where did we fabricate claims? i love this argument cause people bought the medias coverage of the war and thought we found nothing. WE DID FIND WMD, BE IT THE CIA DIDNT HAVE IT RIGHT BUT LIKE USUAL THEY NEVER DO.
And as far as Im concerned, sometimes you need to tell everyone to get f'd. Most of the world prefer to think by turning a blind eye to everything wrong with whats going on in it that itll settle itself and normalcy will return...........It doesnt. News flash ozmono Hitler could have taken Europe, his only mistake was actually thinking HE was a tactician and bossed his generals around. The U.S. isnt always looking out for their own interests........if thats the case why are their U.S. troops in places like Bosnia, Africa and half a dozen other places that have NO real effect on our economy or our "investments". People just love to point out how we only get into shit that effects us. AND your SEVERELY WRONG. You forget about the Tsunami in the south asian countries a few years back? We sent WARSHIPs to aid in humanitarian work....you might ask yourselves............why would the U.S. send a warship for a humanitarian effort? Ill tell you why, the U.S. Military is probably the best choice for the job, they have the tools, the resources and the ability to distribute those resources with hardly any issue of corruption that comes with a "non profit organization" that eats up 75% of all funds donated to them.
And as far as humility..........i got mine when i spent almost two years abroad. The REAL US Patriots know what real humility is. Living like the locals, showering only when you get the chance, not when you would like to. Even having to hold your own bows cause either your on a mission or because all the portapotties have been packed with shit for the last two weeks, or the portable showers and shitters are out of running water............How about not talking to your family for not just days but weeks? Not being able to change your clothes for days cause the clothes has to be sent to another Base to be washed and has a three day turn around. Sometimes you dont get your clothes back at all. How about being not being able to get any sleep for days cause some dickhead decided he was going to build a homemade explosive and blew himself to hell. And now your on a rotating schedule to guard the damn marketplace. or school, or local government building etc etc etc.YOU KNOW NOTHING OF HUMILITY AND BEFORE YOU START TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT DOWN THE TV REMOTE AND THAT COLLEGE LEVEL BOOK, GO OUTSIDE AND REALLY EXPERIENCE THE REAL WORLD. NOT JUST THE BUBBLE WRAPPED WORLD YOUR 1ST WORLD COUNTRY KEEPS YOU IN BUT A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY WHERE YOU MIGHT BE KIDNAPPED SO SOME TERRORIST WANNABE CAN TRY AND FUND HIS PLANS FOR A BOMB TO BLOW THE LOCAL MARKETPLACE TO HELL.
Another thing, Afghanistan has absolutely NOTHING to offer the U.S. other then being finally stable after being at war for so damn long. The only thing that place offers is Drugs. Pot, Opium, and cocaine.
Whenever somebody uses the phrase "US patriots", God kills a large cat. Which is why most of them are in the brink of extinction today.
As to the original question, no the US won't always be a superpower, and frankly chances are it'll stop being so really soon. Education is worse than ever, barely surviving thanks to the influx of foreign students, the legal system continues to put constrains on enterpreneurs with an ever-extending patent and copyright system, their economy just crashed around them, and their government's cowboy attitude in the aftermath of the WTC attacks has taken a toll on their credibility in the world market.
No, it won't be the end of civilization as we know it, we won't resort to barbarism, and there won't be a World War III when it happens. All it'll happen is that the world's economy will be based on the Euro rather than the dollar, promising students around the world will get their postgrads in Britain and Spain rather than the US, and multinationals will now list their offices in Paris as their HQs rather than the ones in Nebraska.
Which, if you look around you, is already starting to happen.
China may be on the way up but it has long long way to go. I don't think you guys appreciate just how powerful US is. US has arguably the only real Blue Navy in the world. Russia gave up on the idea of trying to compete with US naval superiority, because it's not possible. Some countries maintain quazi-blue navy status, but they are all our allies. UK and France will possibly deploy super carriers that can be used in US naval formations.This will allow US to reduce its obligations under the NATO treaty.
US also has the best Air Force. While the F22 program has been somewhat contraversial, the contraversy was that it is so advanced there is nothing for it to fight. It's in its own league, so we can just as well go with the much cheaper F35, and maintain superiority with quantity.
US is also the first to deploy combat drones. It is a decade ahead of anyone else in this area. With Jet powered drones taking flight soon, I even forsee a deployment of drone supercarriers in the future! Drones give unparelled ground support to US forces, which themselves are best equipped in the world.
