you can’t, but what would be better for your country? Police the world, or take good care of your citizens needs?

And as far as the common market is merely a trading mechanism that standardizes quality control of products and other barriers to trade.

Well…let’s put all internal policies, to see what the EU common market “merely” is, shall we?

Free trade of goods and services among member states (an aim further extended to three of the four EFTA states by the European Economic Area, EEA).
• A common EU competition law controlling anti-competitive activities of companies (through antitrust law and merger control) and member states (through the State Aids regime).
• The Schengen treaty allowed removal of internal border controls and harmonisation of external controls between its member states. This excludes the UK and Ireland, which have derogations, but includes the non-EU members Iceland and Norway. Switzerland also voted in 2005 to become part of the Schengen zone.
• Freedom for citizens of its member states to live and work anywhere within the EU with their spouses and children, provided they can support themselves (also extended to the other EEA states and Switzerland). This has led to a gross anomaly whereby family related social welfare benefits are payable by the member state where an EU citizen is employed, even where the family of the worker are resident elsewhere in the Union.
• Free movement of capital between member states (and other EEA states).
• Harmonisation of government regulations, corporations law and trademark registrations.
• Eurozone, a single currency area with the euro (excluding the UK and Denmark, which have derogations). Sweden, although not having a specific opt-out clause, has not joined the ERM II, voluntarily excluding itself from the monetary union.
• A large amount of environmental policy co-ordination throughout the Union.
• A Common Agricultural Policy and a Common Fisheries Policy.
• Common system of indirect taxation, the VAT, as well as common customs duties and excises on various products.
• Funding for the development of disadvantaged regions — structural and cohesion funds, as well as the emergency financial aid — the solidarity fund.

The single currency isn't even EU wide and probably won't be for sometime(if ever).

It will eventually…maybe not for sometime…but well, Rome wasn’t built in a day

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.

I don’t intend to, you talked about EU’s GDP per capita is lower, and I explained why. Yes those new countries add up to the EU total GDP, but also are raising their GDP per capita, so sometime in the future, EU could be above in both ways.

I guess I'm right then.

Mmm…I read your link yet it states who you called and who called you will be recorded by phone companies and given to governments…but that’s it? Can’t see the comparison to the Patriot Act…sorry, but…you’re still wrong.


EU Patriot Act

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.

You have the Soviet figures of how much did they invest in their GDP? …well of course the US spends more since it’s economy has grown ever since the Soviets ceased to exist

And you do know the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore righ

And you think I thought otherwise?

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.

Same reason why China hasn’t invaded Taiwan…they’re going to do it anyway…why negotiate with the US when they might as well just bomb Taiwan into oblivion and then occupy it? Unilateral decisions to “liberate” countries without the world’s approval resembles more other times…ever heard of fascism and imperialism? Cheap shot, I’ll grant it, nevertheless accurate…

Bullocks...

…right

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.

Mmm…well congress just approved $300b this year alone for Iraq and Afghanistan…

As of early 2006, Congress had already approved an additional funding total of $300 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And before, neither where Afganistan or Iraq where included in the budget… If you had added the past 5 years of social services spending, against the five years of military spending (which I did not add)
•

For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion
• For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
• For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.
• For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
• For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
• For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
• This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.

It still is below the total military spending, not to count the interests on the debt caused by military spending…I have plenty of practice with figures, don’t worry, yet I wish I was playing and not speaking truth…too bad I’m not

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Americanized? Care to explain further? I could interpret you mean Americanizing would be…invading foreign countries over oil…mmm, putting a trade imbargo on an evil island off EU’s coast? Putting up puppet friendly governments after invading a country? Jailing foreign citizens without rights or trial in the same evil island before mentioned? The list goes on…maybe you’d like to explain what you mean by “Americanizing”

Clandestinely help move detainees across borders without due process. Support evil dictators(i.e. Castro)out of economic interest regardless of their human rights record. .. I guess your halfway there already

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Sacrifice? Europe already influences international affairs, but you can rest assured, it doesn’t want to do so the way US does (basically, your on my side, or I try to sink you…not good diplomacy)

Influence? Could you point to some examples.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
You think right, the Europeans (except zibi…lol) do not wish to meddle in foreign affairs the way US does

Actually I've heard that sentiment expressed by a number of people. Besides you do have a track record of foreign involvement thats lets just say less than encouraging.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Mmm…tough choice…how about this? I cooperate with my neighbors so I don’t need a huge army, and can have a good welfare system. Seems rights, doesn’t it?

