U.S. can attack Russia in 2012-2015 - Russian military analyst

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enceladus


Western military experts have recently started to talk about the possibility of attacking Russia and annexing its territory, Sivkov said. "Russia is supposed to be dismembered into three parts, with the Western part going to the European Union, the central part and Siberia to the U.S., and the eastern to China. This is a rough scenario," he said.

I think this guy is wrong. I am pretty sure USAF could get air supremacy and USN could destroy the RN at a massive cost but it would be really tough for the US army to gain control. What about the Russian top line missile systems?

www.interfax.ru
(visit the link for the full news article)


Without queston the validity of the source....

Again, this all goes back to what I have been saying in regards to FCS, or future combat systems. Along with what DARPA and the pentagon have been working on. Full spectrum domination over pretty much anyone they see fit to dominate.

Heres the video that has DARPA projects in it.. All on schedule for the 2012-2015-2020 timeline. It is widly believed with what the US is working on, US forces will eventually make conventional forces of all the worlds militarys obsolete.

Google Video Link



[edit on 26-2-2008 by West Coast]




posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
All the more reason to cut the military budget in half, close all foreign bases, withdraw from NATO, and start minding our own damned business.

If the window for escaping US domination is closing (an opinion I don't really buy, as it's based on the irrational idea that Americans are somehow naturally superior to the rest of the planet) then the rest of the world has no choice but to take us out by any means necessary.

Military supremacy, "full spectrum dominance", or any other masturbatory buzzphrases won't count for squat when they could simply deliver a few H-bombs to selected key targets in shipping containers, which is what I would do.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
All the more reason to cut the military budget in half, close all foreign bases, withdraw from NATO, and start minding our own damned business.


Thats somthing I dont even think Ron Paul could accomplish if he was "head in charge."


If the window for escaping US domination is closing (an opinion I don't really buy, as it's based on the irrational idea that Americans are somehow naturally superior to the rest of the planet)


Do proceed to tell me where I, or anyone else has said they think Americans are naturally superior, and that is why they will hold arms advantage over pretty much anyone they seem fit to dominate? Forget that its the AI, or advances in space forces, robotics, persision guided munitions of all kinds, the worlds most integrated, centralized force, NBIC, the Global Information Grid, nanotechnology, biotechnology, autonomous drones, space based weapons, weather modification kits, rail guns, lasers weaponry, laser weaponry deployed on naval ships, bases, Aircraft such as the F22 and JSF-35, to counter missiles, or take out ground targets, various air targets, etc.. etc..

I have provided facts, of what the US is, and has been working on. There is no other nation, that can possibly counter these wapons the US will be fielding in the not so distant future. the US is simply to far ahead..

Wake up! The USSR collapsed over 17 years ago, since then, the US has kept up spending an astronomical amount on defense procurment programs with no real "competition."

Anyone tom clancy fans here? He says, that with all these advances the US is going through, that Russia, along with china, might see the only way to stop the inevtible, is to attack the US now, while theyre conventional forces would still put up what little fight remains in them..

With that said, I do not necissarily agree with US being the "world police."

But I do agree with the fact that we must be able to protect ourselves, as well as our allys from percieved threats, namely nuclear annilihation.


then the rest of the world has no choice but to take us out by any means necessary.

Military supremacy, "full spectrum dominance", or any other masturbatory buzzphrases won't count for squat when they could simply deliver a few H-bombs to selected key targets in shipping containers, which is what I would do.


You would bare witness to the total destruction of your nation, while your ICBMs would be hopelessly taken out.

So, you would knowingly commit suicide, and be responsible for the death of tens of millions of people.


[edit on 26-2-2008 by West Coast]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   


You would bare witness to the total destruction of your nation, while your ICBMs would be hopelessly taken out.


Errr, "my nation" is the US...

As far as the US's "superiority" goes, this too will pass, just like everything else. We have a significant lead now and for the near future, but anyone who thinks it will be in any way permanent is a victim of a delusional fantasy that ignores history.

And the beauty of asymmetrical warfare techniques is that they circumvent conventional military disadvantages.
NMD is irrelevant if the enemy doesn't bother to use ICBM's in the first place.

In the case of a shipping container attack, who would we retaliate against?
Who makes the decision to retaliate with most of the .gov vaporized?

If it were done right, the US would be unable to respond effectively, if at all.

I don't think any of this will come to pass, fortunately.
Iraq and it's political fallout at home have sown the seeds of the end of the American Empire - and it's about time.

