America is the most powerful nation EVER!!!

reply to post by jetxnet


Wrong.

Tiawan's helo fleet is completely designed to halt an amphibious invasion by China.

You fail.

reply to post by fiftyfifty


Wrong.

No country has the capability to withstand a full scale assault on the US.

We'd sink any carriers on their way, and down any long range bombers before they had the chance to drop ordinance. No other vessel or aircraft have the range needed to make a tactical strike on the US.

It's not being cocky, it's a fact.

Just think about what you said. You essentially said it would take all the nations of the world attacking the US simultaniously to beat the US. Think about that for a minute and drown in the irony.

You're saying the US isn't the single most powerful nation in the world, yet it would take all of the military might in the world acting as a single coalition to beat it.

The only chance of even reaching American soil would be a ground attack via Russia and Alaska which is an extremely easily defendable choke point.

Our biggest problem there would be what to do with all the bodies.

Short of nukes, nobody would stand a chance.

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

What, do you not read everything before posting?Maybe thats why you sound so ignorent?...............Or does it take you a whole day to sit there and think of something "brilliant"to say?!

No, I have read all the posts here. If I sound "ignorant" to you perhaps it is merely your ignorance of the things I speak of.

Also I never said that evey nation needs to be a patriot of the US...............Every citizen of every country needs to be a patriot of THEIR country........dont put words in my mouth.

Um... What words did I put in your mouth? I reviewed what I wrote and saw nothing suggesting that I thought you meant everyone should be a patriot of the US. Please show me where you read that and I will clarify.

Also I supposse you have inside information that proves you saying our own government perpetrated 9/11?????????????Im not saying we didnt,I never said my government was good.......just powerful.

Dude, I don't need "inside" information. The evidence is laid before us.


And you didn't answer my question...

WHY do you "believe that the US has the moral duty as the super power (militarly)to police and uphold civility of the planet?"

Nor did you address what our role would be if a country had no interest in our "help." Or if their values differed from ours. Nor address that fact that lately, we have been giving our "help" against protests of the citizens who are receiving our "help." What percentage of Iraqis do you think, if a vote were taken (democratically!) in Iraq, would vote for our "help?"

Well, I suspect these and other questions I asked will remain unanswered.

reply to post by Air_Superiority


Well... I think that though we have these capabilities, the rest of the world is not who we might fear will attack us. It's our own government (who might stand by and let the rest of the world whale on us).

It is they who planned all "terrorist" occurrences here, and they are planning worse. So even if they have, in this country's arsenal, 20 times that of the rest of the world combined (who knows what it really is), it will only be used if it suits the PTB to use it to their profit, and most likely it will be used against us.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant

If the United States did not bow to a somewhat Political Correctness, they could have and still could easily have already ended the incursion in Iraq!!!

Here are some historians judging the current US government and the future of the US. Here are some judgements of American historians (none of the comments is from me personally):

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said a historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

One historian indicated that his reason for rating Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: “the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover. . . . . God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.” Another classified Bush as “an ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man . . . .” Still another remarked that Bush’s “denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.”

“George W. Bush's presidency is the pernicious enemy of American freedom, compassion, and community; of world peace; and of life itself as it has evolved for millennia on large sections of the planet. The worst president ever? Let history judge him.”

“Although previous presidents have led the nation into ill-advised wars, no predecessor managed to turn America into an unprovoked aggressor. No predecessor so thoroughly managed to confirm the impressions of those who already hated America. No predecessor so effectively convinced such a wide range of world opinion that America is an imperialist threat to world peace. I don 't think that you can do much worse than that.”

I see the administration of the second Bush as clearly the worst in our history. My reasons are similar to those cited by other historians: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed enormous support around the world. President Bush squandered that goodwill by taking the country into an unnecessary war of choice and misleading the American people to gain support for that war. And he failed utterly to have a plan to deal with Iraq after the invasion. He further undermined the international reputation of the United States by justifying torture.