Sure but you're not a superpower if you do that.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
You’re right, you can’t, but what would be better for your country? Police the world, or take good care of your citizens needs?

I agree. Believe me I'd like nothing more than if we pulled up our tents and went home.

Originally posted by Ioseb)Jugashvili
Well…let’s put all internal policies, to see what the EU common market “merely” is, shall we?

The US possessed those benefits when we become a nation over 200yrs ago.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
It will eventually…maybe not for sometime…but well, Rome wasn’t built in a day

Don't be so sure many of the EU populace aren't very happy with how the Euro has effected their personal finances

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
I don’t intend to, you talked about EU’s GDP per capita is lower, and I explained why. Yes those new countries add up to the EU total GDP, but also are raising their GDP per capita, so sometime in the future, EU could be above in both ways.

Maybe, but around the mid-21st century their will be as many Americans as their will be Europeans.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Mmm…I read your link yet it states who you called and who called you will be recorded by phone companies and given to governments…but that’s it? Can’t see the comparison to the Patriot Act…sorry, but…you’re still wrong.

Yeah like libraries telling the government what you've been reading.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
You have the Soviet figures of how much did they invest in their GDP? …well of course the US spends more since it’s economy has grown ever since the Soviets ceased to exist

I found this in a NATO report

Soviet military expenditures are estimated to represent some 15 to 17% of its GDP

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Same reason why China hasn’t invaded Taiwan…they’re going to do it anyway…why negotiate with the US when they might as well just bomb Taiwan into oblivion and then occupy it? Unilateral decisions to “liberate” countries without the world’s approval resembles more other times…ever heard of fascism and imperialism? Cheap shot, I’ll grant it, nevertheless accurate…

China won't invade Taiwan because they can't. Taiwan itself has a powerful conventional military and it could count on the direct support of the US and Japan in any confrontation with China. And the PRC's military is at current second rate at best. But if they could I bet they would.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Mmm…well congress just approved $300b this year alone for Iraq and Afghanistan…

As of early 2006, Congress had already approved an additional funding total of $300 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And before, neither where Afganistan or Iraq where included in the budget… If you had added the past 5 years of social services spending, against the five years of military spending (which I did not add)
•

For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion
• For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
• For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.
• For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
• For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
• For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
• This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.

It still is below the total military spending, not to count the interests on the debt caused by military spending…I have plenty of practice with figures, don’t worry, yet I wish I was playing and not speaking truth…too bad I’m not

Now add in Medicare and Medicaid.

Originally posted by danwild6
Clandestinely help move detainees across borders without due process. Support evil dictators(i.e. Castro)out of economic interest regardless of their human rights record. .. I guess your halfway there already

Apparently CIA conducted all operations, and the issue is under review by Parliament. CIA violated EU law in doing so btw…oh, also, at least one of the abducted foreign citizens, Canadian to be specific was moved to Syria…which brings me to my next point.

Evil dictators as the US-ally against Terrorism, Syria right? I do not support Castro, but it’s better that someone helps Cuba, instead of starving them to death, as the US intends to do so they “want” to change to a “democratic” government…

Human rights record…well, that is one area the US has certainly NO RIGHT to talk about, maybe if they actually protected human rights instead of violating them….and Syria, does not have a better Human rights record than Cuba, last time I checked…Saddam was supported by US as well, or Batista, remember him?

Influence? Could you point to some examples.

