America is the most powerful nation EVER!!!

reply to post by fozotronic


The thing is that the United States is not the only nation in Iraq and Afghanistan or the Middle East for that matter! The whole world loves pinning responsibility on the U.S., yet we all ignore that a large portion of the arms that ME countries are armed with have come from Russia at some point or another, be it from the Cold War or their current arms trade with Pakistan and other countries in the region. Also, the fact that we didn't invade Iraq until we had a "Coalition of the Willing" should tell the world that, while the United States government did plan to invade Iraq, it wished to wait until it had enough support from countries surrounding Iraq and from members of NATO, such as the United Kingdom, to attack Saddam's regime. And the United States did! Since it was a plan constructed by the United States, Americans have played the largest role in the war on terror, yes, but the United States is not the only country in the Middle East, and this seems to be a common misconception of the War in Iraq.

Members of the Coalition forces in Iraq:

United States
United Kingdom
Georgia
South Korea
Australia
Poland
Romania
El Salvador
Bulgaria
Albania
Mongolia
Czech Republic
Azerbaijan
Tonga
Denmark
Armenia
Macedonia
Ukraine
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Estonia
Kazakhstan
Moldova
Latvia


Also for you United Kingdom fans out there:

As of 2006, the Independent reported that British companies have received at least £1.1bn contracts for reconstruction work in postwar Iraq.

Tell me you aren't trying to get some money out of the war.

reply to post by Cpt. Monty

The whole world loves pinning responsibility on the U.S.

Thats because you're seen by many as the world's only super power.(as China is quite insular.at the moment.)

Being in charge means you get the blame for everything!
Us Brits did when we had a global empire.As did the Spanish,the Romans,the Ottomons,the Persians etc.

No one thinks of the good that you do when your in charge,more so when your in charge and involved in (illegal) wars.

If you want to play the game of thrones you can't whine about the names you get called or how things are difficult for you.

And pointing fingers and saying "well you do it too" or "you did it 1st" doesn't help anyone.

If you wanna be the boss and you wanna police the world,suck it up!!




[edit on 27-4-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by jakyll


The United States is not the only nation involved in the "Policing of the world" though. The United Nations Security Council is one major player. I'm assuming you have all heard of it. As far as international security goes, every P5 nation on the Security council has the power to veto any resolution it see as unjust for whatever reason, and then that resolution simply vanishes, or they amend it to please all nations currently on the security council, the P5 in particular.

P5 Nations:

United States
United Kingdom
France
Russia
China

The United States isn't he only nation trying to police the world, that is in fact the role of the United Nations DISEC and Security Council.

reply to post by Cpt. Monty

The United States is not the only nation involved in the "Policing of the world" though.

I didn't say you were mate.
I said you're the only super power.

And super power's are those at the top,the one that everyone else notices.
Which means everyone else gets forgotten.
Is that fare?
Of course not.
Its just how the world works.

reply to post by jakyll


The P5s are all considered "Super Powers" for the sake of the United Nations and setting the rules of the Security Council and thus the world.

"Arm the enemies of your enimies"

China built North Koreas Nuclear program and North Korea distributes that know-how and parts to other countries like Syria, Iran and others. NK engineers work with native scientists to get things going in that country.

"Pose as a friend, yet be a spy"

China has been playing this game with the US for years. The US has been letting China do it in spite of an increasing trade imbalance, tainted imports and using NK to do most of the dirty-work in weopons distribution.

Originally posted by magicmushroom you cannot comment on what I post but comment on how I post.

This is quite hypocritical of you mushroom. You have YET to refute any of my points, but rather rehashed your fanatical anti-American rhetoric which is a proven bias.

You clearly have no proper arguments, only childish name-calling, as everyone can see. This proves that you are :

a) insecure and humiliated
b) extremely jealous of America

Well how educated is that? What, do you lack the wear with all to debate on this thread. Never mind perhaps a more worthy opponent may present themselves who can take up the cudgel to represent their country.