“Buchanan can be said to have made the Civil War inevitable or to have made the war last longer by his pusillanimity or, possibly, treason.” “Buchanan allowed a war to evolve, but that war addressed a real set of national issues. Mr. Bush started a war . . . for what reason?”

Source: www.hnn.us

Certainly the US is currently the must powerful nation. It is however just 300 million large. China and India are much larger in size. It will take years from them to get close, but it's possible they will take over the role.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by lightyears]

[edit on 21-4-2008 by lightyears]

reply to post by jkrog08


War is the spectacular and bloody projection of our everyday life, is it not?

War is merely an outward expression of our inward state, an enlargement of our daily action. It is more spectacular, more bloody, more destructive, but it is the collective result of our individual activities. Therefore, you and I are responsible for war and what can we do to stop it? Obviously the ever-impending war cannot be stopped by you and me, because it is already in movement; it is already taking place, though at present chiefly on the psychological level. As it is already in movement, it cannot be stopped- the issues are too many, too great, and are already committed. But you and I, seeing that the house is on fire, can understand the causes of that fire, can go away from it and build in a new place with different materials that are not combustible, that will not produce other wars. That is all that we can do. You and I can see what creates wars, and if we are interested in stopping wars, then we can begin to transform ourselves, who are the causes of war.

An American lady came to see me a couple of years ago, during the war. She said she had lost her son in Italy and that she had another son aged sixteen whom she wanted to save; so we talked the thing over. I suggested to her that to save her son she had to cease to be an American; she had to cease to be greedy, cease piling up wealth, seeking power, domination, and be morally simple – not merely simple in clothes, in outward things, but simple in her thoughts and feelings, in her relationships. She said,” That is too much. You are asking far too much. I cannot do it, because circumstances are too powerful for me to alter.” Therefore she was responsible for the destruction of her son.

Circumstances can be controlled by us, because we have created the circumstances. Society is the product of relationship, society changes; merely to rely on legislation, on compulsion, for the transformation of outward society, while remaining inwardly corrupt, while continuing inwardly to seek power, position, domination, is to destroy the outward, however carefully and scientifically built. That which is inward is always overcoming the outward.

What causes war – religious, political or economic? Obviously belief, either in nationalism, in an ideology, or in a particular dogma. If we had no belief but goodwill, love and consideration between us, then there would be no wars. But we are fed on beliefs, ideas and dogmas and therefore we breed discontent. The present crisis is of an exceptional nature and we as human beings must either pursue the path of constant conflict and continuous wars, which are the result of our everyday action, or else see the causes of war and turn our back upon them.

Obviously what causes war is the desire for power, position, prestige, money; also the disease called nationalism, the worship of a flag; and the disease of organized religion, the worship of a dogma. All these are the causes of war; if you as an individual belong to any of the organized religions, if you are greedy for power, if you are envious, you are bound to produce a society which will result in destruction. So again it depends upon you and not on the leaders – not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that. If once we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery! But you see, we are indifferent. We have three meals a day, we have our jobs, we have our bank account, big or little, and we say, “For God’s sake, don’t disturb us, leave us alone”. The higher up we are, the more we want security, permanency, tranquility, the more we want to be left alone, to maintain things fixed as they are; but they cannot be maintained as they are, because there is nothing to maintain. Everything is disintegrating. We do not want to face these things, we do not want to face the fact that you and I are responsible for wars. You and I may talk about peace, have conferences, sit round a table and discuss, but inwardly, psychologically, we want power, position, we are bound by beliefs, by dogmas, for which we are willing to die and destroy each other. Do you think such men, you and I, can have peace in the world? To have peace, we must be peaceful; to live peacefully means not to create antagonism. Peace is not an ideal. To me, an ideal is merely an escape, an avoidance of what is, a contradiction of what is. An ideal prevents direct action upon what is - which we will go into presently, in another talk. [not on this website] But to have peace, we will have to love, we will have to begin, not to live an ideal life, but to see things as they are and act upon them, transform them. As long as each one of us is seeking psychological security, the physiological security we need – food, clothing and shelter – is destroyed. We are seeking psychological security, which does not exist; and we seek it, if we can, through power, through position, through titles, names – all of which is destroying physical security. This is an obvious fact, when look at it.