And if you doubt the US military superiority you should know that US spends more anually on its armed forces than the rest of the world combined.
Which brings us to the next topic, economic dominance. The US economy is unmatched by any nation in the world. Only way you can come close to the $14+ trillon GDP is by combining the economies of all 27 members of the European Union. As a matter of fact, the gross disparity between US economy and any other country is the reason for EU to form together. That way their economic power combined would allow them to dictate global economic polocies.
There has been a lot of talk about US borrowing too much. Well the thing about that is if a country defualts on it's loans the only way you can get the money is come and take it. And I doubt anyone would ever try.
I forsee US being the trend setter and global leader for at least next 50 years!
Not only that, but the US has always paid back its loans. Might not be on the exact time tabe of other countries, But we do return it.
Name the superpower nations in the 1900's, 1600's, or 1200's? What about 1AD? Are they all still superpowers?
The question is slightly off in its premise....
And no, China will not surpass the US if they hold on to their communism. The US is tied so deeply to the Chinese that any detriment to the US will also impact China. Once china goes full capitalist and self sufficient, then the world can start worrying.
What I was refering to was the attempted justification of the war. WMD's which was a major fck up if not a blatant lie, links with Al Queda which is almost to absurd to be another stuff up, ridding the people of a tyrant, finishing a job that should have done in the first gulf war and whatever other crap that was used to try and sell the war and no it wasn't just your media it was senior government officials propelling those kinds of justifications. Now stablizing Iraq and Afganistan is in your interest. That region was and to a cetain extent still is festering with radicals opposed to your government.
You talk of Bosnia and "Africa" as though it's a major thing. Bosnia and peacekeeping forces in Africa are an international efforts as was the Tsunami. It's funny how some Americans just forget the rest of the world has humantarian efforts aswell.
As for your "NEWS FLASH" I never said Hitler couldn't have taken europe without US backing of the opposition, what I said is you guys were lending so much money to Britain that you would have been fools not to protect your investment.
Now the rest of your post is just a bunch of assumptions (WRITTEN IN CAPS) that I know nothing of the world and you know it all because you've experienced some of its worse aspect. I just want to say that you appear far from humble my friend despite whatever you may or may not have been through and don't assume to know what I've been through. Furthermore I've met people who appear more humble than you who have never even left there city.
you can twist what i said all you want. but it still doesnt change anything. your view of the US wether you are pro US or not is still flawed. We dont JUST do things in our interests. And as far as humanitarian aid...............when did I say anything about ONLY the US doing humanitarian work? If you want to debate something thats fine. But Im not interested in reexplaining myself over and over before you actually pick up on what im saying. As far as humble.........I have yet to hear anything from you that seems humble. You like to talk about it. But fail to practice what you preach.
As long as the UN continues to be a beuracratic joke the world needs America to do the dirty work (with help of course). America is in a tricky position, if it acts and things don't go well it gets blamed. If it doesn't act and things get bad it will get blamed.
America will be the sole superpower for probably several decades or so and after that will likely be joined by the likes of china or w/e. After that I think it will have a considerable reign left in super power status but at some point its power will enter a significant decline period and its importance in foreign affaris will attennuate. Its the natural cycle of things to rise and fall.
You had me at "Pot". We definitely, Definitely, have to go to war. Good weed's hard to find.
hehehe
I've posted this elsewhere but it's worth double posting.
There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt the United States has has done?? They have sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What do they intend to do, bomb them?'
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: "Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?"
The example that immediately pops into mind is the Rwandan genocide, where the US response was delayed and insufficent.
This is debatable. In a recent air combat exercise, the USAF lost 90% of the dogfights against the Indian Air Force. See here. The USAF is undeniably extremely powerful, but underestimating the enemy almost garantees defeat.
Humanitarian aid is in Americas best interests. It helps make Americas image look good.
Actually, Afghanistan is rich in metal ores such as copper which is why likely China is so interested in the place.
Yes I am aware of this incident. There is no debate about it, if you read your lik rather than just provide it you would realized that US was using F15-C aircraft, not F-22 at the exercise. The IAF was using Mirage and MiGs, both of wich were new aircraft and not an upgraded version fo an old design. And IAF was outnumbering the USAF. Also the exercise disproves the critics of F22, who said that current generation F15s could defeat anything our potential enemeies could have. Those critics are plain wrong. F15 is 30 years old.
