Americans

[foolish_yeti]

Agreed. We have BIG problems in our own back yard. Crime, Hunger, Homeless (Katrina), etc. We need to take care of our own before we go odd trying to save the world.

The problem is you can't support your country by staying within the borders. The States has been built on the decimation (historical and current) of many countries. To stay in your own backyard would mean a major shift in lifestyle.

[minihaymanz]

Cuba? Cuba?? You've made like 800 assassination attempts against Castro.

I think he was talking about the cuban missle crisis....

oh wait, the states started that. my bad.

[flashleg8]

@Flashleg: Most people say the British Empire was a superpower after WWII, but then after the Suez Crisis and the ending of the empire (50's mainly), they fell to the great/regional power status.

What I ment to say was "Britain was THE Great power till after the first wolrd war. Your'e right of course that we remained a world power till much later but I was trying to make the point (badly) that the USA only replaced Britian as the strongest nation after WW1 - not after 1812 as the poster had stated.

[Blueoctober]

Cuba? Cuba?? You've made like 800 assassination attempts against Castro.

I think he was talking about the cuban missle crisis....

oh wait, the states started that. my bad.

oh i forgot how we put missiles there

[flashleg8]

Cuba? Cuba?? You've made like 800 assassination attempts against Castro.

I think he was talking about the cuban missle crisis....

oh wait, the states started that. my bad.

oh i forgot how we put missiles there

Russia won that anyway.

to quote the great man himself:

"The aim of the American aggressors was to destroy Cuba. Our aim was to preserve Cuba. Today Cuba exists. So who won? It cost us nothing more than the round-trip expenses for transporting the rockets to Cuba and back."

Hasta la victoria siempre!

[foolish_yeti]

to quote the great man himself:

"The aim of the American aggressors was to destroy Cuba. Our aim was to preserve Cuba. Today Cuba exists. So who won? It cost us nothing more than the round-trip expenses for transporting the rockets to Cuba and back."

Hasta la victoria siempre!

Not totally disagreeing with your point (or totally agreeing with it) but...

You're quoting the former leader of the Soviet Union about victory in the cold war?

It gots another one for you:

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

[ritz627]

Agreed. We have BIG problems in our own back yard. Crime, Hunger, Homeless (Katrina), etc. We need to take care of our own before we go odd trying to save the world.

The problem is you can't support your country by staying within the borders. The States has been built on the decimation (historical and current) of many countries. To stay in your own backyard would mean a major shift in lifestyle.

I thinks its actually quite possible for the US to support itself within its borders, at least militarilly-wise. Whether it choses to do so or not is another issue. I agree that historically and currently we have/are decimating other contries/cultures, but historically the US was built on the decimation of other countries b/c we were expanding. Right now, at least, our physical borders are not. I believe we are hardly saving the world, rather destroying it, so maybe this "shift in lifestyle" is a one worth making.

If we are deciding to look at history, why not look at one of the most successful? The ancient Romans, who collapsed interally, for the most part, which eventually lead to thier military downfall. If there is one lesson we can learn from them and all of history it is this: a country must be able to support itself interally before it looks abroad, otherwise it is heading for an inevitable collapse. But again, maybe the US shouldn't even bother looking abroad (militarily) given its ability to screw things up so horribly.

[flashleg8]

If there is one lesson we can learn from them and all of history it is this: a country must be able to support itself interally before it looks abroad, otherwise it is heading for an inevitable collapse. But again, maybe the US shouldn't even bother looking abroad (militarily) given its ability to screw things up so horribly.

Possibly, but when most regimes are threaten internally (popularity wane, dissidents etc) a "quick fix" is often to look for a foreign enemy to attack, this can often unify the country and take the pressure of the current regime. For historical examples - Rome often used the Germanic tribes as a boogieman to keep the plebs in line, Britain used the Kaiser to refocus the growing working class resentment into jingoism against Germany in WW1, Thatcher used the Falklands war to get re-elected when she was way behind in the polls and your own George Dubbja got re-elected off his "tough on terror" stance. Papering of the cracks in my opinion.

[ritz627]

America has helped some many nations, but what do we get in return......NOTHING! You all act like iggnorant asses just because we don't agree with the way you want US to handle OUR problems. Britian-France-Afghanistan-Somalia-Grenada-South Korea-Cuba-Phillipines-China-Australia-Iraq-Georgia-Greece-and many others have all had some form of aid given to them by the AMERICANS! British ppl, although alright by my standards, still think they are the big dogs in the world. Well guess what that ended in 1776 when America was formed, but you guys still denied it until we had another war in 1812 which we stalmated and then we had to help you win YOUR wars twice. Now that we need SOME help with our SMALL war you guys throw a damn fit.

* I just used Britian as an example I personnally love your country.

1.) I would not call a four year long war small
2.) For all the help we have done, we've also done a lot of hurt. Not to mention forcing third world countries to make thier products cheaper and cheaper for our increasily glutenous population...(kindof like Wal-mart). And i would also exclude iraq (seeing that its a total mess and people are dying everyday, not to mention-theres a civil war going on. Did you forget about that?), somalia (civil war), and possibly china from the helped category.
3.) The UN isnt helping us b/c it has a brain.
4.)I hardly think the British think their "big dogs" as you put it, more as the US seems to think that (using your entry for example). But we arent, and Europeons are merely trying to help us realize how far up our own a**es we are.
5.)Maybe thousands of people dying is worth "throwing a fit over".
6.)Europeons arent ignorant asses, you are.
7.)Do you realize that nearly all the countries we've "helped" invovled killing countless amounts of people? Is it nessecary that everytime the US must "help" a country, it invovles killing people, or does the US just have some sort of blood lust?
8.) The wars we helped the British in had a logical purpose.

*I met another person like this in the Europeons flame, but b/c im tired i dont feel like writing more out lol...so if you want you can check it out:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 6&start=90

[ritz627]

If there is one lesson we can learn from them and all of history it is this: a country must be able to support itself interally before it looks abroad, otherwise it is heading for an inevitable collapse. But again, maybe the US shouldn't even bother looking abroad (militarily) given its ability to screw things up so horribly.

Possibly, but when most regimes are threaten internally (popularity wane, dissidents etc) a "quick fix" is often to look for a foreign enemy to attack, this can often unify the country and take the pressure of the current regime. For historical examples - Rome often used the Germanic tribes as a boogieman to keep the plebs in line, Britain used the Kaiser to refocus the growing working class resentment into jingoism against Germany in WW1, Thatcher used the Falklands war to get re-elected when she was way behind in the polls and your own George Dubbja got re-elected off his "tough on terror" stance. Papering of the cracks in my opinion.

Yea, i agree, but i still find that fixing our internal problems (Katrina)
is something that must be done before we throw ourselves into costly and rather pointless wars. This war hardly unified us, and was started before Katrina so it wasn;t meant as a distractions, and even so, in the long run...in today's society... these "quick fixes" such a invading other countries is not helpful and that issues such as Katrina must be taken care of immeadiatly, and permanently, otherwise they will only serve to hurt us later.

[flashleg8]

Yea, i agree, but i still find that fixing our internal problems (Katrina)
is something that must be done before we throw ourselves into costly and rather pointless wars.

Oh I completely agree. I was just pointing out a possible reason for the pointless war. If all the money we spent on the war was given instead to aid in the Middle East - I really don't think we'd have the same problem with anti-west sentiment in the Arab world.

[ritz627]

Yea..i added a little more after it though, you may not have seen it b/c it was edited...but anyway, yea, thats something we can both agree on

[foolish_yeti]

I thinks its actually quite possible for the US to support itself within its borders, at least militarilly-wise. Whether it choses to do so or not is another issue. I agree that historically and currently we have/are decimating other contries/cultures, but historically the US was built on the decimation of other countries b/c we were expanding. Right now, at least, our physical borders are not.

Not sure what you mean by supporting itself military-wise. There's no way you could support such massive military expenditure if you stayed within your own borders. There's no way you can support the American lifestyle without bringing in outside resources. It's partially why Europe is so far ahead of North America in terms of efficiency/lower consumption rates...not because they are environmentally holier than thou...They have so few resources, and aren't going after them as aggressively as the States.

