In recent years, the U.S. has either grown more paranoid or more ambitious, at trying to control world affairs, often at the expense of positive diplomatic relations or in other areas.

Bush tries to put missile defense in Czechoslovakia, supposedly to defend against 'rogue states' such as Iran. This, despite the fact that there is no proof that Iran has nuclear weaponry, and certainly none that can be effectively deployed within a period of around ten years. Also, this is a highly undemocratic move, since 60% of Czechs are against the missile defense, and there is a hunger strike movement in Czechoslovakia to get the government to turn down the U.S. Russia is taking this as an offensive move, and Bush has refused to move the missile defense to an area where Russia won't take it as a threat, yet where it could still reach Iran or other 'rogue states'. Veeery suspicious.

Pentagon going for space weapons. Weapons that attack from space are, of course, something to be feared. With boeing's testing of laser weapons and possibility of rocket-hurling satellites, it's pretty easy to see that the U.S. is going forward in weapons technology, despite high risk of starting a new Arms Race, which has, in a way, already started. China and Russia have proposed a treaty banning space-weapons, but the U.S. has pretty much ignored it - strange, since the U.S. has the most to lose.

Total US military spending is almost half of that of the rest of the world. Look at some of those numbers, and at the charts. Scary, isn't it? Especially considering how much most of Europe loves the US - together, the EU and America make up 68% of the world's military spending. According to another source, the US military spending in 2007 was more then $1.6 trillion dollars.

In addition to increased weapons spending, the US has been screwing around with the environment - it hasn't joined the Kyoto Protocol, a UN-based treaty to keep environment hurting to a minimum.

The U.S. started the Iraq War illegally, without consulting the U.N.

I'm getting tired, so if someone really demands a source I'll get it, but the US is turning to NATO more then to the UN for authorization. Not only has the US expanded NATO east, breaking its promises with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but the US is now readily expanding and trying to get Ukraine and Georgia, Russia border-countries and post-Soviet-bloc nation-states, to join NATO. The US prefers NATO over UN for pretty obvious reasons - Russia doesn't get to veto anything that the US does, since it isn't even a member of NATO. Completely by choice. Why the hell is NATO still active, anyway?

Maybe I should've called this 'US & Europe vs the world'... whatever. Comments, or hopefully a discussion? Anyone want to prove me wrong or invalidate a source? Debate about what this means?

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 4 2008, 3:17 am by Centreri.

{Insert a response to a deleted post here}

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 5 2008, 8:22 pm by Centreri.

All Vrael's are immune to all forms of weaponry, and even nuclear radiation. We're magical.

But seriously, I don't think the U.S. could take on the entire world. There would be too much internal strife within our own people. Nixon might've tried if he had succeeded in becoming a dictator but with our current government, the President would get impeached, Congressmen would get voted out, people would complain and rally, protestors would march, it just wouldn't happen. However, in terms of arms and physical capability, it's quite possible. Though, I think if we tried to take on everyone else, the World would be screwed. As in everyone, including us. It might not matter who wins, cause everyone would have been shat on.

If Franklin D. Roosevelt can go through two major crisis to put up both the Great Depression and World War II along with heavy sickness, I have faith on Barack Obama. After all, Obama won the democracy election and Hilary Clinton announce to become Obama's Vice President. The United States are already fed up of George W. Bush, and the Iraq War may have put up war debts that forces us to suffer, it has the least casualties (That I know of) in US History.

A full-out war, the U.S. can't win. But the US seems pretty intent on starting a new Cold War. Who knows where that might lead? Plus, the standard propaganda can convince people that those evil Russians and Chinese have started a communistic dictatorships and they're killing Americans by the dozen, etc. In potential, the US can screw the world over, and maybe, along with the EU, pretty much control it. Propaganda is pretty rampant - Evil Mr. Putin, with his anti-democratic ways.. it's really funny. Bush is effectively a war criminal, and you pound the Russian president/recentPrimeMinister.

For the record, there were 148 US losses during the Gulf War. Maybe 250 total among the anti-Iraquian coalition.

In that case.. explain everything above. Not only might McCain still win, but under Barack Obama the US, if prosperous, is still going to keep expanding its influence. It'll keep building newer weapons using it's ridiculous military budget.

You forgot to mention the Kosovo conflict. The radicals were funded fully by the US.

Every day I get closer and closer to agreeing with you. I've suggested to friends that the UN should take action against the US's actions in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Kosovo, and elsewhere, and they've pointed out that the US has veto power in the UN, which effectively makes the UN worthless for dealing with them.

We'll probably do exactly what we did pre-WW2: just let the US (As opposed to Germany in WW2) take whatever they want, in hopes that they'll stop. I get the feeling that WW3 will heavily involve the US...

In any case, China practically has full control over the US economy. If the US were to try to make war on China, they'd be in economic trouble ten times worse then the Great Depression.