Ive trained with the Indian Army. The Indians are very experienced. Theyve been fighting terrorism for a long time. So Im not surprised that even their Air Force proves to be formidable. But, one excercise doesnt make or break the fact that if we really wanted to stomp India (which really what reason would we have? their our allies) we could. With minimal casualties on our side. Long range bombing from offshore, High atmosphere bombing from strategic bombers, Bunkerbuster bombs that can go deep into the ground and through concrete before exploding. And then theres the swift invasion with M1A1s (which ive watched take heavy ieds and still keep going) and Bradleys and Strykers (takes more then three RPG's in the exact same spot before armor is pierced) Not to mention the training of our ground troops. The great thing about the USAF is they dont need to Dogfight, we eliminate any air support prior to invasions. With our stealth bombers we nail their AF before their radars know were there.
Also Astax is right, the F15? its one of the oldest fighters we have still in the air. Its only still there because the redtape makes it hard for the AF to get new planes tested and fielded. Obama just cut the F22, cause he thinks its a waste of taxpayers money........(funny how a defense platform is a waste but his plan to put money in the pockets of wall streets elite isnt)..........even though the damn thing has proven the rest of the world cant possibly match it. Once again the US is forced to use outdated equipment to fight with.
I am fully of aware that the US was using relatively old planes. The Indians were using planes comparable in age. A single air combat exercise does not prove or disprove anything, but that wasn't my point.
My point was that arrogance in warfare only helps the enemy. If you are so sure that your equipment is brilliant and that it guarantees victory, that if America ever fought India, they may win, but if America was that arrogant than they would get a very nasty surprise.
The Vietnam war. The Vietnamese communists used obselete Russian fighters, but they stood up to the latest and most advanced American fighters at the time. This was because air-to-air missiles were an untested technology, but my point still holds.
Also, the F/A-22 is a brilliant piece of technology, but no-one knows if other countries have comparable tech. The Russians might. How would anyone know either way? They are extremely secretive now, even more so then in the late 80s.
Saying "we'll bomb their radars and then we'll do this and that" is meaningless. The other side have brains too and will adapt to what ever America does as best as they can. An old military proverb says "plans never survive first contact with the enemy."
In Vietnam, the US has superior artillery. They would bomb a site hoping to kill the enemy and then send in their infantry. However, the Vietnamese learned to predict US tactics. When ever an artillery barrage started, the vietnamese learned that US infantry was coming and prepared for it. The superior artillery didn't help. The vietnamese also used prostitutes as spies to get info from US troops.
Superior technology can make a huge difference in war, but don't count on it alone.
Jule. the Vietnam war is a horrible example. They didnt win the conflict, by all means the US handed the north vietnamese their asses and then some. The reason EVERYONE thinks we failed in Vietnam is because we pulled out. But let it be known, We pulled out because of public opinion. Not cause we were losing. We lost 50k over the course of 15 years. While in that same time line we eliminated OVER 1 million Vietnamese. The reason the Vietnamese were so dug in was because China and Russia was so heavily involved. Also you fail to realize that now adays Soldiers and Marines dont leave the base and just hang out in some local village giving vital info to prostitutes. The US Military isnt as Arrogant as you believe they are. The US military learns from its mistakes and applies their lessons learned accordingly.
For example the OIF. While many people were bitching and moaning about 4k of US Military personell dying in a matter of 6 years (which is so low its quite ridiculous to think considering we lost almost that in just 1 day) Sorry if that seems like I dont care about any of those deaths thats not the case what so ever (It still infuriates me to think about Americans dying). But my mind is still set on numbers and attrition which is really what war is about. Iraq might not be like what it was when Saddam ran it. But it is getting better by the day and it has its own Military and Police force to enforce the laws there. The sectarian violence there is down simply because the only people actually killing other people are those involved with al qaeda and ther numerous other terrorist cells in the region. But the thing is Iraq was compared to Vietnam simply because we lost personel during an occupation. But the leadership realized where they were losing the fight in Iraq and adjusted accordingly. Now the tricks the Terrorists used to bring locals under their control is being used against them. The US offers Iraqi's and Afghan people money which keeps them from relying on the terrorists for financial support. We also have adjusted to the IEDs and while you dont hear about it. The US military destroys atleast 10 times more IEDs then what actually is set off. While the ones that kill are even a smaller percentage of those that are actually set off.