As for physical borders- well it's true that america itself hasn't gotten any larger over the years....but the states has done a great deal of damage since it's geographically been stable. On top of that the country has basically been absorbing other countries. They have so many nations that are basically used to their own means- both economically and militarily.

a country must be able to support itself interally before it looks abroad, otherwise it is heading for an inevitable collapse. But again, maybe the US shouldn't even bother looking abroad (militarily) given its ability to screw things up so horribly.

Again, the only way to support yourself internally is to have a major lifestyle change. Support your population with resources from your own country is much different than taking everyone else's resources to support your economy (which capitalism requires).

[ptlowe]

We Gave the most. 2,875,000,000 total to the tsunami relief fund. No other country even gave close to that. I dont want to hear about per persons amount in the end we gave the highest total. BTW the EU is not a country. Its several countries just because most of the EU shares the same currency doesnt make them anything special. The US is one country. BTW England lost in 1776 and only won when we bailed them out in both wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitari ... _of_Donors

[Blueoctober]

Yea, i agree, but i still find that fixing our internal problems (Katrina)
is something that must be done before we throw ourselves into costly and rather pointless wars.

Oh I completely agree. I was just pointing out a possible reason for the pointless war. If all the money we spent on the war was given instead to aid in the Middle East - I really don't think we'd have the same problem with anti-west sentiment in the Arab world.

its not americas fault the middle east is sos screwed up we didnt colonize anything

[Titanic]

The EU is rapidly becoming more of a country. Even the CIA World Factbook now places the EU as an emerging superpower.

Btw, per person donations does matter. Hypothetically, China could give more money then the UK, but on average a UK citizen could still give 15 times as much as a Chinese citizen. You cant then say the UK gave hardly any money, because per person they pwned China.

Secondly, you didn "bail us out" of the two world wars. #1, you only supplied fresh troops. Most the work in winning was doen by the Commonwealth and France. Russia fcked of to have a civil war. WWII, we defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain and could defend ourselves against the Axis, you provided us with the boost needed to actually defeat them.

[flashleg8]

Yea, i agree, but i still find that fixing our internal problems (Katrina)
is something that must be done before we throw ourselves into costly and rather pointless wars.

Oh I completely agree. I was just pointing out a possible reason for the pointless war. If all the money we spent on the war was given instead to aid in the Middle East - I really don't think we'd have the same problem with anti-west sentiment in the Arab world.

its not americas fault the middle east is sos screwed up we didnt colonize anything

So why do you constantly stick your nose into their business?

[unriggable]

its not americas fault the middle east is sos screwed up we didnt colonize anything

Yeah, why turn an inconvenience into a mess? I live in the US and I took a class about the cold war - so much police action bullshit going on...we think we are so high and mighty it pisses me off. Money to our military could be better spent on creating and supporting groups WITHIN THE SPECIFIED COUNTRY (not the outside).

[ritz627]

Unriggable...agreed.

[ritz627]

I thinks its actually quite possible for the US to support itself within its borders, at least militarilly-wise. Whether it choses to do so or not is another issue. I agree that historically and currently we have/are decimating other contries/cultures, but historically the US was built on the decimation of other countries b/c we were expanding. Right now, at least, our physical borders are not.

Not sure what you mean by supporting itself military-wise. There's no way you could support such massive military expenditure if you stayed within your own borders. There's no way you can support the American lifestyle without bringing in outside resources. It's partially why Europe is so far ahead of North America in terms of efficiency/lower consumption rates...not because they are environmentally holier than thou...They have so few resources, and aren't going after them as aggressively as the States.

As for physical borders- well it's true that america itself hasn't gotten any larger over the years....but the states has done a great deal of damage since it's geographically been stable. On top of that the country has basically been absorbing other countries. They have so many nations that are basically used to their own means- both economically and militarily.

a country must be able to support itself interally before it looks abroad, otherwise it is heading for an inevitable collapse. But again, maybe the US shouldn't even bother looking abroad (militarily) given its ability to screw things up so horribly.

Again, the only way to support yourself internally is to have a major lifestyle change. Support your population with resources from your own country is much different than taking everyone else's resources to support your economy (which capitalism requires).

