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

reply to post by MischeviousElf

The only differance being probably that I do have beliefs as such about the divine.

Surprisingly (to some), as do I. While I may appear atheistic in my thoughts and approaches at times; it is only because I tend to divorce my faith from my reason. I'm closest to Deism in terms of belief, which means I value the evidence of god's own creation over the stories in scripture or the myths of our ancestors. Although, I don't go in for the whole argument for fine tuning many other Deists claim... largely due to the trashing it's received after being hijacked by the ID/Creationist movement.

So since my religion begins and ends with the single statement of belief in god, I'm sure you can understand it doesn't come up very often when exploring the topics of other religions. It's simply not relevant most of the time. As such, I get the awkward distinction of being one of the very few Creationists who Atheists can support... and I often find myself on their side of most debates - excepting those who wish to see religion abolished, which I don't agree with. I think there are deeper and more fundamental issues at work which turn believers into fanatics - and it extends to other spheres of culture and society as well. Dealing with them would, ultimately, cause the collapse of most religions regardless... but would allow such institutions to persevere for those who value the good and ennobling contributions they can (and have) make to culture, morality, and identity.

And, yes, I do value the establishment of religion. Growing up fairly non-religious in a Roman Catholic household, I've come to cherish the art, literature, symbolism, allegories, and many of the lessons which Christianity has inspired. Not as literal truth, but as a human layer of context and color by which to paint our perceptions of the world. To say nothing of the impact of Greek, Norse, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, and Islamic religion on our world.

You are very right Atheist or Bible Basher or whatever, we all need to grow up in regards to where, why and how we gain, integrate and act out our belief systems inregards to morals and codes of behaviour as such.

Undoubtedly. But it goes a bit deeper than this. As I mentioned perhaps far too briefly, this extends beyond religious concerns. It relates to nearly ever sphere of our society. The very human nature we need to study in order to know ourselves better has long been a taboo. Instead of religious doctrines, we cling to ideas of innate equality regardless of genetic or developmental factors. For instance, it's long been known colloquially that musical talent seems to run in families. Studies on twins (both identical and paternal, adopted and raised at home) seem to confirm that while musical aptitude can be learned to varying degrees by most everyone, that the children of talented musicians tend to have musically talented children - even when those children had been raised by another family who didn't have much musical talent.

But does this extend other faculties of the mind? Tendencies towards Aggression? Towards apathy? Leadership? What of IQ, as Francis Crick (the guy who co-discovered DNA's double helix) which sparked a damning controversy by musing over the possibility, which in the end forced him to retire and left him with the stigma of being considered a racist?

While there has been no (to my knowledge) definitive link between IQ and Heredity - assuming there were, does it then follow that just because someone is born to a group who are disposed to a lower IQ, that they should be discriminated against? Does it follow that if various dispositions towards certain behaviors or aptitudes are established genetically, that we should try again at Social Darwinism?

This is where we need to grow up as well. Not just in religion, but in the realization that if we're going to leave religious beliefs behind as guides to our morality, then we should look objectively at ourselves and face some of the unpleasant truths we might find as responsible and reasonable adults... not fearful children.

Does it matter if one race or another has a higher IQ on average? No... because you cannot judge the individual by the average of a group they cannot help be a part of. We still must judge each other on the basis of our own merits, as individuals. In Pinker's book, he evoked "Hume's Guillotine" in regard this poser. Basically, that just because we can show that something IS true, does not mean that we should regard it as the way it ought to be.

I'm sure you've seen the thread about racism which the mod's have been drawing attention to through U2Us. I think one of these hard truths we must face responsibly is the admission that we all harbor racist tendencies at some level. Either belligerently, or over accommodatingly. Whether those who don't care for the company and influence of other ethnic groups, or those who take steps beyond what they normally would in order to prove they "aren't racist"... it's the same thing. I think this stems largely from two main factors. One, our tribal/clan/family group heritage in which we spent the majority of our evolution, and the other being our brain's inability to conceptualize more than about 150 (IIRC) unique personalities. Our brains simply didn't evolve in an environment where there was a great need to remember so many people. So we boil other "tribes", other ethnicitys, other reiligious believers, other political positions, etc, down to commonly associated traits shared among the members of that group, as well as cultural memes which are projected upon that group. This is, I think, where stereotypes come in. It's not an bad habit insomuch as it's a way of anticipating the mindset of those in different tribes without knowing each of them individually.

