America is the most powerful nation EVER!!!

JK I dont think you really understand what you posted in your opening thread. Statistics reveal the US as the most powerful nation on Earth but there is a big difference between statistics and reality.

For a start off no one asked the US to Police the World and I dont recall any Americans voting for such a policy either. The simple facts are this you are trying to state because you are big and strong that you can always win. We we know thats crap and so do you, size does not mean victory it does not assure victory. The US was a superpower when it invaded Vietnam, did you win no, were the North Vietnamese cowering under their beds at the mighty US no they were not.

Has the US won in Iraq no, will it ever no, will it win in Iran no again. Simply bombing a country into oblivion does not win you anything what it does is ferments hatred against you and your country and against such views and beliefs no nation can win. If you dont beleive me read history it is replete with nations that have fell to tyrants and empires yet they all lost in they end did they not.

And do you think people of the World want your lifestyle do you, do you think they want their traditions etc. trampled on by an invading army. Would you want to turn Muslim if the US was invaded by Muslims, would you give up your way of life and everything you hold dear to be converted. no I dont think so.

But what would you do if every nation on this Planet thought you were a threat to world peace and stability what do you think would happen then. What if your country was blockaded and had sanctions imposed against it what would be your reaction and your feelings.

The big problem is that Americans are ignorant, not all but most, the majority do not have passports and never travel. Their view of the World is what Fox News gives them, they are completly ignorant of other cultures and beliefs and see anything that is not identifiable with them as a threat. In reality the US is like a big Village where no one goes beyond the sight of it, where its inhabitants are blissfully unaware that there is a real World out there with real people.

Also let me state that America can only be compaired with Rome and Britain lightly-due to the change of times.Considering the modern era and how much harder it is to exert influence on countries........yes the US is by far the most powerful nation ever.We control SPACE,AIR,SEA............and have LAND bases in 38 countries.

Also I am not saying no "luck"or "fate" was involved in us becoming a hyperpower..........but it is what it is and it happened.Dont be so quick to use the 2 world wars as a excuse and say we got here by taking advantage of it.We risked alot in entering those wars...........and it goes beyond that to the colonial days when we saw the need of a country that is isolated from the other powers.We then took the country and have become what we are today.Maybe those who blame our power on the world wars wish we never helped out?Then you would be happy I guess?Speaking German or Russian?

jk you obiviously deluded the us the greatist? yeah right look what appens in iraq they cant even deal with asymmetric warfare. $20 ied wipes out the latest in us technology.
iran isnt the strongist but i am sure of this that the us will open the gates of hell they go in all guns blazing but when the time comes the iranians will hit back hard and fast chaos in the region is that what you want?

reply to post by magicmushroom


The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, proclaimed that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies. However, if later on, these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States. Most recently, during the Cold War, the doctrine was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of Soviet Communism.

The Roosevelt Corollary was a substantial alteration (called an "amendment") of the Monroe Doctrine by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Roosevelt's extension of the Monroe Doctrine asserted the right of the United States to intervene to stabilize the economic affairs of small nations in the Caribbean and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts. The alternative was intervention by European powers, especially Britain and Germany, which loaned money to the countries that did not repay. The catalyst of the new policy was Germany's aggressiveness in the Venezuela affair of 1902-03.(Marks 1979)

Mitchener and Weidenmier (2006) show the economic benefits to the small countries. The average debt price for countries under the US "sphere of influence" rose by 74% in response to the pronouncement and actions to make it credible. That is, their bonds rose 74% because buyers now believed they would be repaid. The increase in financial stability reduced internal conflict because political factions could not count on winning control of the national treasury if they won a civil war. The program spurred export growth and better fiscal management, but debt settlements were driven primarily by gunboat diplomacy.

Roosevelt's December 1904 Annual message to Congress declared:

All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.
Wikipedia

reply to post by magicmushroom


European intervention in Latin America (see the Platt Amendment) resurfaced as an issue in U.S. foreign policy when European governments began to use force to pressure several Latin American countries to repay their debts. For example, British, German, and Italian gunboats blockaded Venezuelas ports in 1902 when the Venezuelan government defaulted on its debts to foreign bondholders. Many Americans worried that European intervention in Latin America would undermine their countrys traditional dominance in the region.
To keep other powers out and ensure financial solvency, President Theodore Roosevelt issued his corollary. "Chronic wrongdoing . . . may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation," he announced in his annual message to Congress in December 1904, "and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power."
Roosevelt tied his policy to the Monroe Doctrine, and it was also consistent with his foreign policy of walk softly, but carry a big stick. Roosevelt stated that in keeping with the Monroe Doctrine, the United States was justified in exercising "international police power" to put an end to chronic unrest or wrongdoing in the Western Hemisphere. This so-called Roosevelt Corollarya corollary is an extension of a previous ideato the Monroe Doctrine contained a great irony. The Monroe Doctrine had been sought to prevent European intervention in the Western Hemisphere, but now the Roosevelt Corollary justified American intervention throughout the Western Hemisphere. In 1934, Franklin D. Roosevelt renounced interventionism and established his Good Neighbor policy within the Western Hemisphere.

Transcript of President Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1905)

Excerpted from Theodore Roosevelts Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1904) In treating of our foreign policy and of the attitude that this great Nation should assume in the world at large, it is absolutely necessary to consider the Army and the Navy, and the Congress, through which the thought of the Nation finds its expression, should keep ever vividly in mind the fundamental fact that it is impossible to treat our foreign policy, whether this policy takes shape in the effort to secure justice for others or justice for ourselves, save as conditioned upon the attitude we are willing to take toward our Army, and especially toward our Navy. It is not merely unwise, it is contemptible, for a nation, as for an individual, to use high-sounding language to proclaim its purposes, or to take positions which are ridiculous if unsupported by potential force, and then to refuse to provide this force. If there is no intention of providing and keeping the force necessary to back up a strong attitude, then it is far better not to assume such an attitude.
The steady aim of this Nation, as of all enlightened nations, should be to strive to bring ever nearer the day when there shall prevail throughout the world the peace of justice. There are kinds of peace which are highly undesirable, which are in the long run as destructive as any war. Tyrants and oppressors have many times made a wilderness and called it peace. Many times peoples who were slothful or timid or shortsighted, who had been enervated by ease or by luxury, or misled by false teachings, have shrunk in unmanly fashion from doing duty that was stern and that needed self-sacrifice, and have sought to hide from their own minds their shortcomings, their ignoble motives, by calling them love of peace. The peace of tyrannous terror, the peace of craven weakness, the peace of injustice, all these should be shunned as we shun unrighteous war. The goal to set before us as a nation, the goal which should be set before all mankind, is the attainment of the peace of justice, of the peace which comes when each nation is not merely safe-guarded in its own rights, but scrupulously recognizes and performs its duty toward others. Generally peace tells for righteousness; but if there is conflict between the two, then our fealty is due first to the cause of righteousness. Unrighteous wars are common, and unrighteous peace is rare; but both should be shunned. The right of freedom and the responsibility for the exercise of that right can not be divorced. One of our great poets has well and finely said that freedom is not a gift that tarries long in the hands of cowards. Neither does it tarry long in the hands of those too slothful, too dishonest, or too unintelligent to exercise it. The eternal vigilance which is the price of liberty must be exercised, sometimes to guard against outside foes; although of course far more often to guard against our own selfish or thoughtless shortcomings.
If these self-evident truths are kept before us, and only if they are so kept before us, we shall have a clear idea of what our foreign policy in its larger aspects should be. It is our duty to remember that a nation has no more right to do injustice to another nation, strong or weak, than an individual has to do injustice to another individual; that the same moral law applies in one case as in the other. But we must also remember that it is as much the duty of the Nation to guard its own rights and its own interests as it is the duty of the individual so to do. Within the Nation the individual has now delegated this right to the State, that is, to the representative of all the individuals, and it is a maxim of the law that for every wrong there is a remedy. But in international law we have not advanced by any means as far as we have advanced in municipal law. There is as yet no judicial way of enforcing a right in international law. When one nation wrongs another or wrongs many others, there is no tribunal before which the wrongdoer can be brought. Either it is necessary supinely to acquiesce in the wrong, and thus put a premium upon brutality and aggression, or else it is necessary for the aggrieved nation valiantly to stand up for its rights. Until some method is devised by which there shall be a degree of international control over offending nations, it would be a wicked thing for the most civilized powers, for those with most sense of international obligations and with keenest and most generous appreciation of the difference between right and wrong, to disarm. If the great civilized nations of the present day should completely disarm, the result would mean an immediate recrudescence of barbarism in one form or another. Under any circumstances a sufficient armament would have to be kept up to serve the purposes of international police; and until international cohesion and the sense of international duties and rights are far more advanced than at present, a nation desirous both of securing respect for itself and of doing good to others must have a force adequate for the work which it feels is allotted to it as its part of the general world duty. Therefore it follows that a self-respecting, just, and far-seeing nation should on the one hand endeavor by every means to aid in the development of the various movements which tend to provide substitutes for war, which tend to render nations in their actions toward one another, and indeed toward their own peoples, more responsive to the general sentiment of humane and civilized mankind; and on the other hand that it should keep prepared, while scrupulously avoiding wrongdoing itself, to repel any wrong, and in exceptional cases to take action which in a more advanced stage of international relations would come under the head of the exercise of the international police. LINK

[edit on 4/19/2008 by jkrog08]

HEREHeres some more,for full transcript,visit the link

It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards the other nations of the Western Hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power......

Not even in the same category of the same league on the same planet of the most powerful empires "EVER". Good argument though

JKRog you sound like a Dictator in waiting oh if we all bow down to the US and do as we are told we have a right to exist. How about we dont like you and you can stuff you generosity where the Sun dont shine. Thats what many people think and its attitudes such as yours as why they think like that. Would you have argreed with Hitler or Stalin they were trying to perfect the feerfect World and look what happened to them.

And dont say America's not like that but its becoming exactly like that, with new laws being posted almost dailly re your rights or whats left of them. If you want to see the US completely destoyed and its people keep banging them war drums.

Stop posting long winded texts from other sources post your own views on this thread you started it.

Shahab-3 missile systems and a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles, at least one of which Israel claims has been used to spy on Israel. [27] In 2006, an Iranian UAV spied on American aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan for 25 minutes without being detected before returning safely to its base



In 1989, Iran bought armoured personnel carriers, multiple rocket launch systems (MLRS), and 100 T-72 MBTs. In 1993, Iran went into negotiations with Russia for 400 T-42 MBts, and the necessay training and equipment, and 500 BMP-s Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicles (AIFVs). During FY92, Iran procured 150 BMP-1 AIFVs and 30 Chinese 152mm Type 83 towed artillery.

Iran has become the third country in the Middle East to build main battle tanks (MBTs). Until recently, Israel was the only country in the area able to build an MBT, with its Merkava. Egypt has also begun building the US General Dynamics Land Systems M1A1 MBT.

www.globalsecurity.org...

list of some iranian equipment: www.globalsecurity.org...

On November 2, 2006, Iran fired unarmed missiles to begin 10 days of military war games. Iranian state television reported "dozens of missiles were fired including Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 missiles. The missiles had ranges from 300 km to up to 1300 km. Iranian experts have made some changes to Shahab-3 missiles installing cluster warheads in them with the capacity to carry 1,400 bombs." These launches come after some United States-led military exercises in the Persian Gulf on October 30, 2006, meant to train for blocking the transport of weapons of mass destruction [31]. Iran is also believed to have started the development of an ICBM/IRBM missile project, known as Ghadr-110 with a range of more than 3000 km; the program is paralleled with advancement of a satellite launcher named IRIS.

en.wikipedia.org...

iran also posses 3 kilo class submarines which are fast moving and can pose a threat to us warships.

list of iran made missiles:
www.fas.org...

reply to post by magicmushroom


I figured that would be your response to the documents posted............cause you cant argue with that,what the text(if you read it)says is what I believe.We are not like Germany or Russia......how can you even compare?

Are we putting Jews in concentration camps................NO

Are we murdering thousands of our own people.....................NO


All I said is the US is the most powerful nation.............it is.Then you and others proceeded to "cry" and take the opportunity to bash the United States....You say it is because people like me that the US is looked down upon...........No sir,it is because people like you that it is looked down upon,people like you who critisize everything we do,you stir up the hate............why cant you worry about your own life or own country.If you didnt worry about what we are doing so much maybe we wouldnt have to interfere with other countries affairs.

To "1 cent"-Lol,its funny thats your screen name,cause thats about all your input is worth..........roflma.........You come on here deep into the thread and post a one lined comment with no information to back it up.Why dont you go to the kiddy forum?!

Originally posted by jkrog08
HEREHeres some more,for full transcript,visit the link

It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards the other nations of the Western Hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power......

Well, I don't know how to respond to this obvious load of rhetorical propaganda apart from three little words,

oil

oil

OIL.

reply to post by manzoor


Are you seriously suggesting that Iran's subs can defeat our subs-------which as you should know will be gaurding any ships if we go to war with Iran.Not to mentin the ships countermeasues themselves.


Three?against what.............the US's numerous attack subs?

reply to post by yellowbeard


Wow,I guess you shoulda read the ENTIRE docterine and you would know that was said in 1903..............lol,gota do better than that.


Also I appreciate everyone who as came to the defense of this thread,I was hoping I wouldnt have to state the obvious alone.

no i just mentioned a LIST of iranian tech.
yet they will have the ability to lay mines which will cause much trouble for warships. iranians have also developed the worlds fastest torpedo so nicee to see your subs out run that with there countermeasures

heres a link for the torpedo
news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 19-4-2008 by manzoor]

[edit on 19-4-2008 by manzoor]

Power is relative. I would think someone who says NUKE EM would know that. Or do you think that throwing nukes around is what makes one powerful? Do you think that the USA is the only country with nukes? You eather have clearly lost your mind or you are a bully. Bullys usually find out the error of their ways when they discover that others out there have skills and abilities they were ignorant of.

Do you realize what would happen globally if the US nuked anyone without being nuked first? Our friends (not all but most) would ostracize us, our enemies would spend the rest of eternity doing damage to the US every chance they got (nukes would be used against the US right away... if you dont know by whom then I suggest you do a little more study) AT THE VERY LEAST. Global trade would be distrupted, prices would go sky high...

This extremely limited view of yours is short sighted to the point of lunacy.

May I suggest you study up on the meaning and uses of 'Power' before throwing statements like that around.

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by yellowbeard

 

Wow,I guess you shoulda read the ENTIRE docterine and you would know that was said in 1903..............lol,gota do better than that.


Also I appreciate everyone who as came to the defense of this thread,I was hoping I wouldnt have to state the obvious alone.

Yes I saw when it was said, but I'm not the person quoting it as if it was still adhered to and actually relevant today.

Originally posted by jkrog08
But in the long run we are securing the prosperity of Earth.

We are securing the world to be run by an Elite. And if they continue down the 1984 path (as thus far they have done), they will break the world up into around three pieces and have them eternally warring. War makes such a good excuse to oppress people. Prosperity of Earth. Yeah. Right.

You all will see.........come on,do you think these countries regimes will or should last forever?Think about it ......REALLY....think about it,the world would be worse if they were left to grow with their ideals.

Whether other countries' regimes should last or not is NOT our call. And it's a bit egotistical of you to suppose that your ideals are "better" than another's. The world did not VOTE us Police to the World. So what gives us the right? Because we're BIG and MEAN and TOUGH? Sounds more like a bully forcing others to do as he says...

We (the planet)all must conform to a Democratic society.....one THAT SEPERATES RELIGION AND STATE...........if not we as a species are doomed to letting myth and stories destroy and hold us back.The US is doing it cause we are the only country that can.

Why do you feel you are qualified to decide what the rest of the world "must" do? What if a country voted to have a religious monarch with heir rights? Are you going to say that they CAN'T democratically make that choice?

The US is doing it to the benefit of the Elite, through additional control, was contracts, information gathering, and eventually a one-world government at the top with their segments set to war against each other.

Now lets stay on topic.............the topic is (THE U.S. IS THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD)...........please someone argue with that,YOU CANT.

Define "power, " please.

Is America the most powerful nation on earth?

Yes, probably but what worries most people is who's in charge of this power.

With flag waving might is right people like yourself we in the rest of the world have to always worry about that!

You best get back to finding those WMD's that your wonderful President (and our UK Puppy dog) lied thru their teeth about. As for taking over Iran in hours without nukes....LMAO.

Why don't you Police Zimbabwe...Oh, that's right, there's nothing in it for you...

Basically you come across as a gun waving rootin tootin believer in the right to bare arms and the right to shoot whoever the hell you like with them because you are a big nation.

reply to post by Grock


Who said anything about nukes?Not me,Im against using them............I suggest YOU read up before posting your LUDACRIS comments.

reply to post by Mclane


why should america police the world did anyone ask for it? NO
they should keep out off affaires look at iraq they go in guns blazing insted they totaly mess things up world power huh? they cant deal with ieds which are so low tech, they cant handle the ressitence there, the surge dont even work the us isnt suited for that type of combat to be the greatist they should be ready for any type of combat and terrain. they certainly are not.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by manzoor]