Please, do not begin to pretend that you know how to debate.

Yes your right you best go shoot some hoops, you dont want to tire yourself out with logical debate do you now.

In your case, it is "Against logic there is no armor like ignorance."

reply to post by West Coast


Well said West Coast, thank you for backing me up a bit against the rash and overly opinionated comments from mushroom. It is much appreciated to see that I am not the only one who sees his ridiculous behavior.

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
reply to post by West Coast

 

Well said West Coast, thank you for backing me up a bit against the rash and overly opinionated comments from mushroom. It is much appreciated to see that I am not the only one who sees his ridiculous behavior.

No problem.

The problem with this site is that it does tend to attract "loonies", making a logical debate moot.

America is not the most powerful nation ever...never has been and never will be.

There are other more powerful nations out here in this world to whom we do obedience.... in servitude. To those of us who can think further than the next sound bite..this is obvious.

Anyone capable of thinking can figure out that we engage in war after war...losing billions in materials and thousands of our finest blood but dont bring home any real spoils. Only Americans can be stupid enough to do such idiocy in two major wars...and continue on in ignorance. Most other nations would have folded up long ago. Yet here we are again in another war...being Hijacked to someone elses purposes at huge expenses in materials..dollars and now peoples.

It is quite obvious that we are fighting this and previous wars for someone elses profits ..not ours.

Remember..the victors get the spoils....this is a timless dictum..yet we dont bring home any spoils. Remember this the next time you pump gas or fill your heating oil tank.

In case you need translation here..it means we have continually lost.
Only America and Americans can so stupid as to rebuild our enemies and down the road they can economically screw us...over and over. You have to go to school to get this stupid that you dont recognize the pattern.

The only rationale for this is that someone else more powerful is controlling us ...someone out there ...somewhere..not a nation per se..with borders..but a borderless nation..hence ..difficult to see or recognize. Someone very very powerful...yet able to put our government and hence our peoples over a barrel.

The UNited Nations...good grief...what a bunch of wimps. They cant agree long enough to do anything...everything they do is by getting other nations to default over to them. They are parasites...on this country and others. The UN gives New York City a bad name.

I suspect that this has been done with other nations in history past...it is now our time. When we are used up we will be kicked to the curb like all the rest. That time is not far down the road now.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by magicmushroom


"The Us is now spending more money killing and destroying than it is helping people do you think thats makes you great or the best"

It's US,not "Us",I don't ever get on people about grammar or spelling,but you are becoming quite incomprehensable.

The US being the wealthiest, strongest and most influential nation, it is worth seeing how their actions or inaction affect other nations. One notable area is US foreign aid. Being a major part of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and even helping to formulate the United Nations over 50 years ago, their actions can be felt around the world.

Around the world for numerous years, many have criticized the US for cutting back on its promised obligations and responsibilities, and that furthermore, when it has provided aid, it has been tied to its own foreign policy objectives. Yet, many rich nations that provide aid can be criticized in a similar way.link

"The United States, being the most formidable military power, it is worth looking at their spending, compared to the rest of the world. Consider the following:

* On the military in general, the USA spends more than the rest of the G7 countries combined
* The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2003 is $396.1 billion
* The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2002 was $343.2 billion.
* The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2001 was $305 billion And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
* This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.
* The US military budget is more than six times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
* The US military budget is more than twenty six times as large as the combined spending of the seven "rogue" states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria).
* It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty five nations.
* The United States and its close allies (NATO countries, Australia Japan and South Korea) spend more than the rest of the world combined
* This accounts for two thirds of all military spending.
* Together they spend approximately 40 times more than the seven rogue states.
* The seven potential "enemies," Russia and China together spend $117 billion, less than 30% of the U.S. military budget.
* Global military spending has declined from $1.2 trillion in 1985 to $809 billion in 1998. During that time the U.S. share of total military spending rose from 31% to 36% in Fiscal Year 1999.
* In 1997 alone, half of USA's aid was related to military aid/trade -- and most of that was to countries that are already wealthy, like Israel, or Turkey (which has often been one of the largest recipients of US military aid and has often been criticized for its human rights violations and crackdowns). Compare that to very poor countries like Sub-Saharan African nations that received very little aid.
* During his election campaign, President George Bush had promised an an additional 45 billion dollars over nine years to the military budget. Yet, that increase was seen in just the Fiscal Year 2003 request alone. This large increase is attributed to the "War on Terror"."