But if we accept that it is innate human behavior, instinct, to stereotype and harbor racist attitudes, does not then our evolutionary history justify these actions? NO, it doesn't... because as said, just because we can verify something is true, doesn't mean it ought to be. We also evolved with altruistic natures, and the capacity for empathy. We know it's wrong, because we know what it's like to be discriminated against, and know that it's not a pleasant experience.

But if one ignores that they possess these behaviors, hides from what may be an ugly truth out of fear of bigotry and intolerance using that truth as a justification, then they also ignore their own expressions of these traits to others, thinking they are not capable of racist behavior. Perhaps, in a common case, it may be over compensated for towards one ethnicity - while used belligerently against a religious or political group. How can one be racist against a Republican, if it's not a race?! Because racism is only one expression that is being over-focused on, but doesn't address the root of the behavior.

But what if you acknowledge this tendency as a shared human trait, and have a good idea regarding the root causes of it? You wouldn't be able to divorce yourself from this behavior, but you could gain perhaps a better perspective on it, and learn to identify it elsewhere in your behavior - then try to mitigate it. Understand that just because you may hold a stereotype, doesn't mean you can't try to drop it and assess the person you talk to on their own merits.

Going back to my prior post, this is where I believe we still have a lot of work to do growing up. In accepting the things we cannot change, having the courage to change the things we can, and having the wisdom to know the difference (as the popular prayer goes). By acknowledging that humanity is ultimately the promoter, demoter, and definer of our moralistic values, I carry a greater responsibility for the morality that I inherit and that I choose to live by, reflect upon the actions those morals effect on others, and strive to refine them.. so that they will hopefully continue on beyond me and help influence the morals of our culture tomorrow. To quote Gandhi again, "Be the change you wish to see in the world." Rather than fear at acknowledging this, I feel at peace, contentment, and hopefulness for the future.

To conceptualize this sentiment, I end here with a quote from Chris Abani from the end of his 2008 TEDTalk: Stories of our shared humanity.

The Igbo used to say that they built their own gods. They would come together as a community, and they would express a wish. And their wish would then be brought to a priest who would find a ritual object, and the appropriate sacrifices would be made, and the shrine would be built for the god. But if the god became unruly and began to ask for human sacrifice, the Igbos would destroy the god. They would knock down the shrine, and they would stop saying the God's name. This is how they came to reclaim their humanity. Every day, all of us here, we're building gods that have gone rampant, and it's time we started knocking them down and forgetting their names.

reply to post by dooper


It probably would have fallen to communist hands....much like south america before USA got involved and installed fascist dictators. Don't believe me? Maybe your not much of a history buff

Every king and despot since time immemorial, has longed to rule the known world, and lavish in his riches and power. It has always failed to succeed.

Mankind has had to suffer the ravages of warfare perpetuated by some megalomaniac or another again and again...and countless millions upon millions of humans died as a results.

Nothing was ever accomplished by any of it. Only an Arms Race towards who can be the biggest bully on the block.

One world government rule is the goal of the U.N. today, just as it was for the League of Nations before it. The U.N. is nothing but a gelding trying be something it isn't. It hasn't got the cojones!
World wide peace, harmony, love of all, with singing bluebirds of happiness will never happen. It is a pipe dream! Man is a vengeful, hateful, ruthless killer. He'll never change. Stop pretending he will.

There isn't enough time, resources, or money to wrap up the world under one more Thugs stupidity of reasoning. Obama may be the more current addition to the long hit parade of losers who thinks he can be "Cesar of the World". He won't be.

The world is dying off in mass extinctions at record paces. I guesstimate that in 200 years, mankind will be at the thresholds of extinction himself. Maybe sooner if another, all out, world wide war breaks out. If that happens, we'll all be cashing in our chips...

Today, the news reported that dead Humboldt Squid were washing ashore in masses. Now what?

Originally posted by Confused and Dazed!
Every king and despot since time immemorial, has longed to rule the known world, and lavish in his riches and power. It has always failed to succeed.

Mankind has had to suffer the ravages of warfare perpetuated by some megalomaniac or another again and again...and countless millions upon millions of humans died as a results.

Nothing was ever accomplished by any of it. Only an Arms Race towards who can be the biggest bully on the block.

Yeah some things never really change other than the methods and technology used to fight the wars.

Originally posted by Confused and Dazed!
One world government rule is the goal of the U.N. today, just as it was for the League of Nations before it. The U.N. is nothing but a gelding trying be something it isn't. It hasn't got the cojones!

The UN does'nt have the cojones to do much because people still place a lot of value on race, religion and national sovereingty. These principles are'nt necessarily bad but they do have a tendency to slow down human evolution.