I comletely agree that Europe is so far ahead of America for those reasons, thats why I think we need to change. But I think that its not only possible, but its more important, that we be able to support ourself internally both economically and militarily before we look externally in both regards to an extent, which we seem to be failing at doing. Even if there is "no way" that we can support such a large military expediture w/o looking externally, which i would strongly disagree with, thenmaybe we should cut some of its funding. The reason this expediture is so high is because we are looking out externally, if we didnt do that, we wouldnt be spending so much money and maybe we could put our money towards more useful things.

Im not arguing w/ you over that America is taking every else's reasources, if you read all of the other stuff i wrote, Im saying that that maybe its a change worth making.

[Molacole]

The EU is rapidly becoming more of a country. Even the CIA World Factbook now places the EU as an emerging superpower.

Btw, per person donations does matter. Hypothetically, China could give more money then the UK, but on average a UK citizen could still give 15 times as much as a Chinese citizen. You cant then say the UK gave hardly any money, because per person they pwned China.

Secondly, you didn "bail us out" of the two world wars. #1, you only supplied fresh troops. Most the work in winning was doen by the Commonwealth and France. Russia fcked of to have a civil war. WWII, we defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain and could defend ourselves against the Axis, you provided us with the boost needed to actually defeat them.

most of the winning was done by France? that's some funny shit right there... were did you get your history books from because I would love to read those!

I would say it's more like they were defending themselves against the axis. I hardly see it as they could defend themselves for a long time. We provided the power to put an end to the war and yes pretty much bail everyones ass out of a jam. I mean honestly if the US didn't get involved how do you think your economies would've been affected by this war? I'm done with this thread...

[ritz627]

The EU is rapidly becoming more of a country. Even the CIA World Factbook now places the EU as an emerging superpower.

Btw, per person donations does matter. Hypothetically, China could give more money then the UK, but on average a UK citizen could still give 15 times as much as a Chinese citizen. You cant then say the UK gave hardly any money, because per person they pwned China.

Secondly, you didn "bail us out" of the two world wars. #1, you only supplied fresh troops. Most the work in winning was doen by the Commonwealth and France. Russia fcked of to have a civil war. WWII, we defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain and could defend ourselves against the Axis, you provided us with the boost needed to actually defeat them.

most of the winning was done by France? that's some funny shit right there... were did you get your history books from because I would love to read those!

I would say it's more like they were defending themselves against the axis. I hardly see it as they could defend themselves for a long time. We provided the power to put an end to the war and yes pretty much bail everyones ass out of a jam. I mean honestly if the US didn't get involved how do you think your economies would've been affected by this war? I'm done with this thread...

He's talking about WWI when he said "Most the work in winning was done by the Commonwealth and France." , not WWII...and with that in mind, he's right. Haha, its kinda funny reading yours, b/c your trying to refute him, but you guys are actually agreeing. He's from the UK not France, and the UK in WWII unlike France probably could've defended itself for a while from the Axis in WWII. Notice the similarities in the underlined "defending themselves" quote.

[Titanic]

Molacole, after WWII the USA literally stole our economies. Not exactly your fault, because we cant blame you for the war happening in Europe rather then USA, but our economies were devastated, Britain, France, Germany, Europe generally bombed to devastation. Our economies had no chance for a while after WWII. The USA only really became the econmic power it is after WWII when we were spending our money (including the money the US gave us) on rebuilding and increasing employment, whilst the US was spending money on productivity, technology, effectiveness etc...

Btw, I know France didn really do too much in WWII, although scuttling their navy was very helpful, but I would have preferred if they actually just gave us the ships instead to fight the Axis in the Meditarranean (I can never spell that word).

Finally, read what people say before you comment. #1 clearly means WWI.

[theripperfex]

Also the USA took so freaking long to get into WWII.

Then...

Genocide supreme!
Wheeeeeee!

[HaveABanana]

When it comes down to it, the US is showing a number of signs related to the decline of its society. At best, we will end up like a better version of what happened to the USSR. Purely hypothetical educated guess.

(at worst- anarchy? terrorists win? invasion?)