Sure, though you might be disappointed if you expect, US-kind influence…

the European Union mounted military operations by working with NATO to enforce the peace in Macedonia, leading police missions in Bosnia and Macedonia, and undertaking -range military deployment, which was in the Congo.

At the end of this year, the EU will take over command of a large peacekeeping mission in Bosnia from NATO through an arrangement known as Berlin Plus, under which the EU can use NATO military assets. NATO, however, will retain a presence in this region after the handover.

Peacekeeping counts as influence, right? After all, the US is keeping the “peace” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Actually I've heard that sentiment expressed by a number of people. Besides you do have a track record of foreign involvement thats lets just say less than encouraging.

The US record is not any better by any means, yet they do involve themselves in foreign countries. Besides, we’re talking about the EU here, which is different to the Europe which did have bad foreign policy once.

Sure but you're not a superpower if you do that.

Well, not at a single country, agree on that, but as big entity, it can be achieved.

I agree. Believe me I'd like nothing more than if we pulled up our tents and went home.

Glad to see we do agree in something, not only you’d like it, it would be healthy for your economy.

The US possessed those benefits when we become a nation over 200yrs ago.

Was it composed of very different countries with different histories and policies? Think not…

Don't be so sure many of the EU populace aren't very happy with how the Euro has effected their personal finances

Well, the Euro is a stronger currency overall that all of the currencies it replaced, and it still is adapting to the change, and if it was that bad, new members wouldn’t be preparing their economies to change to the Euro. Some facts on why Euro is good for EU:

One of the most important benefits of the euro will be lowered exchange rate risks, which will make it easier to invest across borders.

The removal of bank transaction charges that previously were a cost to both individuals and businesses when exchanging from one national currency to another. Although not an enormous cost, multiplied thousands of times, the savings add up across the entire economy.

Another significant advantage of switching to the euro is the creation of deeper financial markets. Financial markets on the continent are expected to be far more liquid and flexible than they were in the past.

Another effect of the common European currency is that differences in prices — in particular in price levels — should decrease.

Improved macroeconomic stability is an important benefit of the euro for the entire continent.

And the list goes on… Information on the Euro, Wikipedia

Maybe, but around the mid-21st century their will be as many Americans as their will be Europeans.

But we don’t know how either economy will be faring by around the mid-21st century, to far into the future to know who’ll be tops.

Yeah like libraries telling the government what you've been reading.

And that is comparable to being arrested for suspicion of possible, maybe, could be, a terrorist? Not quite, I think.

I found this in a NATO report

Soviet military expenditures are estimated to represent some 15 to 17% of its GDP

An estimate, firstly, then, based on what intelligence? The Soviets where well dug behind their Iron Wall, I doubt NATO would acquire precise intelligence on what was the Soviet Spending yet noted.
You do spend more nowadays than the Soviets at their final stages, which is not something I’d be proud of, personally.

China won't invade Taiwan because they can't. Taiwan itself has a powerful conventional military and it could count on the direct support of the US and Japan in any confrontation with China. And the PRC's military is at current second rate at best. But if they could I bet they would.

China won’t invade Taiwan because:
1º Taiwan isn’t going in a path to independence.
2º It would hurt it’s regional interests
3º Would hurt Chinese interests with and in the US
That’s called diplomacy, they could say…hell, that’s a small island, we’d take it before the US knew, yet they don’t. The point is you stated, that why negotiate, when you’re the one doing it anyway, answer is, sometimes there are good reasons not to take such decisions, yet some countries take it anyway, regardless of what the world says, or how adversely it affects them…example: US.

Taiwan has a very small conventional force in comparison to the PRC, and the PRC has been constantly updating it’s forces and equipment, not to forget, it does NOT depend on foreign technology and support, unlike Taiwan. Without foreign support, Taiwan doesn’t stand a chance, and they know it.

Japan has a constitution, curiously enough, imposed by it’s conquerors, the US of course, that prevents of taking any action against China or any other country, unless attacked first. They could cheer the Taiwanese though…but that’s all the support Taiwan would get from Japan.