Originally posted by Confused and Dazed!
There isn't enough time, resources, or money to wrap up the world under one more Thugs stupidity of reasoning. Obama may be the more current addition to the long hit parade of losers who thinks he can be "Cesar of the World". He won't be.

Obama is not Bush! He has already extended his hand to many past enemies of the so-called "axis of evil". What more can he do to bring about peace? As the saying goes it takes two to tango...

I think our foes are a bit apprehensive because they have endured years of neglect and abuse. They have a right to feel paranoid of the USA and it will take a substantial effort to reverse things. Obama is on the right track.

Domestically the challenges are far greater but I will not get into them because it will derail the thread.

Originally posted by Confused and Dazed!
The world is dying off in mass extinctions at record paces. I guesstimate that in 200 years, mankind will be at the thresholds of extinction himself. Maybe sooner if another, all out, world wide war breaks out. If that happens, we'll all be cashing in our chips...

Today, the news reported that dead Humboldt Squid were washing ashore in masses. Now what?

Who is causing these mass extinctions? Is it man's fault, natural evolution or perhaps a little of both? So far there is no clear-cut, concise answer and a lot depends on who you ask.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by EarthCitizen07]

Originally posted by Remixtup
Yes, we unquestionably could take the world. no doubt. The thing that makes America what it is, is, we dont. Were the first nation in history that has the capability to do this, and yet, it goes against our foundation and our principles. I know I'll catch heat for this but is it really arrogance when its truth?

Sure you can claim this.
In the same order Russians can claim they can nuke the entire planet twice over and the Chinese can claim they have enough people to repopulate it, in another thought so can India.

The later two statements are true, I still have some doubts about the first one though but I'm going to play along and accept is it as a fact, but where does this whole equation leaves us?

[edit on 26-9-2009 by spacebot]

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
One question OP

How did America go in the Vietnam war?

If you can answer this, you will realise that taking over a country is not as simple as having the best trained military and technology

[edit on 26-9-2009 by acorn]

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
One question OP

How did America go in the Vietnam war?

If you can answer this, you will realise that taking over a country is not as simple as having the best trained military and technology

reply to post by Maddogkull


I don't know what version of the U.S. you live in, but my version says that I want to live young and die old....that coming from an old military vet!

We could take over the planet, but there would be nothing left...what's the point! Why not use what we know and use it for constructive purposes. Say a shield against asteroids or reversing shat we have done to this planet? To hell with global domination, hows about global protection?

Yeah i agree, It was a thread more just to see the opinions of others lol. Funny you should mention that I made a thread asking about if we could actually deflect an comet from hitting earth

The US (govt) couldn't find their own butt in a well lit room with their two hands.

Get the shot it is safe! Yeah sure! Just ask all the people who died from it... Oops cant...They're dead!


Just like the pothole commercial. The pothole should have said "why didn't you just pay attention and avoid me?" Dumb fish (bass)

Namaste!

reply to post by Dermo

The French were struggling against Britain as well, and I don't recall French boots on American soil.

They DID park their ships off the coast.

I'll have to study up and compare our boots on the ground TWICE in Europe, and see how that compares.

Nah.

I already know.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by 341labrat]

Originally posted by MurrayTORONTO
The US can barely hold down cities in Iraq.. what makes you think they can dominate every single country?
[edit on 16-9-2009 by MurrayTORONTO]

That's exactly what we're talking about here. The fact that, yes, we could take the world, but we don't. The thing is, we are fighting with a hand tied behind our back in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, we invaded and overthrew their government, but we're trying to minimize the impact of our actions. We're building more than we're destroying. That makes this a different war than any other in history. That makes us different than any other country in existence. We've dropped more food than bombs in these countries. The US is not out to make enemies. Anyone can do that.

p.s. I agree, why would we want the whole world?

341labrat,

I agree, the US is the only nation that has no recent history of imperialism over the nations they have fought with or defended. But sadly, you're wasting your breathe trying to convince the America-haters on this thread (including domestics such as ACLU members, democrats, UAW members, Greenpeace members, federal employees, NPR subscribers, NEA members, etc.) or foreigners (such as Canadians, BBC employees, mexican illegal aliens, or UN officials) that this country has no ulterior motives other than freedom or democracy.

Regards,
Terry

reply to post by infolurker


Two words, hurricane katrina. I agree whole heartedly with your statement.

Originally posted by acorn

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
One question OP

How did America go in the Vietnam war?

