|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 12:00 pm
Longbow UK Even if there was change, America would still have control over Britain, and indeed Europe, as it does now. neutral If we really wanted to get back on the map again, something would need to be done about America first.
Besides, do you really think the Americans would tolerate another superpower running along side them? Look what happened to Russia when they rose up after WW2. We could have another Cold War on our hands. ...not that that would be entirely bad. A lot of countries hate America, you know. It does make me wonder just who would have the upper-hand if that was to happen.[/warmongering rant]
All empires fall, while the USA is at the top be built up our influence by reinforcing the commonweath as an economic (and military?) unit. as the USA falls we can step cleanly into the breach.
China is overhyped, it's rate of economic growth is unsustainable. It is a flash in the pan, not an exploding universe. Russia is a single country and though powerful does not have the influence in the rest of the world that it would need to become a superpower in the same way as America. Europe is divided, and now also diluted with the addition of the ex soviet-satellites like Estonia and Latvia.
I personally feel we should have acted a while ago, like in the eighties but time is slow in international politics. I would like to see the country act now to reunify the commonwealth, move it back into gear and get things moving again..
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 12:29 pm
Can you honestly see America falling any time soon though? They're taking over the world (as they've been doing since 1945) and nobody's doing anything about it. neutral
They've effectively taken control of Eastern and Central Europe, and now they're onto the middle-east. It'll go like this: Iraq, then Iran, then Saudi Arabia, and it will keep on going, right onto China. (We all know how much they dislike Communism) and the whole of Asia. rolleyes ...Maybe I'm just being delusional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 12:39 pm
I don't see that happening, they've made too many enemies too fast. They are facing a sort of international hostility not faced by the British until the rot had already set in from within.
They've only a short innings, I'm sure. Bush isn't the last man at the bat but I'd not give them more than seven to ten men before they really start to fall at pace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:41 pm
The thing is though, they're deliberately preventing international hostility from rising too high by never going at it alone or directly. They use other nations and organisations as puppets, like the U.N, and Britain. They convince us that they're "doing it for the good of the world" when really it's for "the good of America".
Also, seven to ten men is a long period... sweatdrop More than enough time for them to gain utter supremacy. There have been what, 12 post-WW2 presidents? And look how far they've come since then. Under those presidents they have taken control over Europe effectively, crushed the Soviet Union, and replaced several leaders in the middle-east with 'puppet' ones. confused
And how exactly do you see them 'falling'? It's getting to the point where they're far too powerful for any single nation to stand up to them and drive them back. And I can't really see another depression occuring, forcing them into isolationism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:52 am
Longbow UK The thing is though, they're deliberately preventing international hostility from rising too high by never going at it alone or directly. They use other nations and organisations as puppets, like the U.N, and Britain. They convince us that they're "doing it for the good of the world" when really it's for "the good of America".
Also, seven to ten men is a long period... sweatdrop More than enough time for them to gain utter supremacy. There have been what, 12 post-WW2 presidents? And look how far they've come since then. Under those presidents they have taken control over Europe effectively, crushed the Soviet Union, and replaced several leaders in the middle-east with 'puppet' ones. confused
And how exactly do you see them 'falling'? It's getting to the point where they're far too powerful for any single nation to stand up to them and drive them back. And I can't really see another depression occuring, forcing them into isolationism.
This has caused a lot of hostility, expecially recently over Iraq whereby they practically spat in the face of the UN by cobbling together a basically farcical "coalition" formed primarily of British and US troops. They show blatant and tasteless favouritism over the Israel-Palestine conflict and they meddle incessantly and unsuccessfully in the middle east. It is far from popular and there is a general feeling at home and abroad that a fairer world superpower could only be a good thing.
Utter supremacy? I think you overestimate them, there is never such a thing as utter supremacy anyway. Since WWII they have not gained control of Europe, they have just learned to ignore Europe and it's (often quite intelligent) advice.
Communism would have killed the soviet union anyway, the USA just gave it an early death.
They are already falling, like the British empire. The first step toward failure was increaced international opposition, ditto the Roman and the French empires. What has America got now? Greatly increaced international opposition, a very different political climate than that of say, the 1950's.
Their government appears to have run up debts amounting to two years wages from every citizen in the states and all yearly industrial profit. Spending is still going up too, with their crusade on terror. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharaib have now snatched even the moral highground from them. From what I see, they are falling back already.
Someone will slip into the breach after them and we don't yet know who. Why not the deserving Britain and her allies, who have stood loyally by the USA for so long? Better that than we remain securely attached to America and sink with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:27 am
The escape of the Project for the New American Century into the public domain has also increased the hostility towards America. In the case of PNAC, it has set off warning bells without actually dragging any of America's allies into the same glaring spotlight.
Now it HAS to be said at this point, I have a LOT of American friends. Very few of them actually knew anything about PNAC. In fact, that said, very few of them (when it was first set up) understood anything about the Guantanomo Bay camp and what it meant for those within its fences. It was not stupidity which caused this, but a lack of actual information. Credible information, that is. Those who question are told that they are "unpatriotic", or that they are part of the "enemy" camp. Instead of actually being PROVIDED with the information and being able to make up their own minds, many Americans, particularly the younger generations, are force-fed the government-approved position.
This is not to say that ALL Americans are unaware of what their government is up to. Not at all. But it IS the case that those who question are generally frowned upon. Here in Gaia particularly, those who are able to present their case why they think there is something amiss...? You will usually find ten people shouting them down for being "unpatriotic", "stupid", etc etc to every one other person who says "I can see what you're trying to say" whether they agree or not with the poster's stance.
It's all about who can shout the loudest right now, which to be honest would seem to suggest the the "superpower" is crumbling, undermined from within by not letting the people have the full freedom they were promised, riddling the society with lies and half truths. No society can sustain itself for long under those circumstances...
A lesson this country would do well to learn from, since with Blair in charge, we have similar issues to contend with, albeit on a smaller scale. But the rot is there and should be cut out asap.
But that's just what I think. I could well be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 8:31 am
You both put forward some good points towards it, but personally I still think America has too much military strength and economic influence over the world to just 'crumble' like that.Quote: That's not how I saw it. The way I see it they too readily go it alone, they show no concern for the constraints and regulations of such bodies as the UN, NATO, OPEC or even the Geneva Convention. This has caused a lot of hostility, expecially recently over Iraq whereby they practically spat in the face of the UN by cobbling together a basically farcical "coalition" formed primarily of British and US troops. They show blatant and tasteless favouritism over the Israel-Palestine conflict and they meddle incessantly and unsuccessfully in the middle east. It is far from popular and there is a general feeling at home and abroad that a fairer world superpower could only be a good thing. Quote: Utter supremacy? I think you overestimate them, there is never such a thing as utter supremacy anyway. Since WWII they have not gained control of Europe, they have just learned to ignore Europe and it's (often quite intelligent) advice.
And utter supremacy, in my opinion, is when a nation gains so much power and influence in the world that no other power can possibly stand against them or contend with them. And lets face it, it's getting that way.Quote: Communism would have killed the soviet union anyway, the USA just gave it an early death.
...
...And I really don't see how you can compare this to the British, Roman, and French empires. We are in a different age now. An age of push-button warfare and cold war. What international opposition has the strength to stand up and face the USA in such an age? Admittedly, if the whole of Europe were to rise up and make a stand then maybe America would be in trouble, but that's never going to happen for many reasons... a lot of which are economical. Which relates back to the control they have over Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:07 am
Sabredog I'd love to discover more about the Britain's history during the Crusades, and in the Roman times, back when we were bloodthirsty Celts. :] lol! I still am a bloodthirsty Celt!!! As for America, beautiful country, lovely people, ******** useless polititians My mrs is American, and not a brighter, more liberal, soul could you find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:29 am
Longbow UK You both put forward some good points towards it, but personally I still think America has too much military strength and economic influence over the world to just 'crumble' like that.It's won't just crumble. It will both be crumble and will run itself into debt and povery through this laughable war on terror.
I like to think that poor diplomatic favour will deliver the coup de grace and leave the door open for a more morally-minded and liberal nation or host of nations to step into the breach....But that isn't going to stop Bush from going into Iran, is it? People abroad can feel as hostile towards USA as they like, it matters not. As for the people of America? Bush will do the same thing he did before... He will drive fear into their hearts and convince them that he is protecting them from terror.It won't stop him, no. The Iranians however will create a state of pure carnage among the US troops. I pray the the UK refuses to commit troops, though I suspect that a Labour gov't would be more than happy to do so. They've never cared about UK forces.
Iran is a strong country. Unimaginably more challenging that Iraq, they have a disciplined army which is used to fighting and eager to make a name for their country. As well as that, they do not want liberation, for the most part hey are happy and content and would fight in defence in much the same way that we in the UK would.Of course they've gained control over Europe! During the Cold War they used Europe to get nearer to the Soviets, putting us in the crossfire if nuclear war broke out! They placed military bases all over western Europe, including Britain. They were using us as puppets, as they always do... and you say they simply ignored Europe and gained no control over it after WW2?*frowns* Too much of that is true and I dislike it bitterly. there should be not one single US base on UK or Commonwealth territory unless it is approved in both houses of parliament. Cases examined individually.What international opposition has the strength to stand up and face the USA in such an age? Admittedly, if the whole of Europe were to rise up and make a stand then maybe America would be in trouble, but that's never going to happen for many reasons... a lot of which are economical. Which relates back to the control they have over Europe.What international opposition? A united one. It needen't even be an organised group, a spreading tendency toward rebellion wuld be enough.
American economic sanctions can be overcome. They tried to tackle France but it remains on the the strongest European economies. It shows that they can't hurt the top nations, only middle-eastern and destabilised ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:59 am
Quote: It's won't just crumble. It will both be crumble and will run itself into debt and povery through this laughable war on terror. I like to think that poor diplomatic favour will deliver the coup de grace and leave the door open for a more morally-minded and liberal nation or host of nations to step into the breach.
...
And no European nation will stand up to America. We're bound too closely to them as allies. As I said, if countries such as Britain, France etc. were to unite and make a stand then America would be in a bit of trouble, but that will never happen. Not unless the Americans really slip up and do something like invade China. xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:51 pm
Generally speaking, the British really have been complete arses in the course of history. However, the golden age, was, of course, when people wore ridiculous clothes and called everyone "sir" and ended all their sentences with "sir" and called people they disapproved of "sir knave" and "sirrah" and said "have at you" in battle and things and jousted. (N.B. These probably all come from different centuaries and periods, but that's clearly a historical accident. If there was any good planning, people would have done these kinds of things around the same period. Meh...I'm rambling.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:00 pm
whapcapn Generally speaking, the British really have been complete arses in the course of history. However, the golden age, was, of course, when people wore ridiculous clothes and called everyone "sir" and ended all their sentences with "sir" and called people they disapproved of "sir knave" and "sirrah" and said "have at you" in battle and things and jousted. (N.B. These probably all come from different centuaries and periods, but that's clearly a historical accident. If there was any good planning, people would have done these kinds of things around the same period. Meh...I'm rambling.)
When haven't we Britons wore ridiculous clothing throughout history?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:43 am
Longbow UK When haven't we Britons wore ridiculous clothing throughout history?  Captain Darling! Genius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:36 am
Longbow UK whapcapn Generally speaking, the British really have been complete arses in the course of history. However, the golden age, was, of course, when people wore ridiculous clothes and called everyone "sir" and ended all their sentences with "sir" and called people they disapproved of "sir knave" and "sirrah" and said "have at you" in battle and things and jousted. (N.B. These probably all come from different centuaries and periods, but that's clearly a historical accident. If there was any good planning, people would have done these kinds of things around the same period. Meh...I'm rambling.)
When haven't we Britons wore ridiculous clothing throughout history?I mean the big ruffs and things with lots of lace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:51 am
whapcapn Longbow UK whapcapn Generally speaking, the British really have been complete arses in the course of history. However, the golden age, was, of course, when people wore ridiculous clothes and called everyone "sir" and ended all their sentences with "sir" and called people they disapproved of "sir knave" and "sirrah" and said "have at you" in battle and things and jousted. (N.B. These probably all come from different centuaries and periods, but that's clearly a historical accident. If there was any good planning, people would have done these kinds of things around the same period. Meh...I'm rambling.)
When haven't we Britons wore ridiculous clothing throughout history?I mean the big ruffs and things with lots of lace. Elizabethan,,,Blackadder2?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
