70 replies to this topic

[Myles]

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

[DieChecker]

747400, 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.

[Myles]

DieChecker, 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.

[lightly]

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.

[DingoLingo]

Wearer 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..

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

DieChecker, 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.

[karmakazi]

and 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.

[Eldorado]

Tis better the devil you know, imo.

[Taun]

DingoLingo, 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.

[karmakazi]

Mr 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.

[TK0001]

karmakazi, 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.

[Myles]

TK0001, 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?

[TK0001]

Myles, 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?

[Myles]

karmakazi, 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.

[Myles]

TK0001, 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.