If you can answer this, you will realize that taking over a country is not as simple as having the best trained military and technology

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Foppezao]

[edit on 26-9-2009 by acorn]

In Vietnam, the military won every major battle they engaged in. It was the $*&&@*% politicians that screwed that pooch, not the military.

Heck when Nixon took the war to directly to Hanoi, via B-52s, the North Vietnamese couldn't shimmy up to the peace table fast enough to stop the bombing.

If the US military had complete control of the Vietnam War, the conflict would have been over in less than 2 years. But politicians did the planning and chose the "acceptable" targets and held the military to those plans. It was a political, not military loss. Keep the politicians out of it and let the military do what it does best.

Without politicians, the Iraq and most likely the Afghanistan action would be concluded. Our politicians just muck up the works with their own agenda's.

And for the person who made this quote:

"Over here [and I bet in Thales France as well] we have Thales radar, in the Czech republic for instance Vera-e radar which they wanted to sell to China.We can target and shoot down those "stealth" planes like its a shooting-gallery, if you can even get past our navy and shore..."

We most likely have a (one), if not more, Ohio class sub in your vicinity, loaded with 24 Trident II SLBMs with 8 warheads each. That's 192 each, 100kt nukes per sub. If your lucky, the sub will only be one loaded with 154 TLAM's. Good luck with your radar system!!

The US has 24 Ohio Class Subs along with 45 Los Angeles Class fast attack subs that can hold any enemy at bay. Especially if the enemy has no idea of where they are lurking. North Korea - 1 or 2 subs should take care of business.

As another has stated that they do not fear an air or land attack, but they forget that a majority of our undetectable military deterrence will arise from the oceans of the world in a coordinated attack which no country wants to deal with.

The American people want peace regardless of our politicians, but poke us in the nose and you may get more than you expected.

Believe it or not, we don't want to rule the world, we want to be left alone to try and solve our own political problems.

reply to post by dooper


Same old argument.

Without both funding and arming both sides in WW2, not to mention having to get involved.. The US wouldn't be anything like what it is today so complaining about what was done when it catapulted you into the position of global leader is ridiculous. You should be grateful instead of the contrary

TBH I don't even view the US as being the winners of WW2 in Europe tbh, the Russians won that war.. the Brits and Yanks held out until the Russians had Nazi's on the back foot. That was the strategy and it worked.

And there's no point in saying anything to me about bailing out us "Europeans". Im Irish and live between Ireland and Germany.. if the Nazi's won, speaking German wouldn't make that much of a difference to me because 1) I already speak it and 2) My native language forced on us by a bloody genocidal occupation. Also, German and US culture seem almost identical to me in the overall spectrum and either would have influenced me as much as the other.

No American army did anything for us Irish. Quite the opposite actually. We left our genocidal occupiers, traveled to your country and fought for your "Freedom" or died laboring on your cities. Do you hear us going on about it anytime these US/Europe battles arise? No. Why? Because whats the point? That was generations ago. Similar to the way I view your argument about what your country did for France and Britain before my grandparents were born or when they were in their teens. WW1 was almost 100 years ago. Even bringing it up is an absolute joke IMO.

I don't mind at all about the Yanks going on about helping out the old European forces, I find it funny seeing the Brits trying to counter it .. I feel as much of a connection to ye as I do to the EU tbh. But its just that the overall hypocrisy drive me to argue in these threads.

What I am most grateful for to the US is curbing the spread of Communism and helping us keep the freedom we have today. Your greatest achievement and favor IMO.. Not sure if that can ever be repaid (Even though I know it was still meant to cover your own asses to a large extent)

Thats still not meant to give you a big head

reply to post by Dermo


I believe General Patton expressed his desire to go after the Russians while our troops, supply lines and equipment were already in the European theater, ready to go.

He must have thought we had a good chance, to make his opinion known to his commanders, who quickly over ruled him.

The testing of the Atomic bomb at Alamogordo was being prepared at the time. Less than 3 months after Patton's comments, bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with 7 more in the pipeline. I don't think the Russians wanted anything to do with an Atomic United States.

One at a time, the US military could defeat the military of any other nation on earth were it not already tied up elsewhere, but the US cannot support occupying anything larger than what it already is.

The US is unique in that it's really the only country with the logistics ability to wage a full scale war across oceans. The US navy is strong enough that it would probably be able to defeat every other navy simultaneously. The US army, marines, and air force do not have an advantage like that.

There are, of course, some countries the US just wouldn't be able to successfully invade. China has too many people to keep track of, and too large a standing army. Not to mention reasons that aren't directly military related. Russia is too large, and has too much equipment and reasonably competent and successful armed forces.

And of course, many countries have nuclear weapons, or, like japan, could construct them in just a few years. Invading people with nuclear weapons is considered a faux paus.

Originally posted by rufusdrak
The posters in this thread attributing the "military spending" to America's military "power" and finding some kind of correlation between the two are completely unequivocably WRONG.

The REASON the U.S. spends so much on their military is because most of their stuff simply COSTS FAR MORE than the equivalent things in other countries due to cheaper labor. I.E. in Russia a sophisticated fighter jet will cost something like 5-15 million USD. In America the same level of fighter jets cost 100 million or more EACH. The reason being that the scientists, laborers, and engineers in Russia for example that are making these products are making 1/4 of the wages that their American counterparts are making. Thus in short, countries like China and Russia are able to arm themselves with weaponry just as sophisticated as that of their American counterparts but for 1/10th of the price.
Now don't get me wrong even if it weren't for this discrepancy in labor costs the U.S. would still probably be spending more on defense budgets $ than any other country but just NOT as ridiculously more like they are doing now.
So in short, no the U.S. absolutely would not be able to take over even ONE country such as Russia, China, or North Korea let alone the entire world that is laughable and absurd to even suggest.
The U.S. got its butt whooped in Vietnam, has done very poorly in Afghanistan and Iraq and is unable to even maintain control of cities there as someone else mentioned. There is no way the U.S. would make ANY ground in an actual invasion or ground war against ANY major military power such as North Korea, China, Russia, etc. And if you disclude "conventional warfare" then U.S. loses even worse in that case because other countries have far more unconventional warfare weapons than the U.S.
For example, Russia has not only the biggest stockpile of biological weapons in the world (far more even than the U.S. and almost every other major country COMBINED) but Russia also has far more nukes than the u.s.
Just take a look at this article and list and see for yourself
www.guardian.co.uk...

if an all out nuclear/biological war broke out guess what country would be left standing last? That's right Russia not us, because Russia has 1. far more landmass and thus there will still be inhabitable parts unlike the U.S. which would be a total wasteland and 2. Russia has far more nukes.
So, in conclusion your answer is no, the U.S. could not conquer the world even if it used every single weapon in its arsenal.

Actually the sophistication of American weaponry is for a fact quit more expensive no matter where it is researcher/manufactured. The United States is buying F-22 for a reason. No other country can afford to put a jet in the sky that can compare. (not saying that others are not a good piece of equipment with good maneuverability) But it all means nothing when the F-22 has the same maneuverability and can’t even be seen. I feel sorry for any country(s) who try to take on America in the air. And when the JSF gets here, it’s a real no contest.
As for an convention war, there isn’t a country that would be able to match up there either. Sorry Russia, you have one air craft carrier that hasn’t left port for how many years…20?
I’m pretty sure that the US has about 7 of those of witch a new class of them are being built as we speak. Ok china, you have about a 5 million strong army that can’t deploy anywhere b/c they don’t have the means to transport them anywhere. No feed them for that matter.
I think some people fail to realize the united states have (including reserve and guard) a 2.2 million strong army. 2nd only to china…witch only 150,000 are in Iraq and 80,000 are in Afghanistan.
Iraq was considered one of the major military forces in the world with 424,000 strong army ( as large or larger than any military in Europe) with 2,200 Russian main battle tanks, and 300 combat aircraft.
So the actual war in Iraq (all 4 weeks of it) was won so fast and effortlessly, it made Russia relies they didn’t have a chance and needed to update there military.
Now if you leave politics out of wars, the ones we are fighting now would go a lot faster and the ones in the future need to look to these two along with Vietnam War and understand; politics do not win wars.
Using nuclear weapons would be a lose situation for all sides so…that’s why USSR and the USA didn’t go to war already. Although the US is looking and developing intercontinental ballistic missile shield ( he one Bush was wanting to place in eastern Europe) using the system right would pretty much eliminate another countries ability to return a nuclear strike on the US or our allies.

Now to the post…Can the US take over the world… alone? The answer is No. The US doesn’t have enough rescores to accomplish such a feat all at the same time.
Now can the US and its allies (with the US leading the coalition) take over the world? I believe that answer is Yes. One should not presume for a moment this notion is impossible or absurd.
The united states are in empire in denial. They have the ability rule much of the world but lack the will obtain it. And that is not a bad thing.