Now add in Medicare and Medicaid.

Well, add then the interests on the national debt due to military spending. A pie…I can use one too…

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Apparently CIA conducted all operations, and the issue is under review by Parliament. CIA violated EU law in doing so btw…oh, also, at least one of the abducted foreign citizens, Canadian to be specific was moved to Syria…which brings me to my next point.

With the full knowledge of the participating governments. Are the EU official who had knowledge of the renditions being investigated?

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Sure, though you might be disappointed if you expect, US-kind influence…

Actually yes I do find those examples rather disappointing. The influence I was talking about was being asked by China to take a bigger role in dealing with North Korea or by the EU-3 to engage with Iran directly or by the Arab League, UN and EU to lean on Israel to agree to a cease-fire in Lebanon. Those are just a few that come to mind.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
At the end of this year, the EU will take over command of a large peacekeeping mission in Bosnia from NATO through an arrangement known as Berlin Plus, under which the EU can use NATO military assets. NATO, however, will retain a presence in this region after the handover. Peacekeeping counts as influence, right? After all, the US is keeping the “peace” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A step in the right direction. That is Europe taking care of Europe's security issues.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
The US record is not any better by any means, yet they do involve themselves in foreign countries. Besides, we’re talking about the EU here, which is different to the Europe which did have bad foreign policy once.

I would have to disagree on that point. In the past 60yrs the US led the western allies(Britain, France included)to victory in WWII then led the NATO alliance that successfully contained Soviet expansion then reversed it in the Cold War. Then in 91 we led the coalition to throw Saddam out of Kuwait. Which in no small part led to a viable peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis. And as far as human rights are concerned only in the past 60yrs have human rights attained the status in world affairs that they now hold.

That is America's legacy. And we have achieved it in just 60yrs. However Europe dominated the world for nearly 500yrs and I would ask you can you claim any such legacy. Don't get me wrong we've made mistakes and without doubt we'll continue too. But to say are record is as bad is europes is quite frankly not even in the ball park.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well, not at a single country, agree on that, but as big entity, it can be achieved.

No it can't. Take the US as an example we have by far the largest economy of any single nation state. Are economy is in some estimates larger than the EU's as a whole. And we have to choose. It will be no different for you.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Glad to see we do agree in something, not only you’d like it, it would be healthy for your economy.

Not to mention we could provide for our own people better.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugasvili
Was it composed of very different countries with different histories and policies? Think not…

Massachusetts was quite different from Georgia for example. Both culturally and economically opposed in many ways. The only really absolute thing they had in common was that they all spoke english other than that they didn't have much in common(religion included).

originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
But we don’t know how either economy will be faring by around the mid-21st century, to far into the future to know who’ll be tops.

I think we'll probably be doing alright whether we live in Europe or America.

Originally posted by ioseb_Jugashvili
And that is comparable to being arrested for suspicion of possible, maybe, could be, a terrorist? Not quite, I think.

Well thats true since our system is based on innocent until proven guilty whether you're a alleged terrorist, murdered or rapist. As were those guys ion Lonndon who were arrested then released they wre suspected then proven innocent.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Juagshvili
An estimate, firstly, then, based on what intelligence? The Soviets where well dug behind their Iron Wall, I doubt NATO would acquire precise intelligence on what was the Soviet Spending yet noted.

Sorry I must have missed that meeting. I was probably out chasing Euro babes. I don't think hat informatoin would be hard for NATO to find. Doesn't seem highly sensitive. and yes they were dug in with missiles, tanks and aircraft. In short anything a totalitarian power bent on world domination could buy.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
You do spend more nowadays than the Soviets at their final stages, which is not something I’d be proud of, personally.

I guess we agree there too. However in regards to my previous point even though we spend more now we're not marching o the capital to overthrow the government.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
China won’t invade Taiwan because:
1º Taiwan isn’t going in a path to independence.
2º It would hurt it’s regional interests
3º Would hurt Chinese interests with and in the US

1. Taiwan has repeatedly elected pro-independence candidates. It may not happen tomorrow but its aloot closer than it was 10yrs ago.