Some of the above statistics are from World Military Expenditures from the Center for Defense Information (CDI) and their Miltary Spending: U.S. vs the World table. They have more statistics and charts if you are interested, including this one from the above-mentioned World Military Expenditures page, where they also describe the amount the U.S. spend on military "simply staggering":

In this new era, traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All of their enemies, former enemies and even allies do not pose a military threat to the United States. For a while now, critics of large military spending have pointed out that most likely forms of threat to the United States would be through terrorist actions, rather than conventional warfare, and that the spending is still geared towards Cold War-type scenarios and other such conventional confrontations.

And, of course, this will come from American tax payer money. Many studies and polls show that military spending is one of the last things on the minds of American people. Furthermore, "national defense" category of federal spending in 1997, for example amounted to 51% of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year. This is different to manatory spending, the money that is spent in compliance with existing laws, such as social secuity benefits, medicare, paying the interest on the national debt and so on). For 2003, the total budget request for discretionary spending is $767 billion, of which 51.6% is the military budget -- $396 billion. Compare this with the next two largest items, which are education and health, getting $52bn and $49bn dollars, (6.8% and 6.4% of discretionary budget) respectively.

For facts, statistics, research and news on US military spending, also visit the Center for Defense Information (CDI) web site. They have a section on US Military Spending. They also provide statistics of spending by the US. vs. the World.

But it is not just the U.S. military spending. In fact, as Jan Oberg argues, westerm militarism often overlaps with civilian functions affecting attitudes to militarism in general. As a result, when Western militaries may have been revealed to have trained dictators and human rights violators, the reasoning for that given may be surprising, which we look at in the next page.

And this is from an UK site!!

1. The USA is the world's biggest giver
“When the going gets tough, Americans keep giving - to the tune of nearly $241 billion. Charitable donations for 2002 set a new high, rising 1 percent over 2001's total in current dollars, according to Giving USA, a report released Monday by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel's Trust for Philanthropy in Indianapolis. The estimated $240.92 billion in gifts equalled 2.3 percent of US gross domestic product.
Although once it is adjusted for inflation the amount represents a 0.5 percent decline since 2001, it still shows "the resilience and pervasiveness of giving in our culture," says Leo Arnoult, chair of the AAFRC Trust.

Most donations come from individuals (76 percent of the total), and some nonprofit sectors were hit harder last year than others.”

link

Foreign assistance is a fundamental component of the international affairs
budget and is viewed by many as an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy.
Since the end of the Cold War, many have proposed significant changes in the size,
composition, and purpose of the program, several of which have been adopted. The
focus of U.S. foreign aid policy has also been transformed since the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001. This report provides an overview of the U.S. foreign aid
program, by addressing a number of the more frequently asked questions regarding
the subject.
There are five major categories of foreign assistance: bilateral development aid,
economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid,
multilateral economic contributions, and military aid. Due largely to the recent
implementation two new foreign aid initiatives — the Millennium Challenge
Corporation and the Global AIDS Initiative — bilateral development assistance has
become the largest category of U.S. aid.
In 2004, the United States is providing some form of foreign assistance to about
150 countries. Israel and Egypt continue, as they have since the late 1970s, as the
continued..