The US taxpayer is increasingly annoyed at having to pay for foreign wars that are irrelevant to (even actively detrimental to) their own security, weapons systems to counter enemies that don't exist or constitute no real threat, interference in other countries' politics, etc...

At this moment, Barak Obama appears likely to be the next President, and I suspect an Obama administration is going to mean a significant change in US strategy, foreign policy, and military spending.

Military supremacy is something that not many people really care about.
It doesn't make us safer, it makes us the planet's #1 target.
I think most Americans are sensible enough to realize this.


[edit on 2/26/08 by xmotex]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enceladus
Western military experts have recently started to talk about the possibility of attacking Russia and annexing its territory, Sivkov said. "Russia is supposed to be dismembered into three parts, with the Western part going to the European Union, the central part and Siberia to the U.S., and the eastern to China. This is a rough scenario," he said.



Wait a minute there ... wouldn't Russia, by the U.S. example of preemptive strike against a threat, be justified at preemptively striking the U.S. of the threat of having their nation dismembered?

So, in essence, by this theory, Russia should be able to get U.N. backing at attacking the U.S. and removing its government, occupying, then allowing the U.S. people to re-instate a new government in its place, thus allowing Constitutionalists to get rid of the independent bankers who print our money, get rid of excess spending, excess positions, and basically reform the country as a lot are trying to do through voting and peaceful protests now?

Though, in reality, this would divide our nation into subgroups that have different views on how the country should be, and finding a peaceful compromise may be hard. It would be easier to divide the nation up by belief systems, and let people live the way they want by going to the area that fits their desires ... kind of how Iraq could be split instead of forcing people to get along that don't like each other. Maturity and compromise are seldom used or sought when people are blinded by rage and overwhelming but misguided passion.


No, I am not condoning war of any kind. Yes, even if the U.N. felt it was justified, U.S. public would take up arms and fight back. There would be heavy casualties. It would be like an Iraq, but instead, we would be occupied, and those who oppose the occupation and fight back would be deemed enemies and terrorists (from invading standpoint). They would look the same as the general public, so defining who the enemy is and isn't (from invading standpoint) would be near impossible.

In fact, I ideally wish all this killing would stop, all over the world. World Peace, what a novel idea.



Sounds like this kind of talk needs to end. Russians respect our democracy, so we should respect their democracy. The people still believe in centralized power of the government, including control of factories and guaranteed jobs for every citizen. I linked to it recently, I will find it if you like, or search.

I don't think we should be forcing our views on people who don't want to live the way we do, nor should we be feeling the need to annex any country. It is not our business, it is not our land. The U.S. doesn't own the world, and I wish we became a lot more isolationist as we were pre-world war era. Help out when needed, otherwise, mind our own business. Notice how much extra trouble we have made for ourselves since interfering?



Even if this story cannot be proved, it is scary anyway, and I am sure some goon in power has considered it.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
As far as the US's "superiority" goes, this too will pass, just like everything else. We have a significant lead now and for the near future, but anyone who thinks it will be in any way permanent is a victim of a delusional fantasy that ignores history.


That is pointless speculation.


And the beauty of asymmetrical warfare techniques is that they circumvent conventional military disadvantages.
NMD is irrelevant if the enemy doesn't bother to use ICBM's in the first place.


What they are developing, is designed to effectively fight EVERY type of war scenario... Watch the video again, read through the sources..


In the case of a shipping container attack, who would we retaliate against?


It is not quite that easy Mr. xmotoex. That is a much more complex scenario then you are giving it credit for. Furthermore, they do have ways of sniffing out such materials, why do you think with the rapid advancements in AI, that it would not be not only possible, but downright effective in sniffing out such devices in the not so distant future?


If it were done right, the US would be unable to respond effectively, if at all.


This doesn't account for the space based assets, or forward deployed military bases..


I don't think any of this will come to pass, fortunately.


You are not reading my sources. It already is... This has been in the planning stages for the past 40-30 years.


Iraq and it's political fallout at home have sown the seeds of the end of the American Empire - and it's about time.


You still have the war on terror.


The US taxpayer is increasingly annoyed at having to pay for foreign wars that are irrelevant to (even actively detrimental to) their own security, weapons systems to counter enemies that don't exist or constitute no real threat, interference in other countries' politics, etc...


The US gov has been overestimating its "enemy's" for the past 50 years, the reason, for a higher military expenditure.