I get that the Vietnamese fought bravely facing technological odds. But the reality is The Conflict in Vietnam proved how Technology will slam an enemy and leave them with nothing more then guerilla tactics to fight a conflict with. While guerilla warfare is a great strategy to break the morale of the individual and also effect the opinions on the homefront. It can be fought back. The trick is to cut off their supply. Which was being done, only problem was prior to the large air campaign against the Hoochieman trail the North Vietnamese was able to transport large numbers of weapons and supplies to strategic postions throughout Vietnam that kept them running long after the air campaign started.
LESSON LEARNED: Dont start an air campaign after a ground invasion. The air campaign needs to be the first military action against an enemy to deny them valuable resources that can be used during an actual conflict or if things turn bad for the enemy keeps them from conducting successful guerilla warfare. Also, you need to be able to cut the enemy from assests. Without money they cant fund the war. Wether that means creating issues between the enemy and the country funding the enemy or by simply freezing assests.
Also while your point about the F22 not being the most advanced as we dont know what other countries have. I highly doubt that Russia can fund a a fully developed reply to the F22. While they have the tech and the knowledge to create a reply to the F22 they dont have the money to create enough of them to answer the F22. Or even maintain them. They cant even maintain their extensive Submarine Fleet. Which currently sits at Russian docks rusting and falling apart.
Also that little proverb, while true its also an accepted belief by all militaries. That regardless of how the plan will fail, its better to go into a conflict with a plan then none at all.
Without a plan, when shit hits the fan, chaos insues. And all control over the troops is lost. Theres always fall back plans that are initiated and adjusted to the situation. Thats why you have experienced leaders in the US Military and not some guy that payed money for the rank like alot of other countries allow.
I didn't say that America was arrogant only that arrogance is a weakness. Plans are important as you said, but they need to be adaptable. An unchangeable plan is worthless.
I intended this as food for thought, not to be taken as fact.
More kills does not equal win in war. Usually it does, but not always. How many men have the Americans lost in Afghanistan? How many kills have the Americans made? The kill ratio is in the Coalition's favour. You mentioned the IEDs. But who is winning? The terrorists. Winning wars is not simply killing more enemies.
This is alot harder then you think. The terrorists are getting money from kidnappings and mostly from aid money. Charity is indirectly supporting terrorism. Drugs are secondary.
As far as I know this tactic worked as the prostitutes were professional spies and I don't care who it is, a man's tongue will get loose if there is alot of booze and loose women around.
Public opinion is a major aspect of war. If you don't have the public support at home, then you are not winning. Even if your are winning lots of battles. America didn't win in Vietnam because they did not crush communism in southeast Asia. That was the objective of the war and that aim was not achieved. Hence, America pulled out. Failure of objectives equals defeat.
Geurilla tactics are extremely effective and the Vietnamese pilots did not so bad against American ones. The US pulled out and were unable to enforce their rules on Vietnam. That is a loss. Period. The Americans didn't quite "hammer" the Vietnamese. Russian AAA inflicted a large toll on American planes. You've read too much propoganda.
Americans dying? What about everyone else? People think of themselves as American, British, French, German, Chinese and Japanese first and as human beings second. Sad fact.
btw, the American troops nicknamed Afghanistan, Absurdistan. Thats not a good sign.
The terrorists are winning? cause they have to use homemade bombs to actually kill someone?? thats not winning thats desperation. War is about attritution, which is all about taking out resources and manpower. When your enemy can no longer supply men to fight and enough resources to create a real reply to your onslaught hes losing. By turning to IED's and using maybe 5 man teams to carryout these attacks it shows how weak theyve become. While IEDs can be useful, its only effective to morale not actually attritution. I never said it wasnt more then killing people, Im saying that killing people is the core of war.
Your wrong about money, we've been able to cut off about 95% of al qaeda's and other organizations, that are allied with al qaeda, money. What they rely on now is smaller amounts to build easy to make homemade bombs that you can spend small amounts of money on and get a whole lot of bombs out of. HME which is the new IED of terrorists are nothing more then a putty that has a hell of a lot of explosive power for its small size and doesnt need all the electronics of the first IEDs.