[edit on 4/27/2008 by jkrog08]

[edit on 4/27/2008 by jkrog08]

link for last page
(continued from last page)

By nearly all measures, the amount of foreign aid provided by the United States
declined for several decades but has grown in the past few years. After hitting an alltime
low in the mid1990s, total foreign assistance (but excluding Iraq reconstruction)
for FY2003/2004, in real terms, has been larger than any two-year period since the
mid-1980s. The 0.2% of U.S. gross national product represented by foreign aid
obligations the past two years, however, is among the smallest amounts in the last
half-century. The United States is the largest international economic aid donor in
dollar terms but is the smallest contributor among the major donor governments
when calculated as a percent of gross national income.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of
bilateral economic assistance; the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid;
and the Department of Defense (DOD) and the State Department administer military
and other security-related programs. The Millennium Challenge Corporation is a new
foreign aid agency created in 2004. The House International Relations and Senate
Foreign Relations Committees have primary congressional responsibility for
authorizing foreign aid programs while the House and Senate Appropriations Foreign
Operations Subcommittees manage bills appropriating most foreign assistance funds.

Its funny.....cause you don't know what you are talking about.........ofcourse the US spends more on the military...we would be STUPID if we didn't.I also mind you look closel at what some of the source's said about the US out spending China and Russia on military budget by about 10 fold,as well as all sures stating the US is the most powerful.

reply to post by magicmushroom

You seem fixated with exotic weaponry and assume that will do the job or save the day. And again I ask the question if you could not stop 19 terrorists achieving what they did how are you going to stop say thousands on your own soil. You see thats the mistake you make, you talk about what you can do to others but not what can be done to you.

You talk as though the US and its people are immune from any attack but it is not is it. The wars that you so applaud can be brought to your own doorstep, perhaps when you see your loved ones being murdered it will make you think. Perhaps thats what America and Americans need, war on their own soil, I wonder if you would have the stomach or fortitude for it. It would appear that you are just an armchair warrior spouting arrogance and ignorance from a nice safe place but maybe not for long.

I very much agree with what you have said here.
And,as i stated earlier,the US does rely way too much on weapons.They forget that manpower and leadership are just as important.


The Us has the 2nd largest cache of nuclear weapons so of course they could destroy countries if they wanted to.
And as Russia has the largest cache of nuclear weapons on the planet,i guess that means they could destroy America!

You make the assumption that American is everyones friend and supports them when that is not true. And just as a tip stop believing all the bull crap about Iran, Israel has nukes and has threatened to use them and not just against Iran but against others including the US. Why are you fighting their wars for them, are American lives worth less than Israeli ones.

Again i agree.
The opposition to this War on Terror is proof of that!
And why is it that Israel,a country thats been in a state of conflict since its modern day creation,can not only have nuclear weapons but can also threaten time and again to use them on Muslim countries??
Any other country that just tests nukes gets jumped upon from a great height!

There is every chance that whilst America impales itself on three wars thats when it will be struck and struck hard. Its a basic strategy, wait till your opponent is bogged down and then stomp all over them.

Any one with half a brain would see that!
Just as any fool would know that as soon as Saddam was taken out the country would fall into guerrilla warfare.





jkrog08.

We have strategically surrounded Iran so to say,I think that alot of the reason behind are problem in Iraq is that we really don't care,we just want a position against Iran-which we have.

Have you looked at a map recently?
Iran is bordered by 8 countries,we are only in 2 and,as any good military leader knows,you don't start a battle when there is another going on behind you.Which is exactly what will happen if Iran is invaded before Iraq is brought under control.
The same will happen if we decide to attack from Afghanistan as well.
Also,we leave ourselves open to Iran's new ally,China.
China shares a border with Afghanistan.Its tiny,but its still a way in.


You may find this link interesting.
www.voltairenet.org...

reply to post by West Coast

The USSR had an economy that was roughly 300-350 billion dollars, its economy was far smaller than americas back then, but it did spend most of its GDP on its military. The US could easily outspend the soviets, and did, which caused the initial collapse of the USSR. At current, the US spends roughly 5-6 percent of GDP on its military, which is about the average for every major industrialized nation. So I do not see how the two compare.

You believe that the figures your government put out are correct??

At a time like this those in charge will lie even more because they don't want anymore people opposing the wars currently being fought.
Its only recently that your government hasn't started telling the truth of how many soldiers have died and thats only because people were pointing out that their figures didn't tally with everyone else's.

Tell me, why doesnt russia have any smart missiles, or smart bombs?

Because since the fall of Communism Russia stopped being paranoid about the US and tried to get itself back on its feet.And i should point out that every time Russia tried to open up trade with Europe,America vetoed it.So its no surprise that they have turned to Asia for allies and trade.
Americas show of force is what has put Russia back on the defencive and,like China,if they arm all the available people for war,the US forces will be dwarfed.

I suppose the entire Saddam regime, along with Talibani ruled government in Afghanistan don't count?

Remenants of the Saddam regime still exist,as does the Taliban.
One of the reasons the wars still rage.
And Osama and his boys are still at large.Maybe their hiding with all those nukes America said Iraq has






magicmushroom.

Where was all your power and weaponry on 9/11

Indeed.
2 fighter jets to protect over 2000 miles of coastline: (the official report said) makes you think.


Its also a valid point that doesn't appear to have been answered yet.
If the hijacking of 2 planes can bring the country to a standstill,how will you fare against (possibly) 1000's of terrorists??
Will you destroy/nuke your own country??
Will you still say that your superior weaponry will save the day,even though most of these weapons would become obsolete??





jkrog08

You also claim that we are not the only country in Iraq or Afghanistan-true,but we are the MAJORITY there,if all these other countries really wanted to help than they would send some REAL help and stop letting us do all the damn fighting-what UK sends 10,000 troops and we send 160,000?????Are you kidding me?

Er,you do have a huge population compared with the UK.
And its not always numbers that count,but quality

The Germans were getting beat by the Russians BEFORE the US entered-again wrong,do some research

Dec 8th,1941-The United States entered the war.(against Japan.)
Dec 11,1941-Germany declares war on the United States.
Jan 26,1942-First American forces arrive in Great Britain.
The Eastern Front was a theater of war between the German Reich and the Soviet Union which encompassed central and eastern Europe from June 22, 1941 to May 9,1945.
It was the largest theater of war in history and was notorious for its unprecedented ferocity,destruction,and immense loss of life.More people fought and died on the Eastern Front than in all other theaters of World War II combined.With over 20 million dead,many of them civilians,the Eastern Front has been called a war of extermination.It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich and the partition of Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower.

You also realize that the US was fighting the Jap's almost entirely by OURSELFS right?

Really?

US allies of Pacific War;
China.
Britain.
Australia.
New Zealand.
India.
Canada.
France.
Malaysia.
Holland.
USSR.
The Philippines,etc,etc,etc.

Research mate






Cpt Monty.

You claim the United States didn't win World War II, and guess what....you're right! It was a joint effort, everyone knows that, and had the United States not entered the European theater of war when it did, you can bet every single pound you have saved up that that the United Kingdom would have been a smoldering pile of rubble. Sure, Britain had the RAF, which was an amazing force to be reckoned with at the time, but Britain would not have been able to fight against the German machine without help from the United States, and you should know that.

Yup,definatly a joint effort.
But the moment Germany had to split her forces between east and west she was doomed.
The sheer size of the USSR and the amount of soldiers they could produce made sure of that.
And the fact that Germany was also fighting in Africa too meant that their forces where stretched to breaking point.

Europe needed supplies more than anything else,whereas the Pacific theater of war needed men and supplies,the US provided that.So i would say that you had a greater impact there than you did in Europe.

This thread has been officially Nuked. Sorry. OP, you gave me no choice....