At this moment, Barak Obama appears likely to be the next President,


Based on what evidence? Lets keep our opinions as just "opinions."


and I suspect an Obama administration is going to mean a significant change in US strategy, foreign policy, and military spending.


So your a liberal, which explains ALOT.

They are all the same, they all fall into line with the military industrial complex.

I think you would like the below video, so I'll post it. the below documentary explains it perfectly why they do. Be sure to watch all ten parts.






[edit on 26-2-2008 by West Coast]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I doubt my politics generally would qualify me as a "liberal" - most "liberals" accuse me of being either an anarchist or a conservative, depending on what they're mad at me about


Most conservatives call me a "liberal" however, and most libertarians think I am a leftist. In general I'd say I consciously reject ideology in favor of principle.

I'm not even going to try to convince you on the "American superiority" thing anymore, frankly it's pointless to continue, your faith in it seems to be a core element of your identity, and I'd have just as much luck arguing with a brick.

Suffice to say "pride goeth before the fall", and that any advantages we have can be neutralized by a clever/ruthless enough opponent - or don't you remember 9-11, where we lost 3,000 citizens despite (and at least partially because of) our conventional military supremacy?

As for Obama - assume everything I say is opinion unless I am clearly making a point of fact.

Still, he appears to be doing quite well, and polls have him solidly beating McCain assuming he gets the nomination, which he appears likely to at this point.

I disagree with him strongly on several issues, including (most strongly) gun control, however I do think he is generally the least objectionable of the major candidates, for a variety of reasons that have as much to do with character as with policy positions.

I like Ron Paul a lot, and his politics are closer to mine than Obama's, also I think he would do much more to curb the growth of American imperial power - but he essentially has zero chance of becoming President at this point.


[edit on 2/26/08 by xmotex]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
"I like Ron Paul a lot, and his politics are closer to mine than Obama's, also I think he would do much more to curb the growth of American imperial power - but he essentially has zero chance of becoming President at this point."

I am a Ron Paul supporter, I even have a sign with his name on it out in my front lawn


Sadly, he doesn't seem to have a shot.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   


Sadly, he doesn't seem to have a shot.


No, unfortunately his message is perhaps too out of line with the mainstream of his party.

It's sad, but on the other hand he has introduced libertarian principles into a national political dialog where they are largely absent.

He has confronted those who call themselves conservative with fundamental questions about what conservatism means, and the contradiction between conservative principles of limited government and a Republican party that has consistently served to increase government power at home and abroad.

He has also gained a wide and enthusiastic following of principled, enthusiastic citizens, many of whom will go on and carry that conviction into the political arena. I am convinced that had it not been for Dr Paul many of these folks would never have found a reason to participate in the process in the first place.

He's done this all despite consistent efforts by both his party and the mainstream media to marginalize him and dismiss his ideas, and had much more success than anyone would have expected.

So while his campaign may have failed to secure him his party's nomination, it has in other senses been a huge success, and a boon to an American political environment that is badly in need of new ideas.


[edit on 2/26/08 by xmotex]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Why would the U.S. do that in the first place? Lets say Obama or McCain or Clinton for that mater were to be in office at the time. Can you picture any of these fools doing that? I cant.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
If anyone is going to attack Russia it will be China. First China has the large border with Russia to do it and the huge human masses to pull it off and then maintain control. The US would not only need to move everything there but contribute huge numbers of military to keep control. I think we have learned our lesson in Iraq that war and control are two totally different things and control is much harder unless you go Genghis Khan on the population.

If anything I would see the US helping Russa defend their lands from China that will be the most dangerous foe to the US in the next 50 years.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

If anything I would see the US helping Russa defend their lands from China that will be the most dangerous foe to the US in the next 50 years.


I don't think China is going to be quite the mean ol' beast we thought it was going to be.

Chinese economy 40% smaller then previously thought!

Heres the thread on it...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


A large part of their population lives on 30 bucks a month. They do not need to deploy and so they have capabilities of a vast cheap army ready to advance into Russia rather easily. I also wrote some posts on their Navy that has been in a major overhaul these last 10 years and it will be larger than the US Navy in a few short years. They do not need that kind of Navy unless they plan on going offensive.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 05:00 AM
link   
I don't think in the future the US will be the major card holder on global scale when it comes to armed forces.
United States can't sustain finacialy another series of wars.Same with the cold war, Russia backed off because they were out of cash.If today there would be another cold war era the US would lose to Russia simply because Russia is groinw while the US economy is going down fast.
But there is a new bully in town, say hello to the Europian Union.Europe will become the absolute power, it was always the plan for this to happen.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Eh...