Oh, yes. Kosovo. Another internationally illegal move 'sponsored' by the U.S.

The problem as I see it is that the U.S. is too firmly tied to the EU, which is collectively the most powerful economic force on earth (U.S. ranking second after that), not to mention undoubtedly a very powerful military force. That brings us back to NATO.

Neither China nor Russia, the two powerful countries vocal for a multi-polar world (a world with many superpowers balancing each other out - somewhat like the Cold War, perhaps, but with less military buildups and more competitors), is a member of NATO. The U.S. and EU are trying, using NATO, to expand their influence over the world. They've got pretty much all of Western Europe and are getting Eastern Europe to join, against former agreements, against what the people of the countries want, and against Russia's growing opposition. As I said before, the UN gives Russia a veto - noted that the other members of G8 are pro-U.S. 4 of them are members of the EU, Japan is strongly pro-U.S., and Canada... well.. is Canada.

If the U.S. does something illegal, they won't really oppose forcibly. As has been shown with the war in Iraq.

Oh, and this is another 'fun' article I found: Russia had laser cannons back in '72. Might not really be true, but I like to think it is.

You forgot to mention the Israel-Palestianian conflict. The radicals were funded fully by the US.

Not entirely.

But mostly.

I think it'd be funny as hell if a war broke out between US and a lot of the world, because U.S would get stomped. And I guarantee you, living in England, our prime minister would not assist U.S in a war against the world. Too many citizens in England hated U.S for invading Iraq / Iran etc... So...

I definitely think it would be good for the world if U.S went to war. It may change some beliefs that the only way to be safe, is to be paranoid and have more weapons then the rest of the world.

Down with U.S?

I find it perfectly reasonable to help Israel against aggressive Arabs, and that isn't that much an aggressive move.

Not a war against the world. A war against everyone not in NATO and possibly not Japan, Australia or Canada. I know Britain's attitude towards Russia (and can guess that toward China) from the media side (you guys are haters!), and if the US can find suitable excuse, I think other NATO countries might join in.

Israel is the Aggresive part not the the Arabs. Israel was FOUNDED ON TERROR. It was and is the Isreals who Illegally stole and still steals the arabs soil and forced 7 million people to flee in terror.

Israel was given a plot of land and supplied arms by the US and some other countries. After that, it was pretty much the Arabs who attacked Israel and it was from those conflicts that Israel gained more land. Well, there was the six day war, but from what I've read, Israel had reason to believe Arabs were about to attack it, so..

I'm not saying Israel isn't aggressive, but pretty much everyone except the Arabs likes it being there.

I dont hate Israel. Just on a footnote. I hate China, but I dont hate Russia much. Russia would never wage a war with the U.S., nevertheless, the U.S. is the top competitor economic wise as a single country.

The EU can largely be considered a single country, and pretty much all of Western Europe is in it, they're ahead of the US, GDP wise, by maybe 15%. The US is a powerhouse.

You just stated who you hate/don't hate, and didn't really do much else. This is about U.S. aggressiveness.

What have you got against China and Russia .

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 5 2008, 8:23 pm by Centreri.

What reason would the U.S. have to invade the world though? I understand this is hypothetically, but even the invasion of Iraq had reasons. Maybe Barack or McCain will go psychotic as president, but the Pres still can't declare war. If he all-out-wages war against a country, the War Powers Act of 1972 (I think it's 72) will go to the Supreme Court and be overturned, The House of Reps will impeach the Pres, ect. The reasons (I think) Bush successfully stayed in Iraq is because Congress had initially declared war and there were many men already over there, not to mention he didn't want a terrorist group taking control of their country. Oh, and what upright citizen of the U.S. could say "I don't support our troops."?

But what reason would ther be for the U.S. to invade the world, short of just some giant snowballing war.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 5 2008, 8:45 pm by Vrael.

You assume incorrectly that your post was deleted for being irrelevant. Your post is perfectly relevant. However, relevancy alone does not qualify as post as fitting for Serious Discussion.
Your suggestion contains a few holes, such as how exactly the rest of the world would ever let the U.S. get away with such tactics, whether or not the Chinese would actually end up surrendering with peace terms including the negation of such debt, and the factor of nuclear warfare coming into play. Your argument doesn't appear to be thought through, or if it is, you negelected to share this thinking. It appears to be nothing more than a joke, with you yourself posting the "lol" at the end. You don't have to be negative and pessimistic, but something like this suggestion needs a more complete argument.

Very well.
I think if the U.S. were to go to war with any country, CHina or otherwise, but China is the country I will be using for the purpose of this post, any and all debts to that country would be negated for the time following the declaration of war, and possibly permanently.

In the event war were to be declared on China, presumably offensively, the objective would undoubtedly be to make the Chinese military and possibly their government inactive.
A good quote: