Originally posted by ape
there are plenty of ways for the US to maintain a hegemon especially with reforms and replacements such as the fair tax.,
They no longer have hegemony and lack the strategic initiative to change the world in a way that benefits the US public. Think about the last three
decades and then tell me as it would be interesting to point out how in the vast majority of the instances other benefit far more or US standing and
strength is simply being undermined.
simple adjustments which would bring back US industry
The industry going to other countries was a deliberate policy executed by the US government for reason i won't go into here. Globalization is all
about weakening states and making them mutually dependent so that no one can operate in it's own exclusive interest for fear of what the rest will do
to it. This is the aims of the NWO and apparently the US government either lacks the means to resist them or are simply part of their organization.
and would double our GDP and economic growth and halt outsourcing, creditor nation once again.
Once again what caused all these things to happen were by no means 'natural' and it was deliberately staged to undermine America and the rights and
freedoms Americans still enjoy on paper. America can not recover economically ( and will not, i can assure you) before Americans take back control
over their own governing bodies.
if you think this wont happen then you obviously underestimate the american citizen, no matter how much you dislike my country it is still a
great place to live and thrive and this is undisputed, if you have never been and lived here I dont expect you to even form an accurate opinion about
I want Americans to act in their own best interest hence my involvement here.
well you were not very clear, now im not very sure what you mean, you just said the ability to destroy your enemy makes you a superpower so im not
sure how iran being able to destroy lets say iraq doesn't make them a superpower, considering where they stand in world affairs was never mentioned
at all in any original post.
MAD is not something a real superpower would ever take part in and Russia never were willing to have itself destroyed in a nuclear war. In both
countries elaborate civil defenses and missile defenses were started up unlike in the USA Russian military planners did not have their plans and ideas
undermined by their civilian leaders ( as much as such was seperate in the USSR) resulting then and now in extensive passive and active defenses.
ex]At the end of the briefing McNamara accepted the cost-exchange ratios as being no more than 4: 1 in favor of the offense (down from 100:1), which
made NIKE-X cost-effective by the standards he had prescribed.
(12) However, in an emotional outburst during the briefing McNamara rejected the evidence that the Soviets put first priority on destroying MM silos
in order to limit damage to the USSR, saying that as a Soviet Marshal he would target the entire arsenal on U.S. cities. Hence he refused to approve
NIKE-X deployment to protect U.S. citizens from the FSU on the grounds of MAD theology--U. S. ABM defenses would be "destabilizing" by orcing the
Soviets to respond with a massive MIRVed ICBM buildup.
The Joint Chiefs used a version of that 1966 NIKE-X briefing to ambush McNamara when they met with President Johnson at his ranch in December 1966,
persuading Johnson to overrule McNamara and order deployment of U.S. national ABM, although not the defense against the FSU that the Chiefs
proposed.(13) While the Chief's briefing is not available, a memo for the record prepared by W. W. Rostow, then President
Johnson's national security adviser, is.(14)
According to Mr. Rostow's memo, the Chiefs recommended MIKE-X deployment at 25 cities to save the lives of 30 to 50 million U.S. citizens, if
attacked. McMamara opposed the Chiefs' proposal on the grounds of MAD
heology and simplistic "action-reaction":
* it was "inconceivable" that the Soviets would react in any other way but to restore the status quo ante, i.e.
120 million U.S. population fatalities;
* both sides would spend a lot of money and end up where they started, but we would waste the most because offensive weapons were so much cheaper
than ABM systems;
* the danger of war would not be reduced;
* the FSU had "been wrong in its nuclear defense policy for a decade" because everything spent on all types of defenses (air and missile) had
The Chiefs saw it quite differently:
* NIKE-X would save tens of millions of lives against a Soviet population attack, and that was a worthwhile objective;
* while they could not predict with confidence how the Soviets would react, all likely reactions had a substantial price and would divert funds
from other military programs--no free lunches;
* the risk of nuclear attack would be reduced
There is large volumes of evidence proving how the political leaders ensured the current American vulnerability.
more people invest in american than russia, and this has always been the case. not to mention US GDP even though I know you believe its an
easily manipulated number and figure is still higher than all other countries by a long shot, it took a bloc of european countries to finally barley
surpass the US GDP this years,
Those investment funds move around in financial institutions and i would say that Americans are generally prosperous despite it , not because of it.
The American housing bubble is as large as all the other bubble's the American system is now based on and it's surprising that things are holding
together at all.
props to the EU but as soon as fairtax is established we will double up on your GDP and we will take back our industry and take yours aswell
Fairtax or anything like it will NOT happen as Americans don't understand what is going on and lack the unity or knowledge to affect the changes they
must to save themselves.
now what sucks is that the EU socialist wont let loose their grasp on the population so i dont expect the EU to form a model US tax system that
resembles fairtax, which will be enabled soon enough.
Europeans are generally a bit smarter when it comes to their choices of government officials and due to that reason they can probably afford a bit of
socialism better than most. The EU is foundering any ways and i would be somewhat surprised if the people allow more centralization any year soon.
That being said it's at a point where only deliberate action will probably be able to break apart the current agreements so the momentum might
already be too great to stop it before great damage is done.
are you a socialist? thats a horrible flaweed form of government,
The American corporate environment ( and the European one to a lesser degree) are based on socialism as they expect bail out's from the tay payer
whenever they get into serious trouble. As long as they can make a strong case for themselves in the media they own they get bailed out. Why should we
allow socialism for the rich only while the poor must put up with capitalism and free market exploitation? I am not socialist and i believe that
government should do little more than centralized administration and i fear even that might result in too much power when left alone.
in the US the socialist programs and liberal programs such as income redistribution, taking away from hard working americans like myself and
giving it to some lazy ass who doesn't want to work for crap.
There are relative few Americans who do not work 8 or more hours a day and the media illusion of tens of millions of people 'on the dole' is just
that and meant to undermine confidence in social welfare which should in fact be one of the main reason for government. What use is government if it
can not provide even person with a system by which he can gain the skills so that he may find employment that does not rob him of his life energy
without reward in excess of basic survival needs? Social programs in the US is horribly mismanaged and they are so not on the lower levels but right
at the top hence the resulting meager funds and effectiveness at ground level.
section 8 housing I have to pay for people to live in a brand new house living off of my tax dollars and watch them live more lavishly than
myself who does well but still gets crunched sometimes.
Well clearly you are the fool for allowing your government to mismanage your hard earned money that way. I think anyone who can do nothing all day and
have the state pay is pretty smart if possible short sighted ( dependence results in loss of liberty and possibly self respect) but should generally
be congratulated for their success at exploiting the system better than it exploits them. Any person who actually wants to enrich another more than he
enriches himself is pretty stupid and deserves much of the hardship that results from such idiocy. There exists ways and means by which no person
would be required to donate more than a few hours a week towards community projects while having all basic needs looked after. Any additional work
done will be towards bettering your situation as much as you might want to.
Americans work the longest hours in the industrial world and it's no accident that they are also now worse off economically than they were in 1970;
hard work is meaningless if you do not know history and can not see what your employers have decided to do to you in the long run.