I doubt that this anti nuke shield will work against new russian nuclear weapons specifically designed to go through these shields.

Other than that russia has had abm capabillity since the 1960's but havent updated these systems in a while afaik.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I don't think in the future the US will be the major card holder on global scale when it comes to armed forces.


You don't think because you are uniformed!


Did you watch the video, or read the links provided by me in this very thread?


United States can't sustain finacialy another series of wars.Same with the cold war,


Which isn't very well supported I am afraid...


Russia backed off because they were out of cash.


Russia "backed off" because it had an economy that was substantially smaller then americas, the CCCP economy was found to have equaled 5% of US GDP at that time (6 at most). Most of Russias GDP went towards its military, while its infrastructure deteriorated around it, which caused it to collapse, as it could not continue spending and spending in hopes to keep up with the Americans...


If today there would be another cold war era the US would lose to Russia simply because Russia is groinw while the US economy is going down fast.



Which isnt very well corroborated either. The US outspends the world combined in regards to military expenditures, how is russia, who has a substantially smaller economy, with a substantially smaller military budget, going to out spend, the US? And 2+2=5?

Russia, as does any nation for that matter, does not have an answer to what the US currently is fielding, and will be fielding in the coming decade. (again, watch the DARPA's iXO Artificial control grid video already provided in this thread.

furthermore, Russia's economy is growing, but growing only at the expense of its natural resources, Russia doesn't produce much in the way of actually standing a chance of being competitive in the world economy.

Always remember, when talking about the US economy, that 80% of the US economy is generated from internal commerce, and only 20% is exposed to the world outside the US. No other large country is this self-reliant economically speaking.


But there is a new bully in town, say hello to the Europian Union.Europe will become the absolute power, it was always the plan for this to happen.


Ahh yes, the EU, which, if compared as a single economy, is 20 years behind the US economy, and has a much slower, protracted growth rate, then say the US (which is also historically true...)

PS, good luck selling that "one" to the European people who just so happen to despise the EU and everything it stands for.

Europeans do not have the stomach for "absolute power."


[edit on 2-3-2008 by West Coast]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   



Which isn't very well supported I am afraid...


I think it is. Most of the Humvees in Iraq don't even have armor.There is a limited amount with armor on them, they cut back on the plate due to costs.If a squad gets a bradley they are lucky.




Which isnt very well corroborated either. The US outspends the world combined in regards to military expenditures, how is russia, who has a substantially smaller economy, with a substantially smaller military budget, going to out spend, the US? And 2+2=5?

That will soon go away.What today brings tomorrow will be history.
United States is heading in to recesion, even the Canadian dolar is biger than the US dolar I might not be sure about it but I think it's worth more, not to mention the Euro, it's worth almost twice.






furthermore, Russia's economy is growing, but growing only at the expense of its natural resources, Russia doesn't produce much in the way of actually standing a chance of being competitive in the world economy.

And how is that true? . Almost all the pipe lines with gas across europe do come from Russia.They make more than you would think, plus Siberia is full of natural resouces, compare it to Alaska, Alaska is small.





Always remember, when talking about the US economy, that 80% of the US economy is generated from internal commerce.

Most of the factories are closed down and move to china or other places where labor is cheap.Most of the products today on the American market are not even American any more, people need to have 3 jobs to be able to live a decent life and pay taxes.Where do you think money will come from? how would people be able to pay taxes to sustain the war machine since they are broke?




and only 20% is exposed to the world outside the US. No other large country is this self-reliant economically speaking.

The US economy is down and broken, I think you are unrealistic.




Ahh yes, the EU, which, if compared as a single economy, is 20 years behind the US economy, and has a much slower, protracted growth rate, then say the US (which is also historically true...)

Yes that is why people live better in Western Europe because it's behind.
By the way not that I like hip hop but puff dady is waving Euros in his video clip, he used to wave dolars in front of the camera but that is gone.
Some people in New York that have small bussineses are only accepting Euros and have given up on the dolar.Other countries are changing from the US curency to other curencies when they make international deals.China alone can dump the US economy at any time.
The US economy is so damaged that it's afecting other economies around the world.As a result prices go high sky in other parts of the world.






Europeans do not have the stomach for "absolute power."