Public Opinion doesnt mean your not winning, It means the Public as a whole ARE NIAVE. They watch something on the news or some anti war Senator or Rep. blowing things out of proportion and suddenly were the bad guys in the conflict. You assume that Civilians should have say in what goes on in war. They dont, the problem now is War is observeable by the Media. Unfortunately those videos can be choped up and twisted to the Journalists bias. I dont know where you get that Public Opinion is the deciding factor in war but sorry to say your WRONG. Thats now how war is fought and won. Public opinion has its place on the Homefront and effects the frontlines when people like Politicians decide they know what War should be like.
Guerilla Warfare is effective but when you fight a Military very well versed with Guerilla Warfare your not going to win. Exactly why Iraq is so damn quiet now. The US was able to adapt and overcome. And if the Politicians in DC allow the Generals in Afganistan to have what they need the same will happen. I havent bought into any propoganda, you wanna talk about US arrogance in war you might want to bring up something more acceptable for it, like WW2. The US Marines literally fought with stones and knives on many of the beaches in the Pacific because the US Generals underestimated the Japanese reseliance. But you can go to Vietnam, and ask the North Vietnamese Veterans and they will tell you the US tore them a new asshole. Thats not Propoganda thats just the TRUTH that wasnt talked about because THE PUBLIC OPINION (which isnt FACT) believes we failed. PUBLIC OPINION also thinks the Vietnam War was a WAR it wasnt it was skirmishes. For you to have war Congress has to declare it. So please keep the public opinion arguement out of this because simply the Public is influenced by what they WANT to believe. Not what is REAL.
Are you seriously going to make my statement about Americans dying out to be like I dont care about our Allies? If your gonna try to twist my statements theres no point in debating with you. YOU know what I meant by that statement.
Also American Troops nickname things alot of things, just because they call Afghanistan Absurdistan doesnt mean its the undoing of American military might in the region. If Im to assume the meaning to Absurdistan its how much the people there are so hard to connect with not how Afghanistan is not worth it. Ive been to Iraq, the people in the Middle East are extremely hard to get along with, on one hand they want the terrorists out, on the other they dont want to work hard themselves to do it. They wholeheartedly believe if things are going to change its "En Shalah" "God WIlling" which means, they shouldnt worry about it because if God wants it done itll happen. Im pretty sure this is the same mindset in Afghanistan as the Course I took on the Middle East didnt single out any particular country the US has troops in.
This applies mainly to conventional war. The war in Afghanistan is unconventional. In assymetric warfare, things work differently.
The terrorists control most of Afghanistan in 2009 and they get their money through kidnappings and also through aid money. The US is indirectly supporting their own enemy. The war in Afghanistan is not being won by the US. The objective of the war in afghanistan is to set up a stable democractic government for Afghanistan so that it is not a haven for terrorists. Whether the terrorists are desperate or not is unimportant. The objective is not being acheived.
See here. and here.
Once again, the war in Vietnam was lost because the US didn't stop the spread of communism. They didn't enforce their rules on that country. They didn't set up a lasting democracy. Those were the objectives and the objectives were not met. Objectives not being met equals FAIL. The Vietnamese exegerate about their losses in that war because they are proud of the losses they sustained as the price for their unity.
If you don't have public support then acheiving your aims is a whole lot harder. I didn't say that a good public opinion guarentees victory, only that it provides a foundation for the rest of the war effort. If the people are motivated they will be able to acheive what is required and more.
Whether public opinion is inaccurate or not is irrelevant to my point. It doesn't matter if the public is naive or not. Whatever the public thinks though will have an large impact on the war. To clarify, if you don't have public support then you are not winning an ideological war. You keep on bringing up US arrogance. I did not say that the US is arrogant only that arrognace is a weakness in war.
I was saying that patriotism does not promote harmony or peace. By believing that your nation (This could be any country) is above right and wrong, then any crime such as the holocaust is good. People can kill other people in war because they don't think of them as people, rather they are "the infedel" or they are "the enemy" etc.
You know, I'm reminded of an old quote about Hannibal, the Carthaginian commander who went over the Alps to beat the crap out of what was, at the time, the world's most powerful empire in their own home.
"Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it".
The US' superior equipment and military budget can give them victory over anyone else with relative ease (except, perhaps, Europe), but I'll be damned if they know how to *use* those victories for anything worth a crap. They go to war, kill 10 enemies for every one of them, yet they breed so much hatred in those they're allegedly "saving" they increase the enemy's manpower tenfold, turn both their own citizens and the entire world's opinion against them bringing their country instability in both economic and social matters, and no matter the goal they set themselves beforehand, they never seem to reach it.