To bring about peace in the world, to stop all wars, there must be a revolution in the individual, in you and me. Economic revolution without this inward revolution is meaningless, for hunger is the result of the maladjustment of economic conditions produced by our psychological states – greed, envy, ill-will and possessiveness. To put an end to sorrow, to hunger, to war, there must be a psychological revolution and few of us are willing to face that. We will discuss peace, plan legislation, create new leagues, the United Nations and so on and on; but we will not win peace because we will not give up our position, our authority, our money, our properties, our stupid lives. To rely on others is utterly futile; others cannot bring us peace. No leader is going to give us peace, no government, no army, no country. What will bring peace is inward transformation which will lead to outward action. Inward transformation is not isolation, is not a withdrawal from outward action. On the contrary, there can be right action only when there is right thinking and there is no right thinking when there is no self-knowledge. Without knowing yourself, there is no peace.
J. Krishnamurti

Originally posted by lightyears
Here are some historians judging the current US government and the future of the US. Here are some judgements of American historians (none of the comments is from me personally):

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said a historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

...

Thing is... If one presumes an effort to take this country over, dig a boot-heel in its collective face, as it were, and ensure indentured slaveship of all of us to a small collection of bankers... Everything that has happened, including 9/11-as-an-inside-job, makes sense.

Like it or not America's zenith has already passed.

The do nothing congresses, both Republican and Democrat, the short sighted policies, the caving in to corporate special interests, the loss of jobs that will not come back and the pointless war which runs the risk of ruining our military, not to mention ill advised tax breaks are all conspiring with the un-addressed financial obligations of Social Security, Medicare and ballooning debt to constrain our future. My grand-kids will have less opprotunities and a narrower future than I have had during my life.

And still our so-called leaders refuse to make the hard decisions.

I think most of what has been written on this thread about American military superiority is truly baloney. I think most of you need a reality check, as you seemed to have forgotten about 9-11. Where was your fancy technology and so called military might on that fateful day. If 19 hijackers can bring your country to it's kness, China and Russia could definitely do like wise. It's not like there going to tell you in advance of any imminent attack. You're just as vulnerable as anyone else.

Also this is a conspiracy website and there are those who believe that Alens have bases here on Earth. If true your definitely no longer the most powerful force here on Earth. Your technology compared to the Aliens is probably so lame, it's not even worth a mention.

Aliens vs America in a fight would probably be akin to an Elephant stepping on an ant.

America is currently the worlds most powerful nation, that much is true.
But its far from invincible, examples: 1.Russia makes few suitcase nukes and gives them to a few of bin ladens buddies, they go on a trip to some of the major america cities and level them. 2.China sends some operatives to all the american major cities, each of them has a deadly killer virus that is extremly contagious and decimating the population.
3.North Korea buys a black market nuke and puts it on a boat which is desguised as an american oil tanker and fires the nuke not far from the coastline.

All of those methods could be done without the U.S. even knowning who attacked them, so they couldnt even retaliate

reply to post by Amaterasu


"WHY do you "believe that the US has the moral duty as the super power (militarly)to police and uphold civility of the planet?"

Nor did you address what our role would be if a country had no interest in our "help." Or if their values differed from ours. Nor address that fact that lately, we have been giving our "help" against protests of the citizens who are receiving our "help." What percentage of Iraqis do you think, if a vote were taken (democratically!) in Iraq, would vote for our "help?"

Well, I suspect these and other questions I asked will remain unanswered. "


1.)Im sure the Iraqis (non terrorist)would and have said before they want ou help and are grateful.

2.)I personally dont think the US should get involved in other countries affairs,unless they ask-even then we should only help so much-non militarly.