Just give it an year or two and you will notice if you visit Europe on vacation you will buy jack with your one dolar bill, since it's estimated that the Euro will be worth 4 times more than the one dolar bill.
That means that now 500 euros= 1000 dolars.
In the future 500 euros= 2000 dolars.

I can understand you, you are a die hard fan, too bad less and less people agree with you.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   


Europeans do not have the stomach for "absolute power."


Ever hear of Hitler? Napoleon?

You'll be happy to hear Europe has produced more than it's share of deluded power-hungry sociopaths


Which is probably why they have little interest in wars of conquest anymore - they know that sooner or later, every conquerer becomes, in turn, the vanquished.

[edit on 3/2/08 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I think it is. Most of the Humvees in Iraq don't even have armor.There is a limited amount with armor on them, they cut back on the plate due to costs.If a squad gets a bradley they are lucky.


The US is fighting a very asymmetric war that is not directly against another government. Are you suggesting that IEDs are the down fall to the US? If you actually looked at the IEDs that have been used for the last few years there is not a vehicle in the world that can be made to overcome one. EVERY humvee that goes outside the base is heavely armored, that is a fact and I have seen this with my own two eyes, but up against the IEDs being produced (Iran?) even a tank doesn't have a chance either.

So what is your point? When I'm in Iraq I want for nothing but to get the hell out of there...



That will soon go away.What today brings tomorrow will be history.
United States is heading in to recesion, even the Canadian dolar is biger than the US dolar I might not be sure about it but I think it's worth more, not to mention the Euro, it's worth almost twice.


What we have today is the most combat capable military in the world due to all these years of fighting. To go back to the "asymmetric" war, the US has had to adapt rather quickly for totally new fighting situations that consistently change. What the bad guys do is continually test every area of the military and if they find the slightest weakness they exploit it. Because of this the US military is extremely better than anything out there for decades to come.

If the US goes into a recession then the whole world goes into one. BTW recession means very little in an all out war.



Most of the factories are closed down and move to china or other places where labor is cheap.Most of the products today on the American market are not even American any more, people need to have 3 jobs to be able to live a decent life and pay taxes.Where do you think money will come from? how would people be able to pay taxes to sustain the war machine since they are broke?


Lol, ok... 3 jobs? hmm man we are bad off arn't we
.

How do you rate the 600 million who live in China on 30 bucks a month in income? I'm middle class and I'm still better off today than I was 10 years ago. If someone is working 3 jobs it is because they are unskilled to get better pay in one job plan and simple.



The US economy is down and broken, I think you are unrealistic.


The only GNP that can equal the US is EU that is made up of 29 countries...I do not think we are broke. What country can flush 1.5 trillion down an Iraqi toilet and overcome it? The dollar is weak because of it, but that will change as long as we do not flush another 1.5 trillion. BTW most of that 1.5 trillion was not used for the US war machine. Most of it has been wasted on nation building hence my reason as to why I call it "flushed down a toilet".

You are mixing apples with oranges here to try and prove your point that has little logic to it.



Yes that is why people live better in Western Europe because it's behind.


I have lived in Germany, France, Korea, Japan and I can tell you I live a hell of a lot better in the US of A. What we take for granted here are major luxuries in the rest of the world... I could make a list that would exceed my 10,000 word post count to name them.



Just give it an year or two and you will notice if you visit Europe on vacation you will buy jack with your one dolar bill, since it's estimated that the Euro will be worth 4 times more than the one dolar bill.
That means that now 500 euros= 1000 dolars.
In the future 500 euros= 2000 dolars.


Very short term...was like that in the 70s too. If EU spent a few trillion they would be devastated... I agree that Iraq has been rather bad for the US, but once that funnel is gone the dollar will go back up very quickly. Remember, we are still a 13 trillion GNP to the world and the biggest consumer to the world. But once again this means little if the US got into a full out war with another world power. If you haven't notice there was a massive depression that did nothing to hurt our war capabilities in WWII.


[edit on 2-3-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   


The US is fighting a very asymmetric war that is not directly against another government. Are you suggesting that IEDs are the down fall to the US?

Where did I say that?



If you actually looked at the IEDs that have been used for the last few years there is not a vehicle in the world that can be made to overcome one. EVERY humvee that goes outside the base is heavely armored, that is a fact and I have seen this with my own two eyes,


www.gallupindependent.com...



They were given 10 trucks for their platoon, but only five radios; vests but no plates, a Humvee with no armor, 50 caliber machine guns, and Mark 19 automatic grenade launchers but no mounts. "So we had no suppressive fire at all from grenades,"



www.abovetopsecret.com...