The US is, and has been since the '70s at least, a country-wide Hannibal relying on their technological development and military spending rather than tactical genius for short-term victories, but being ultimately just as successful as his Punic War predecessor was. Simply put, real war isn't like some online FPS where if you kill more often than you die you win, and the US leadership still doesn't seem to grasp that fact.
However, the next world power won't be decided in a large-scale war like the Hundred Years War, or World War II, all the major superpowers in the world are too strongly tied up to allow one to survive economically in a war against the others. The next world power will simply be the one that controls the world's economy and currency, and through it gains the most leverage over other nations in matters of war and peace.
During the '80s that was clearly the US for the western world, with the US dollar as the golden standard, but as I've argued before, these days the Euro is gaining a *lot* of relevancy, while the importance of the dollar diminishes along with the US' economy and popular opinion throughout the world. The other obvious candidate would be China, of course, but the ineffectiveness of their Communist government coupled with recent scandals of censorship and oppression represent considerable obstacles to a China-led world state, that the European Union for the most part lacks.
Also, check this forum. It sort of has to do with this.
Please tell me when war has actually worked in someones favor and accomplished long term goals? War only comes around because of issues that will become Long term issues and the goal is to snuff out that problem. Alot of trash talk about the US but how about Europe...............The idiots over there were the direct reason for WW1 and WW2. But somehow all these smaller conflicts that cant stand up to the amount of lives lost in those wars, is a big enough reason to make the US the BIG BAD SUPER POWER. Yet countries like Germany, Brittian and France were the ones to pop off some of the most hellish fighting in known history. Not to mention that France has a very spotty history supplying weapons (just like the US) to very questionable Governments. Yet somehow its the US thats the only bad guy. Seriously one of the biggest motivaters for people to talk down about the US including its own citizens is because its on top.
Very good post Draek Almasy. I agree with your point, although it is debatable whether Hannibal didn't know how to use victory. Maybe he lacked the manpower, time and resources to use his victory. Maybe he didn't.
Excellent points there. WWII stopped Hitler, but thats about it. Most countries have done pretty bad things in their history, but only a few receive most of the criticism namely, Nazi Germany and the US. The US is on top and people look up to the US so it draws all the criticism. Tall Poppy Syndrom: everyone loves to cut down anyone who is above the rest.
Since the US is a world leader, people view it as being responsible for solving issues. Its like a political election. Before the election everyone loves one of the candidates, but when he gets into power all he receives is criticism. Some nations might be just jealous. I wouldn't be surprised if France hates the US because they are jealous.
All of them. The Vietnam War, for instance, was an attempt of the US to diminish Soviet influence in eastern Asia, as part of the much larger Cold War. They failed, not because they didn't kill enough vietnamese but because all their efforts *increased* Soviet influence in the area as backlash for their actions. Perhaps you're thinking as World War II, when the US had no choice but to get in after the Japanese attacked them, but you have to think then: why did Japan attack the US? why did they ally themselves with Germany? why did the Germans start the war in the first place? and even finer things, such as Germany's invasion of Poland or the Russian's counter-attack after Germany's invasion, none of them can be adequately explained by a simple "because they had a problem they had to snuff out", they were all part of a greater whole.
No, they weren't. Their grandfathers may have been, but then again yours went to war over their right to have slaves. The problems of the US, on the other hand, are something present *today*, supported by today's government and accomplished by today's soldiers. The US has shown itself, *today*, that it is unfit to call itself a "land of the free", not yesterday, not 80 years ago, today. Big difference.
France, like Britain, has a very troublesome government but my personal criticisms of Sarkozy et al are for another time. The difference, however, is that they don't control the whole of the European Union, and have *very* strong economic incentives not to go counter to it, so it's fair to expect that saner heads in Germany and Spain, for instance, would prevail in the end. Not so for the US where the problem isn't with any one state but rather with the government above them all, and it doesn't matter if Florida and Nebraska's governors are a peace-loving hippies, the US will still continue their invasion of Iraq as long as the president says so.
Besides, hell, we're not discussing who *should* be a world power, we're just discussing who'll eventually be. Me, I'd rather have Sweden or Finland as leaders of the New World Order than the entirety of the EU and would rather bow down to the italian mafia than have China be the world's only superpower, but life and politics are what they are, and there's not much we can do to change them.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