2. Actually in regards to China yes but Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines just to name a few may actually favor a new partner.

3. I'm not so sure. How the US looks at Taiwan depends on how we look at China. That is the current state of Sino-American relations

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
That’s called diplomacy, they could say…hell, that’s a small island, we’d take it before the US knew, yet they don’t.

Highly dubious remark. The US would easily detect any build up in Chinese military assests in the Taiwan Straits.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Juagshvili
The point is you stated, that why negotiate, when you’re the one doing it anyway, answer is, sometimes there are good reasons not to take such decisions, yet some countries take it anyway, regardless of what the world says, or how adversely it affects them…example: US.

That is actually a very good point. And hopefully something the next administration will consider.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Taiwan has a very small conventional force in comparison to the PRC, and the PRC has been constantly updating it’s forces and equipment, not to forget, it does NOT depend on foreign technology and support, unlike Taiwan. Without foreign support, Taiwan doesn’t stand a chance, and they know it.

The PRC has been desperatly attempting to acquire foreign hardware(especialy american)most of China's domestic equipment are cheap knock offs of Soviet hand me downs. However Taiwan's technology sector is highly developed and while Taiwans standing army is relatively small they have a reserve system simlar to Israels.

originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Japan has a constitution, curiously enough, imposed by it’s conquerors, the US of course, that prevents of taking any action against China or any other country, unless attacked first. They could cheer the Taiwanese though…but that’s all the support Taiwan would get from Japan.

Which is in the process of being amended.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Japans self imposed isolation is coming to an end.

Taiwan can't hold off China w/o US help.
no way ..
And i don't see them going independant unless there's a copu in taiwan or something..
status quo seems to be the choice of the day..

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Taiwan can't hold off China w/o US help.

No but they wouldn't just be bowled over by the PRC. And they could count on direct military intervention from the US and probably in the not to distant future Japan as well.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
And i don't see them going independant unless there's a copu in taiwan or something..

I can see Taiwan going for independence under the right circumstances. Namely a break down in Sino-US relations to the point of open conflict. Who knows Kim Jung Il could do something stupid and start a war between the North Korea, the US and Japan. What would the PRC do if at that moment Taiwan seized its chance and started moves towards independence.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
status quo seems to be the choice of the day..

For now.

Originally posted by danwild6
1. Taiwan has repeatedly elected pro-independence candidates.

Did someone forget the "3:1" elections?. They were quite recent.

In 2000 pan-green won roughly 40% of the votes while pan-blue won roughly 60% of the votes.
In 2004 it was dead even with both sides accusing each other of vote buying. What tipped the balance was the fact that chen got shot a few days before the elections

The PRC has been desperatly attempting to acquire foreign hardware

Like what?

Originally posted by danwild6
With the full knowledge of the participating governments. Are the EU official who had knowledge of the renditions being investigated?

Participating governments such as Bosnia and Macedonia, Romania and Poland which by no means represent the majority of the rest of EU (All new members, not surprisingly…). Italy is investigating the issue and the officials who had knowledge are under arrest

Two Italian spy chiefs were arrested yesterday on suspicion of helping the CIA to snatch an imam in Milan and fly him out of the country.
Marco Mancini, the head of counter-espionage at the military intelligence agency Sismi, and Gustavo Pignero, the agency's chief official in the north of the country, were placed under investigation to examine whether they will face kidnapping charges.

Soure: Telegraph

, and my only disappointment was UK, which decided not to investigate into the issue… nevertheless , the Council of Europe is investigating which countries took part and what measures will be taken

Council of Europe head Terry Davis said "appropriate action" would be taken against member states that did not take legal steps to prevent their airports being used for CIA flights of terror suspects or their territory for secret detention centers.

"If we discover such laws are not in place, or are inadequate, or are not effectively enforced, we will take appropriate action," Davis told a United Nations press conference in New York.

Source: Deutsche Welle
Also…maybe you didn’t hear of this last year?