[edit on 28-4-2008 by VisionQuest]

[edit on 28-4-2008 by VisionQuest]

reply to post by jakyll


The US played a big role in the European War way before we even joined it officially.
For anyone thats not sure what I am talking about, just google "Liberty Boats."
These were boats that the US was using to supply England with and were being sunk on a regular bases.

That list of the allies in the Pacific war is for show only! You show me which Pacific Battle that these allies played an important or even supporting role in besides a coast watcher or native spotter?
Iwo, Guadalcanal, Okinawa, Wake, Midway, Leyte Gulf? Nope, this was all US Marines, Soldiers and US Navy.
England was shut out of the Pacific War when they surrendered in Singapore
and Australia was rooting us on from the sidelines
I guess moral support IS important though.

West Coast, Jkrog, Cpt, its good to see you all sticking together, just what I would expect from persons such as you, that would be arrogant, ignorant, racist and delluded.

You cannot get away from the fact the the USA is responsible for the deaths of over 6 million people who did not need to die in your sensless wars. First you were scared of Reds under the bed now its the Islamofascists that your scared of.

The US is a schoolyard bully and like all bullies it will get its come uppence and very soon at that. The fact that you have numerous Americans stating that you country is in dire straits, the Goverment corrupt, and the constitution in tatters the best you three can come up with is how big your weapon is.

Thats a sign of insecurity, you are either in denial of what is taking place in your country or you are just ignorant I dont know which it is.
And just like all bullies the best you can come up with is invading 3rd World countries and then you start preening yourself on how good you are. The US is engaged in a war that is costing the country trillions and you three think that its great when all logic dictates otherwise.

And talking of power and capability how long have you been in Iraq and still no end in sight. All you have is excuces, oh if we were to do that or if we could do this. The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot win because the people of that region dont want you there or any other occupying force. Nobody there has asked you for an American way of like yet your Goverment seems to think they can ram it down peoples throats which raises another interesting point.

Buffoon Bush proclaims that he wants the people of the ME to have democracy which is rather interesting because he seems to be going all out to deny the American people of same. Whilst your forces are getting the crap knocked out of them for corporate greed your Goverment is introducing more and more draconian legislation at home to deny you the very aims that it is allegedly seeking in the ME. We all know its crap dont we, idiot bush even said there was no WMD's, we all know its about pursuing PNAC and securing the ME for the safety of the Isreali's and robbing Iraq of its natural resources.

But whats the point in discussing any of this with the likes of you three because your so mind controlled by the system that you can no longer think for yourselves and like babies have to be spoon fed your daily diet of lies and deception.

Kronos, your quite correct America did much to help the British in ww2 I for one have never denied it. What I dont agree with is certain people stating that they did it all when that was not true. With regard to the Pacific theatre have you forgotten the British and Commonwealth troops fighting the Japs in Burma, Malaya and elswhere and our Royal Navy at sea, the US was doing the Lions share but to say we took no part is incorrect.

Our total war losses for ww2 was 382k combat dead plus 67k civillian dead roughly 450k the US lost 416k combat dead. Relatively the UK suffered more as it had a much smaller population about a third the size of the USA at the time. Just below 1% of our population were killed compared to 0.3% for the Americans. Terribles figures indeed for any country and ours was but of a fraction compared to the Russians, Germans and people of the Jewish faith.

reply to post by magicmushroom


I've always believed that if the English weren't so stubborn and strong and if they would've lost the BoB, England would've fallen.
If England would've fallen then its quite possible that Germany could have won the war in Europe.
I've never diminished England's role in WW2 and anyone that does is a fool.
I poke jabs at Brits on here from time to time and they drive me nuts on Xbox Live but theres still kind of a brotherly love there

reply to post by VisionQuest


WOW-your REAL MATURE,I call for a warning and maybe a banning for that one,how old are you 10?"Dude you just been nuked..hahahaha"


Damn man,get a life and get off my thread.