Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Replacing America: Who would You choose?


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#46    Myles

Myles

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,502 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 April 2012 - 05:23 PM

Canada is a good choice.  
But the more likely are China, Russia and Brazil.


#47    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,867 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 08:37 PM

View Post747400, on 16 April 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

But doesn't the overwhelming superiority of the U.S. rely very heavily on Capitalism? And we know that that has broken down already, at least in the way that any of the genuine economic thinkers would recognise it, and it's now just a worldwide mafia of mega-corporations that are more powerful than any one nation, perhaps even including the U.S. Really, the economic dominance of the U.S. is based on a very, very shaky foundation.
And really, having the world's more expensive and technological military is the problem. These are useless against anyone who doesn't rely on Technology, e.g. most of the people the U.S. has decided to make War on over the last decade. Having the world's more expensive and technological military is not only no use in the war against "Terrorists", the cost of it is a decided liability.
I think the superiority of the US did at one time revolve around capitalism, but I think that the US has such a lead now that even if it went to a socialist state-owned-utilities/land/housing that it would continue on inertia for a long, long time.

I'd not say capitalism is broken, just in a slump. And part of the slump is the very socialist activities that are being praised. If capitalism was allowed to run the US, we'd not have a National Debt, or much in the way of Entitlements. If it did not turn a profit, we'd not have it. But, what caused the current slump? Debt and government involved housing markets.

The greater our techological military edge the less people we loose in war. Are you actually in favor of killing people instead of improving technology? I think that whatever the costs, we're better off with a virtually unbeatable military, then with moderate spending and a military that is satisfied with a 1 in 10 death per soldier in the warzone. I'd rather spend ten times the other guy and have no one killed. Soon we'll not have soldiers fighting at all, as everything will be operatable by robot remotely controlled from the other side of the world.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#48    Myles

Myles

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,502 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:06 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 16 April 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

I think the superiority of the US did at one time revolve around capitalism, but I think that the US has such a lead now that even if it went to a socialist state-owned-utilities/land/housing that it would continue on inertia for a long, long time.

I'd not say capitalism is broken, just in a slump. And part of the slump is the very socialist activities that are being praised. If capitalism was allowed to run the US, we'd not have a National Debt, or much in the way of Entitlements. If it did not turn a profit, we'd not have it. But, what caused the current slump? Debt and government involved housing markets.

The greater our techological military edge the less people we loose in war. Are you actually in favor of killing people instead of improving technology? I think that whatever the costs, we're better off with a virtually unbeatable military, then with moderate spending and a military that is satisfied with a 1 in 10 death per soldier in the warzone. I'd rather spend ten times the other guy and have no one killed. Soon we'll not have soldiers fighting at all, as everything will be operatable by robot remotely controlled from the other side of the world.

I think a downside to that will be more of an effort to hit the mainland.


#49    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 7,002 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:55 AM

If you think we are in debt now....   what do you think remote controlled robot warfare would cost!?!?!?!?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ...  come to think of it...  that's the soundest argument that it might happen.
Luckily, economic reality will prevent the possibility.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#50    DingoLingo

DingoLingo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,503 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Toowoomba QLD

  • Thought of the day

    'Never slam dance while priming plastic explosives'

    D.R Dodds

Posted 17 April 2012 - 02:06 AM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 15 April 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

It's Australia's turn to be a superpower dangnabbit!

Australia as a superpower? mate.. I think we are a bit to laid back to be a super power..

mind you.. we could teach the rest of the world proper football.. good bear.. and how to barbie a snag..


#51    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,132 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 06:43 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 16 April 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:



The greater our techological military edge the less people we loose in war. Are you actually in favor of killing people instead of improving technology? I think that whatever the costs, we're better off with a virtually unbeatable military, then with moderate spending and a military that is satisfied with a 1 in 10 death per soldier in the warzone. I'd rather spend ten times the other guy and have no one killed. Soon we'll not have soldiers fighting at all, as everything will be operatable by robot remotely controlled from the other side of the world.
What i was saying was that overwhelming technological superiority is no use at all in the kind of wars the leaders of the U.S. have committed it to in recent times. It may be unbeatable, but doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to win. The best that can be hoped for is a stalemate that goes on for ever. And besides, it isn't virtually unbeatable, is it? Even with all this overwhelming superiority, soldiers are still killed all too frequently, aren't they.

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#52    karmakazi

karmakazi

    Crazy Cat Lady

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

  • That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 02:11 PM

View Postand then, on 15 April 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

I posted a topic earlier and as a part of it mentioned my belief that America was the most powerful/greatest nation in history.  Quite a few took issue with that idea.  So I began to wonder, if America is as inept and evil as many seem to believe then who exactly would be best to take on the role of a superpower who's morality would suit your own?  If one nation had to be dominant which nation would you prefer to see guiding the world forward into a new millenium?  Compare this new leader with America and explain why you think it would be better for mankind.


I have a problem with the idea that there needs to be a greatest/strongest nation or empire.  That's exactly the kind of thinking that gets oppressive empires started on the path to trying to conquer everything.  It perpetuates the idea that any one person or group can have 'the best' idea about how to live life or organize people, when in reality each individual needs to decide for themselves what is the best life for them.  Because of the way societies are structured people are unhappy because they feel like they have to conform to ideals that they would not hold of their own accord, if it wasn't important to the society at large.  

