Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

U.S.A could take over the world if they wanted to. Could they???

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker

let's be honest... The USA is about the only damned country that actually TRIES to limit civilian casualties so... NO. Our mission (in my opinion) is to keep all the rest of the loons from killing themselves (and us in the process). So three cheers for having to be the planets freeking peacekeeper... a thankless job and a very expensive one.


WTF?

The US is renowned for having the only western army that has a "Shoot first, ask questions later" policy and looks at "Collateral damage" as being perfectly acceptable. To everyone else, that sort of military policy ended after WW2.

Planets peacekeepers? Please please please don't buy that propaganda. Seriously. How can Americans still believe that?

One of your economy's big motors is the selling of war. One of your Empire's big policies is the destabilization of entire regions of this planet.

Don't try to sell us bull# that we can see through before you finish your sentence.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Americans but you cant expect us to listen to this without setting it straight.

If you are talking about Chinese, Russians or Arabic countries.. then make that clear.

[edit on 17/9/09 by Dermo]




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I can't believe that this thread is still going, as the question posited by the OP was absolutely ridiculous in the first place.

As for America being the "world's peacekeeper", i would argue that we are more likely the big bully on the block, only this bully likes to start fights because there is good money to be made. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it is all about the money and resources.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Well I read the whole thread, which I think deserves a medal.

Maybe I missed it somewhere in the pages upon pages of writing, but hey, time to add my own bit.


I didn't notice anyone mention people, not the army, not the police and not the government. People, living in their homes watching an invading force come down the street. Quite frankly you might HAVE to nuke some countries to win, because a significant amount of the population will defend their country themselves.

Look at the IRA, they're still causing trouble for something that happened nearly a century ago now, and thats only a small part of the population, imagine the majority of the population of every country you invaded doing that.


It's not just the army that America would have to beat...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yeah they got money and weapons. Those require a human to operate though.


Your post wins!

Brilliantly said!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
What a naive premise.

No country is in a position to "control the world". Do you really think china could be invaded? Russia? India? We can't even succesfully occupy Afghanistan.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Where there's will there's way.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Not that anyone can dominate the world, as it's impossible, but from looking around the world - there aren't too many places we even care to visit voluntarily.

Unfortunately, we've been compelled to pull Europe's bacon out of the fire - twice - so I suppose you can say that Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Austria, Greece, Luxembourg, and indirectly many others benefited from our overseas adventure.

And in the Pacific area, the Phillipines, New Guinea, Papua, Malaya, Korea, China, Tiawan, French Indochina, Dutch East Indies, and Burma likewise benefited.

Since no one else is able to handle some of the world's hot spots by themselves, after the rest of the world has hesitated until things get out of control, we get dragged into a lot of places we don't want to visit by default.

No, there's not too many places the US would want.

Hell, we're trying to figure out how to give Massachusetts back to Britain, and California back to Mexico as we speak.

Nothing but troublemakers.



[edit on 17-9-2009 by dooper]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Well the UK dominated quite a sizable chunk of the world including the US, China, and India. Least thats what i remember reading in history books.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Not a chance in hell militarily. We just don't have the resources, budget, or population to sustain a global dominance of that nature. Economically? For a time, perhaps, but the economy is a highly chaotic system that is ultimately dependent on social infrastructure for it's emergence. One of the first figures to come out major disasters and disruptions of infrastructure is how much the event cost in terms of both actual damage, as well as lost revenue. I don't think long term economic dominance is ultimately sustainable. Politically... well... that depends on our military and economy.

However, I ask, why would America want to take over the world? Aside from the problems of sustaining such a one-sided empire for any extended length of time, the US actually stands more to gain from allowing other nations to flourish on their own - because social and technological advancements pioneered in one country do not generally stay in that country alone. The shift away from Industry to Information as the prime driver of a nation's prosperity has allowed any small nation without substantial natural resources to grow and prosper economically and technologically, and the resources to build those technologies outsourced towards developing nations - shifting them from Agricultural to Urbanized Industrial societies - building their social infrastructure. This results in lower rates of poverty, better sanitation, greater healthcare opportunities, and less warfare both internal and externally.

As Robert Wright put it:



If you ask me why don’t I think it’s a good idea to bomb the Japanese, I’d say, “For one thing, because they built my minivan.


Because allowing independant nations to develop and maintain a sovereign infrastructure to better the lives of their populace, and having the success of that infrastructure strength tied economically to trade and finance with other nations - it decreases the likelihood of full out war that would only damage both nations in the end, because they rely upon cooperation with each other for their own prosperity.