3.)But having said that I believe that the world superpower (currently the US)does have a responsibility to destroy any threats(possible,even if not likely)to world security.............because what hapens anywhere in the world no days affects everyone-so we have our interests involved also.


***So my point is is there is a fine line between 2 and 3...........one that we have trouble with sometimes..........esspecially now with dumbass....I mean Bush.

I also think Bush is the worst thing to ever happen to America and the world for that matter,I dunno if he has good intentions and is stupid (he definitly(sp?)has stupid advisors)or if he has a purpose for all this(negative to us)I believe the later.

reply to post by PlayeR87


Agreed.....................I am not saying terrorist attacks.............Im speaking a coventional war-no country is a superpower at preventing terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by kilad
OK

First of all, i would like to stress that the following is not intended as personal attacks:




West coast:

You warmongering moron. Look at your stupid robocop-avatar, it says everything about you. Go and jack off to future weapons on discovery instead.


jkrog08:

You little ignorant knowitall-kiddie. Keep talking, sh*t some more on yourself and your country. You speculate in how to bomb and kill people you know nothing of. You are an absolutely amazing idiot





You are just as fanatic as the guys who(allegedly)rammed the world trade center. What you guys need is a full war at your own doorstep.


If you cut the constant rambling of freedom and guns, the selfrighteousness and the overly patriotic attitude, you are a good american, and a good earth citizen. Sadly for you two, you are not






Best regards from Eurotrash kilad

Dude?......................Are you six?..........You really hurt my feelings

SCROLL DOWN FOR REVELATION:
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

LOL..................NOT REALLY

reply to post by kindred


Terrorist attacks are not conventional warfare.........no country is a "power"at defeating them,to do so(and there will always be terrorist,even in the year 3008)

What would you suppose we had did,shoot down the planes?Yea-we were going to,but our jets flew the wrong way(prolly on purpose)Even then-you still lose the entire jet and it still crashes in a populated area.

That is the only way the US can be sucsessfully attacked..............by small terror cells-and not easy any more.

Originally posted by jkrog08
The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor is an American fighter ...yada yada yada, wank wank wank...

They are very nice and I sure they will do a great job - but a few well placed mortars will take them out.

If the Iraqi freedom fighters can lob a few into the Green Zone every now and again, then I can not see it being too much of a problem to hit a few of your nice shiny new planes.

What is your point?

JrKrog08:

Cloverfield?So is your country or China going to send a giant sea monster over here?LOL.........ROFLMA...................... What a dumb ass conparison.

If you ask your primary school teacher (that's the tall lady who looks after you whilst your 'mommy' and 'daddy' are working their asses off to afford you your dumbness) what the word 'context' means, she'll tell you. Ask her nicely, and she'll place what I have quoted of you in understandable Americanese. Then, and only then, will the paragraph you refer to make clear and lucid sense. You've not so much as quoted me out of context, but idiotically (and why is beyond my comprehension) you've actually wrote your response out of context. And 'conparison' is spelt 'comparison'...and you're calling me a 'dumbass'!

I am sure you stated you were twenty-two somewhere? I seriously doubt it! In fact, with that attitude you have, I seriously doubt you'll reach twelve! By the way, what's a junior Krog, and is there actually a senior one? I have this image of you hailing from the Appalachian Mountains playing a banjo...am I correct? Nuff' said...

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by kindred

 

Terrorist attacks are not conventional warfare.........no country is a "power"at defeating them,to do so(and there will always be terrorist,even in the year 3008)

Well, those are the risks you take when you embark on a little imperialism - you have to accept the fact that the locals you imperialise (I believe I have made up a new word) may be a tad upset about it.

Every occupying force has faced a freedom fighters of some sort. I would say that it is a part of conventional warfare and you sir, are a twit.

you have to accept the fact that the locals you imperialise (I believe I have made up a new word)

Sorry, but it is an actual word, meaning to confer authority.

'Imperialise' - (the American version) to liberate an oppressed people by killing them all!