What difference does it make who is "best" ?   For the most part, whatever place people live is going to be "best" to them anyway.  Having some idea or consensus on who is best doesn't win any prizes and it doesn't make things better for anyone.  It's just pointless human competition, that accomplishes little if anything.

There is no greater risk in life than doing nothing.

#53    Eldorado

Eldorado

    Unforgiven

  • Member
  • 11,903 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

  • I reckon so.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 02:38 PM

Tis better the devil you know, imo.


#54    Taun

Taun

    A dashing moose about town...

  • Member
  • 7,568 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tornado Alley (Oklahoma)

Posted 17 April 2012 - 02:46 PM

View PostDingoLingo, on 17 April 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

Australia as a superpower? mate.. I think we are a bit to laid back to be a super power..

mind you.. we could teach the rest of the world proper football.. good bear.. and how to barbie a snag..


There is nothing wrong with our bears they are usually quite well behaved - usually...
And we play perfectly proper football here (though I prefer college over pro)...

I have no idea what a 'snag' is but we invented Barbie...

:)

Edited by Taun, 17 April 2012 - 02:46 PM.


#55    karmakazi

karmakazi

    Crazy Cat Lady

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

  • That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 02:55 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 15 April 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

If Americas political system and ideology are better than everyone elses then why does it require war for it to be spread around the planet? Surely the rest of the world would be falling over themselves to adopt it? (Snigggers).

Yeah! and, if America's so freaking great why are so many of its people miserable and hating the government and each other?  I don't know where And Then lives, but it doesn't sound at ALL like the America I live in...

Quote

We need the next Superpower to have an ideology where the people come first not consumerism. I say we put the Dalai Lama in charge of the planet.

I do agree on the ideology that the people genuinely come first... and as I understood it that was the intention when the US constitution was written...we haven't been true to the forefathers in quite some time, and they knew it would happen:


"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
-Thomas Jefferson


As for the Dalai Lama, I would hope he isn't subject to the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" but we wouldn't know until it was too late :)

Edited by karmakazi, 17 April 2012 - 03:00 PM.

There is no greater risk in life than doing nothing.

#56    TK0001

TK0001

    THIMK!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,807 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:10 PM

View Postkarmakazi, on 17 April 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Though I do agree on the ideology that the people genuinely come first... oh wait, that was the original point of this country...we haven't been true to the forefathers in quite some time, and they knew it would happen:

Agreed. The forefathers left behind explicit instructions to The People: keep your government in check.

Hard to believe the country they created and this one are one in the same, looking at the state of things now. We are taught from a young age to never question the will of the State, to be subservient to it, and to live in constant fear of it. A small example: remember Officer Friendly? Kids in the 60's, 70's, and 80's were taught that police were friends who cared about us and wanted to protect us. Nowadays police are dressed in all black and employ intimidation and fear far more than friendliness.

Is it as bad here as other countries? Not by a long shot. People elsewhere have had to live through horrors at the hand of their governments that I cannot even comprehend. But this was created to be the bastion of freedom, where people were allowed to roam free without oppression from their government. Now we're simultaneously fighting a war on terror while adopting it's principles.


#57    Myles

Myles

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,502 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 April 2012 - 05:19 PM

View PostTK0001, on 17 April 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

Agreed. The forefathers left behind explicit instructions to The People: keep your government in check.

Hard to believe the country they created and this one are one in the same, looking at the state of things now. We are taught from a young age to never question the will of the State, to be subservient to it, and to live in constant fear of it. A small example: remember Officer Friendly? Kids in the 60's, 70's, and 80's were taught that police were friends who cared about us and wanted to protect us. Nowadays police are dressed in all black and employ intimidation and fear far more than friendliness.


The cops are pretty decent where I live.   Where are you with the gastapo-type of police officers?


#58    TK0001

TK0001

    THIMK!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,807 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 17 April 2012 - 05:24 PM

View PostMyles, on 17 April 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

The cops are pretty decent where I live.   Where are you with the gastapo-type of police officers?

Have you been to any major city lately?


#59    Myles

Myles

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,502 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 April 2012 - 05:28 PM

View Postkarmakazi, on 17 April 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

I have a problem with the idea that there needs to be a greatest/strongest nation or empire.  That's exactly the kind of thinking that gets oppressive empires started on the path to trying to conquer everything.  It perpetuates the idea that any one person or group can have 'the best' idea about how to live life or organize people, when in reality each individual needs to decide for themselves what is the best life for them.  Because of the way societies are structured people are unhappy because they feel like they have to conform to ideals that they would not hold of their own accord, if it wasn't important to the society at large.  

What difference does it make who is "best" ?   For the most part, whatever place people live is going to be "best" to them anyway.  Having some idea or consensus on who is best doesn't win any prizes and it doesn't make things better for anyone.  It's just pointless human competition, that accomplishes little if anything.
I have several issues with this post.
It's realistic that there will be a greatest/strongest nation to take over.   It's been like that for a long time.  I don't see it changing.

So you are in favor of not attempting to help suffering people around the world?   I'm not saying that the US is doing a great job of this, but it is something I would like to see the next superpower focus on.


#60    Myles

Myles

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,502 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 April 2012 - 05:29 PM

View PostTK0001, on 17 April 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Have you been to any major city lately?
Yes.   I can usually walk up to any cop and strike up a pleasant conversation.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users