It may seem like a horrible mess to the citizen on the street, but surely it's better than expansionist policies and living at the point of a gun in the nuclear age. The shape relations have taken between the US and China today compared against how our relations with Communist Russia were 50 years ago (to say nothing of how China's ideological concept of Communism today compares to when the Communist came to power) is (IMO), far preferable.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Are you perhaps alluding to the premise that the US tailors its armed response to the "enemy"of the time? i.e superior numbers of,more or less conventionally armed forces in the case of Vietnam,Iraq and Afghanistan?
How long before the "uberweapons"make an appearance in Baghdad or Helmand?
I do see what you are getting at though,no sense in revealing your hand until the S REALLY HTF!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
[edit on 17/9/09 by nake13]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
The Persians wanted the world, the Nazi's didn't seem to far behind.

Look what happens?

Could the U.S.A take over the world? No.

Could the U.S.A destroy the world? Yup.

So could many other countries that have nuclear capabilities or intense biological weapons.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I do not beleive that any Nation, regardless of how powerful they are could take over the entire world. Britain and the US cant even take over Iraq or Afghanistan



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
All of this anti-American rhetoric just blows my mind.

So many countries and their would-be ambassadors want to shriek in fury and rage at us. What reasons can they give us for doing so? That we are arrogant? Not all of us, though we have a right to be. The majority of us are humbled by our daily existence. The thing that makes most of us humble, intelligent thinking beings... you bash, constantly. The Christian God. You hate our religion and then try to take away that which prevents us from becoming what you can't stand.


Are you serious?

Christ does not fight.

Know your scriptures, read them, stop using God as an excuse to kill people.

Christ was and is and always will be a pacifist.

Christ would never support any military campiagn, or break the 10 commandments, if you want that become a Jew, their God does allow smite and destruction (according to scriptures)

Jesus rewrote those aspects.

Ever heard the sermon on the mount?

Christ was a Pacifist and I can assure does not bless any murderers or soldiers, or countries blowing other ones up. He would pray for you forgiveness



As they do not know what they do


A christian country turns its cheek, and does not invade, blew up, destroy, torture and such like.

Elf.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by MischeviousElf]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Christ was a Pacifist and I can assure does not bless any murderers or soldeirs, or countries blowing other ones up. he would pray for you forgiveness.


I'm Roman (Irish) Catholic. I get general absolution during wartime.

If that's not being blessed, what is?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 


What a bunch of hog wash! America cares about the world, america wants to protect the world, we stand for freedom and will die free, blah, blah, blah

I have no doubt that the average american citizen(because I am an american citizen myself living abroad)is a hard working and law abiding citizen but this pentagon crap needs to stop man. You guys have been brainwashed to death.

Yes you stopped germany in ww2, yes you slowed down communism in vietnam, stopped communism from spreading into south korea, got iraq out of kuwait but please don't pretend as though it was charity work because it wasn't. No country gets involved in war unless (a)they have to defend their sovereigny or (b )attack to gain something while offering a million excuses....

After reading your entire post, which was very boring I might add, the first saying that came to mind is if you throw enough # at the wall, some of it will stick
And no, most people don't hate america because of their religious preference rather because they get involved in almost every nations affair in one way or another. Usually CIA/NSA work! Do you know anything about them? *smirk*



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by StevenDye
Well I read the whole thread, which I think deserves a medal.

Maybe I missed it somewhere in the pages upon pages of writing, but hey, time to add my own bit.


I didn't notice anyone mention people, not the army, not the police and not the government. People, living in their homes watching an invading force come down the street. Quite frankly you might HAVE to nuke some countries to win, because a significant amount of the population will defend their country themselves.

Look at the IRA, they're still causing trouble for something that happened nearly a century ago now, and thats only a small part of the population, imagine the majority of the population of every country you invaded doing that.


It's not just the army that America would have to beat...


Japan was a perfect example! If america didn't drop the two successive a-bombs I bet the causualties would have been in the millions just to finish the war.

In the western front russia sustained horrific losses inorder to reach berlin, while the allies stopped short
Oh and stalin was a butcher but that is a different story...

Bottom line is its easy to start a war but finishing it is a different story.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
America can't even conquer a third world middle eastern country in eight years. Good luck with plans for world domination.

America could make the world uninhabitable with nuclear weapons, but that doesn't exactly count as conquering anything if it becomes useless to everyone.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
The US military is no where near as large or powerful as it once was. If you were to ask this question in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis I would be inclined to believe it would be possible for the US to take over the world. This day in age however I would have to say that it would be impossible.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
America can't even conquer a third world middle eastern country in eight years. Good luck with plans for world domination.


Probably because we aren't there to conquer them, sports-fan.

Nice try, tho.






top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join