24/12/2005)
An Italian court yesterday issued a Europe-wide arrest warrant for 22 CIA agents accused of kidnapping an Egyptian cleric from Milan and flying him to Egypt, where he says he was tortured.

Source: Telegraph

Actually yes I do find those examples rather disappointing. The influence I was talking about was being asked by China to take a bigger role in dealing with North Korea or by the EU-3 to engage with Iran directly or by the Arab League, UN and EU to lean on Israel to agree to a cease-fire in Lebanon. Those are just a few that come to mind.

Dealing with North Korea? Mmm…EU doesn’t see it as a threat, and “dealing” with North Korea would benefit US, not EU. I agree that EU has been slow in Iran, yet Iran is moving towards the end of their rope. EU propositions rejected, Iran is facing the coming UN resolution, which could be sanctions, or military action.

If Iran rejected EU propositions, my belief is EU wants UN to take over, and if that fails, I don’t think EU members would be against either sanctions or military action.

Israel has stated no will to end the conflict (what a surprise…) has cut off southern Lebanon to foreign aid (I got a bit angry, Israel destroyed a very old roman bridge…maybe they still hate the romans?) And US is heavily leaning on “A ceasefire is not plausible” and “Even with a ceasefire, skirmishes will happen” thus sanctioning Israel action in Lebanon. I believe EU parliament is discussing what to do in Israel, and UN is preparing a resolution to see what force of peacekeepers they need.

The United States and France claimed they were making progress on a deal on a Security Council resolution, though the U.N. for the second time canceled a meeting of nations that could send peacekeepers to south Lebanon, reluctant to discuss such a force before a resolution was in place.

Officials gave conflicting accounts about when exactly a deal could be reached, but they appeared eager to make it look like they were moving forward toward a deal

Main problem is, US is backing Israel, when the rest of the UNSC is either neutral, or backing Lebanon.

A step in the right direction. That is Europe taking care of Europe's security issues.

Indeed, I see it as the beginning of maybe a new phase in cooperation for security, with could be as well as the base for future military cooperation.

I would have to disagree on that point. In the past 60yrs the US led the western allies(Britain, France included)to victory in WWII

I hope you don’t forget what the state of human rights was in US, such as segregation, and concentration camps for Japanese-American citizens.

then led the NATO alliance that successfully contained Soviet expansion then reversed it in the Cold War.

And in “containing” Soviet Expansion you endorsed dictators and wars all over the world. Such as Guatemala

On May 23, 1997 the CIA released several hundred formerly classified documents pertaining to the United States involvement in the 1954 coup in Guatemala.

Korea, Vietnam

The First Indochina War was a struggle between Vietnamese nationalists and the French colonial regime aided by the United States. In the second war, the United States replaced France as the major contender against northern-based Communists and southern insurgents.

The US backed-Hungarian Revolution, Bay of Pigs, Grenada, Iran/Contra (used to fund guerilla in Nicaragua) not to forget Noriega (Former US ally and CIA aid). As well as Gulf War I,II,and III. (First being Iraq-Iran, Saddam being backed by the US, even armed with Chemical weapons…)

While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan's Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Source: Counterpunch
Funny, isn’t it? The same wmds you came back to search for…


So raising dictators and countries, (Even Castro was once endorsed by US) when you see fit, only to put them down when they choose to not to follow your agenda anymore is not what I would call a success.
You only did the same the Soviets did, endorsed dictatorships and wars, only to leave the countries they meddled in the first place.

Then in 91 we led the coalition to throw Saddam out of Kuwait.

Same Saddam you armed and approved, right?

Which in no small part led to a viable peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis.

A peace process which is now inexistent, and US backing towards the war doesn’t help a lot either.

And as far as human rights are concerned only in the past 60yrs have human rights attained the status in world affairs that they now hold.

Agreed, and in those 60 years you’ve managed to ignore them and press foreign countries for doing so as well.