Another wrote: “I was driving a high-back humvee with no armor…I lost three fingers on my left hand and took shrapnel in my legs and chest. Would an uparmor kit have kept my fingers from being blown off? No one will ever know for sure, but I think so.”


www.supermarketguru.com...


Perhaps the most trying moment in Jefferies' service came during his time in Iraq, where he served as First Sergeant for the 4th Infantry Division. As First Sergeant, Jefferies was essentially father to 300+ men, giving general military advice and keeping everything in check. Sadly, one of his best friends, Staff Sergeant Christopher "Cutch" Cutchall, was killed riding in a HMMWV (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle or Humvee) with no armor outside of Baghdad. Jefferies fondly recalls how Cutch served up the best mix of coffee and chocolate in the field.



My answer to you would be....get real.



but up against the IEDs being produced (Iran?) even a tank doesn't have a chance either.

What is this line for, in case I prove there is no armor for humvees so it's your insurance?
Ever herd of bulets?you know troops get behind the humvee for protection, it's the first step, because it has armor?





What we have today is the most combat capable military in the world due to all these years of fighting. To go back to the "asymmetric" war, the US has had to adapt rather quickly for totally new fighting situations that consistently change. What the bad guys do is continually test every area of the military and if they find the slightest weakness they exploit it.

This has nothing to do with economical power, with upgrading technology.



Because of this the US military is extremely better than anything out there for decades to come.

Yes that is why afganistan is still going on, and iraq is still going on, because you are the best of the best of the best .
I'll tell you why it's still going on, lack of resorces, equiptment, low protection level .

There are even voices down in Iraq that say, don't waste the shot save it for later, we have limited stock of amunition.


If the US goes into a recession then the whole world goes into one. BTW recession means very little in an all out war.

No that is false, strong economies will sustain their self, because they do not depend on the dolar, they depend on their own strong curency.
Other weaker economies from countries that are not evolved can survive by dumping the dolar and trading in another curency.




How do you rate the 600 million who live in China on 30 bucks a month in income?

There is a big difrence, food is cheap, medicine is cheap, property is more afortable.
It would be a surprise for you to find out that people pay 2 dolars for a pack of malboro.




The only GNP that can equal the US is EU that is made up of 29 countries...

That is not true.
First of all the EURO is almost twice worth, so it is not equal, it's worth
almost double.
The canadian dolar is worth more
1.97153 CAD = 2.00 USD

English curency.
2.00 GBP = 3.96826 USD



I do not think we are broke. What country can flush 1.5 trillion down an Iraqi toilet and overcome it?

The question would be can it do it in the near future.



The dollar is weak because of it, but that will change as long as we do not flush another 1.5 trillion. BTW most of that 1.5 trillion was not used for the US war machine. Most of it has been wasted on nation building hence my reason as to why I call it "flushed down a toilet".

The down fall of the US economy is due to this curent administration and to it's foreign policy.
In an open market you can't survive with such people claming to be diplomats when in fact war is the only diplomacy they know.


You are mixing apples with oranges here to try and prove your point that has little logic to it.

I don't see how I can be wrong since all I hear on CNN all day long is how the US economy is one step from a total colapse, and then Bush coming out and stating that the economy is not heading in to recesion with nothing to cover it.In other words blank words.






I have lived in Germany, France, Korea, Japan and I can tell you I live a hell of a lot better in the US of A. What we take for granted here are major luxuries in the rest of the world... I could make a list that would exceed my 10,000 word post count to name them.

Not really, you got food cheaper but with less quality in it.
Of course a hamburger is going to be cheaper compared to a real cooked soop with non frozen vegetables with fresh chiken in it.


You buy your soop in a can, people buy stuff to make it home in other places of the world.
Natural food will always be higher at cost it requiers more care, and heavy maintainance from preventing pestilance and bugs from ruining it.
Eating cheaper causes obesity, alzheimer and cancer simply because of the junk they put in your food.

Medicine is free in other parts of the world , it comes as a public service, it functions like the police departments, the educational service, like your postal service.
I do not know what you mean by living better.
My idea of living better is having a healthy nutrition, having free health care as a public service, having money to go to the sea side and in to the mountains every 6 months, and being to go out every night.
It does not involve expencive cars and a house so big I would get lost in it.
Small house so I would feel confortable, and a nice little car so I can find a parking lot for it.
I do not like big things any way.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join