That is America's legacy. And we have achieved it in just 60yrs. However Europe dominated the world for nearly 500yrs and I would ask you can you claim any such legacy.

Mmm…well let’s see if your legacy is meddling in foreign countries, invading to “liberate” and outlast a different system, I think Europe’s legacy is greater…

Don't get me wrong we've made mistakes and without doubt we'll continue too. But to say are record is as bad is Europe’s is quite frankly not even in the ball park.

Well, if I only take the past 60 years to compare human rights, as you state, US is worse. Perhaps you don’t remember the crimes of war that happened in Vietnam. Or the dictatorships you endorsed, which blatantly abused their own citizens…or providing saddam which means to make gas…I don’t recall Europe doing any of this…

Oh, and stating 500 years is a bit shortsighted…since European history goes all the way back to the Greeks, through Alexander, then Rome, Charlemagne, the Absolutists, Colonialism and Industrial Revolution, all the way to WWI. I think it “might” be a tad longer than 500 years.

No it can't. Take the US as an example we have by far the largest economy of any single nation state. Are economy is in some estimates larger than the EU's as a whole. And we have to choose. It will be no different for you.

Oh no, yes it can I’m afraid, it’s quite easy, the US can’t for one reason: It wants to police the world. EU chooses to negotiate, not enforce our ideas to foreign countries as the US does (which in the end doesn’t work anyway…) So there are two paths…development, or war, in that you’re right, you can’t have both.

But you can have a common military with other countries, AND development, since you don’t have to spend so much of your own resources in the army, for it’s a joint effort.
This the US does not have, since it has spend alone the money for it’s own military, in contrast with what EU could do, which is each country chip in, making one big budget altogether, and allowing the countries to spend in their own development.

Not to mention we could provide for our own people better.

Yep…but if you elect an animal for a president that is unlikely…I still wonder why didn’t you elect Kerry?

Massachusetts was quite different from Georgia for example. Both culturally and economically opposed in many ways. The only really absolute thing they had in common was that they all spoke english other than that they didn't have much in common(religion included).

Lol, Dan, you can’t possibly compare the state of Massachusetts to any European country…

I think we'll probably be doing alright whether we live in Europe or America.

I certainly hope so, unlike you might think I don’t want the demise of US, but a balance of power, one which the EU could bring.

Well thats true since our system is based on innocent until proven guilty whether you're a alleged terrorist, murdered or rapist. As were those guys ion Lonndon who were arrested then released they wre suspected then proven innocent.

Not for “terrorists” it isn’t my friend, you probably heard of Guantanamo and what happens there, not to forget Abu Ghraib…

Sorry I must have missed that meeting. I was probably out chasing Euro babes.

Then you’ll agree their the best in the world

I don't think hat informatoin would be hard for NATO to find. Doesn't seem highly sensitive.

Well, knowing how and where your enemy spends his money is a bit sensitive, for example, US doesn’t know where China and Russia spend their every penny, since they are both highly secretive countries…well the Soviets where even more secretive, I really doubt that information would leak…

and yes they were dug in with missiles, tanks and aircraft.

You mean the same way the US was dug in Europe?

In short anything a totalitarian power bent on world domination could buy.

You speak about the Soviets or the US? cheap shot, but I had to take it

I guess we agree there too. However in regards to my previous point even though we spend more now we're not marching o the capital to overthrow the government.

Mmm…yes, maybe you should though? Bush doesn’t seem to care too much about it’s own citizens, and you as “examples” of the world, shouldn’t put up with him…just a thought

1. Taiwan has repeatedly elected pro-independence candidates. It may not happen tomorrow but its aloot closer than it was 10yrs ago.

Reason why Taiwan-China relations have stiffened. Yet China stated that if Taiwan chose independence, China wouldn’t allow it. This is common knowledge.

2. Actually in regards to China yes but Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines just to name a few may actually favor a new partner.

China is a bigger interest in all three countries you mentioned than Taiwan.

3. I'm not so sure. How the US looks at Taiwan depends on how we look at China. That is the current state of Sino-American relations

Well…I for one have a doubt of whether the US would support Taiwan, or favor it’s own interests and allow reunification…

Highly dubious remark. The US would easily detect any build up in Chinese military assests in the Taiwan Straits.

They already have, the build up of military assets in the Taiwan Straits has and is already happening…I didn’t see US moving much of it’s assets…too worried about Israel and Iran…

That is actually a very good point. And hopefully something the next administration will consider.

Well…it should if the next one actually cares for the country…maybe a democrat? I don’t appreciate republicans too much, though it’s largely Mr. “I want to rule the world” fault.

The PRC has been desperatly attempting to acquire foreign hardware(especialy american)

American hardware? I thought the US wasn’t selling military hardware to China…maybe some proof of this?

most of China's domestic equipment are cheap knock offs of Soviet hand me downs.

Well, I’ll have to differ this, China has been improving it’s indigenous capability in weapons manufacture and design…though I agree, I wouldn’t call it first class…yet

However Taiwan's technology sector is highly developed and while Taiwans standing army is relatively small they have a reserve system simlar to Israels.

Well…Taiwan technology sector might be developed, yet it’s manufacturing capability is nowhere near China’s
And due to the sheer number of missiles aimed at Taiwan, I wouldn’t put my bets on it standing for long. The total reserve of Taiwan’s forces wouldn’t not be close to the force that would be used to occupy it.

Which is in the process of being amended.
Japans self imposed isolation is coming to an end.

Yes, but you’ll notice that response is against North Korea and not China. Japan seeks no military confrontation with China whatsoever.

Forget it man. I could respond but we'd just be going around in circles. I've told you how I see my nation you obviously see it differently which is informative and the main reason why I believe the US should return to isolationism for a generation or two. If the rest of the world goes on great. If nations like North Korea and Iran see American departure as an opportunity to make trouble I hope someone will be there to stop them.

After all like what was mentioned before. The title of this thread is Will India become a hyperpower. And I don't think either of is has even mentioned India in our debate.

Later.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by danwild6]

Originally posted by sardion2000
My prediction is that in 50 years there will be no superpowers left on this earth(So I guess the answer to India becoming a Hyperpower is NO IMHO). There will be powers and such, but not in the way we perceive them today. Every so often the power structure changes and I believe we are on the cusp of one such paradigm shift myself. I can't say for sure what this change will be or whether it will be beneficial or not, but I can say for certain one thing: It will change what it means to be a power on this planet.

Perhaps in 50 years, power will focus not on single nation states, but on large multi-national corporations who get their power from control of Space Tethers bringing down huge amounts of resources for extremely cheap prices. (Anarcho-Capitalism)

Perhaps in 50 years power will become more of a "family" thing, with everybody pledging their loyalty to Clans, with the richest Clans controlling Molecular Assembler Technology. (Nanotech-Feudalism)

My point is, try to keep an open mind when thinking of these sorts of things. For all we know the Nation State itself could be in for a dramatic overhaul or even widescale abandonment. The primary drivers for all this is Economics, Technology, and Resource Availability. All three of these factors could prevent even China from becoming a Superpower(It could just become too expensive in the long run).

Nice speculation here. I predict one of two things. Either there will be a global superpower centered in Israel, with Jesus Christ at it's head, or there will be a chaotic group of warring factions using primitive technology and barely surviving.

After WWIII it is likely much of our technological base will be lost, as has happened twice before in human history. The first time after a worldwide deluge and the second time after the first atomic war. That's right archeological evidence suggests there was a devastating atomic war several thousand years ago.

After WWIII it is likely much of our technological base will be lost, as has happened twice before in human history. The first time after a worldwide deluge and the second time after the first atomic war. That's right archeological evidence suggests there was a devastating atomic war several thousand years ago.

Sad but true for history loves to repeat itself into sweet oblivion. Hell, if that weren't the case than mankind's zest for assasinations would have ended with the Archduke of Austria and America's beloved Kennedy family would surely have been spared.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by risitar]