neat topic... but sorry if somthing already mentioned this (don't have the time to read all of the posts)... in answer to this question: "Wi;; America always be a superpower."

I'd have to say yes in some qaurters and no in others. It really depends on the definition of superpower, since there are several types of superpowers... like military superpowers, economic superpowers, diplomatic superpowers, and so on... Also it would mean that since we're a superpower, however influences effect the world as a whole. Also the word "superpower" is an outdated Cold War term used to describe the nuclears powers which were the U.S. and the U.S.S.R....

So its kind of impossible in not being a superpower for some "united nations"... for instance... Europe United... it is considered a "superpower," with strong political and growing economic powers.

The U.S. is also in the same department... but we're also a Military superpower as well... commiting protectorates on cauntries in the past and today (and by the term protectorates I mean written agreements of protection... not the Roman version)... like even Japan and most of Europe. ... Its actually kinda funny... while we're spending military funds... the nations under protectorate laws, only have to invest the minimum amount on the military... thus spending more on the economy and other such infrastructures.

And although people are saying that china is becoming a superpower... I'd have to say, thanks inpart to the fact that we're living in the information age, that title of Superpower will probably not leave the U.S., until say like a hundred years later.

And even then... we will still be a major political Superpower... perhaps indefinantly... the only scenerio were it will not be true, is if this cauntry goes into anarchy, civil war, and than isolationism... (and thanks inpart to the information age, tools like the internet... this will never be the case). You can see these examples through out history... so I don't really have to go indepth on them.

Fortunatly however it may be a benefit to the U.S. to lose this title for many reasons... mainly the burden of responsibilities placed upon us since WWII. When we lose this title (which is unlikly), we will have the anonymity, necessary to gain further influence and power in the background.

and getting back to China, its already an economic superpower... as for a political superpower... it hasn't made any leeway into the world political realm, that the U.S. did in World War II and the Cold War... so it will have a long while. That is unless if thier economy becomes an intrigal part in every global nation's economy, where their say would be very influential. Thus becoming a political superpower if they want to go into this global realm.

Also we shouldn't forget about Europe, whose Euro and influence are increasly becoming stronger and stronger... more so than even China, at least politically. So thus in this department, they are already a political superpower, fast on thier way and already are an economic rival to the U.S. and China.

*whoops* posted twice... man... hate when it happens... well just to add another tid-bit

U.S. being an economic superpower... is most likly on the decline as is... but it will probably never disappear. Unfortunatly we hardly ever Export things that are on an industrial scale... even most business headquarters... that are U.S. in origin, are fleeing the cauntry as well speak... so we will probably lose as a economic superpower.
And becuase of this cauntries that we had considerable influence over, are becoming less and less dependent on us...

But its debatable if this dependency, economically wise will effect our political superpower status (you'd be niave if you say it does)... it will probably only minimally (or moderatly depending on the cauntry) effect the U.S. as a political superpower. the E.U. though may subvert political influence though...

so my answer is yes and no, on the question: "Will America always be a super power."

Pardon sir, but I fail to see the American victory in your statement. I'm sure I must have been living under a rock because I completely missed the parade where all the soldiers came back home to the arms of their loved ones as the international community applauded the U.S. for its bravery in ridding the world of evil and tyranny that was sure to bring the downfall to modern civilization.
You are not offering a proper rebuttal to my argument. As a matter of fact, you make it stronger because many analysts now agree that the U.S.' overthrowing of the Iraqi government looks more and more like a step-back than a, as you call it, "victory".



Please, do cite some credible sources to prove and validate this argument.



How about this: we must do everything possible to ensure that these "wrong people" are educated to the destructive potential of a nuke and how easy it is for that to back-fire (via fallout) on their country and loved ones, while indoctrinating them to the beautiful potential that our species has for creating a future very much comparable to what is promised in their religious texts, and assure them that said scenario is easily attainable when we all contribute and do our part in (and I hate to sound like some pseudo-hippie, but I must) "taking that step up to enlightenment" in embracing ourselves and our world.
Look throughout history, arms races and a build-up of the war machine leads only to catastrophe. However, the good thing is that we are pretty much the first generation who has the power and ability to look back and say "well the last time someone took the flock down that road only a few came back, and they were severely crippled. We shouldn't go there."



I really do not understand what you are trying to convey here. Please elaborate.



(READ THIRD ANSWER FROM THE TOP)
Additionally, according to all you have been writing, I would guess that your way of preventing this is by assaulting and overtaking any country who hints they can do this to us, correct? If that is so, it makes no sense to me. I can't help but to compare it to throwing rocks at pesky buzzing beehives in hopes that they stop buzzing. A couple of bees might find you and try to sting you to get you to stop, but since you can easily deal with a couple of bees, you'd just flick them away and continue blissfully throwing rocks. However, eventually and inevitably, you will find yourself with the whole hive coming after you -God help you then.

Yeah, thats called preantive strike. Sometimes you need to smack the child before he does something bad, just not to hard or the other parents think you are abusive.

Okay, maybe I'm wrong - but do we know anything about how the people are chosen? Do we know if these people are representative of the nation as a whole? A few people selected to present their views is a pretty small statistical sample. Without knowing anything about how they are selected, we cannot be certain whether or not they are truly reflective of the entire Iraqi nation.



Do you have a point, or do you just like to write prose?

The question is about whether we accomplished our objectives, not about whether some analysts think it was a good idea. Some objectives have been accomplished, and some haven't. You haven't addressed my rebuttal at all: How am I not addressing your argument?



Excellent. Except that I'm sure the large majority of them already know that. It's a small minority of extremists you have to convince, not just the general public.

Yes, bombing the crap out of other countries preemptively is quite like child abuse, isn't it?

I don't think that was the best analogy ever.

. . . in any case, I'm done with this conversation, I guess. Debating stuff online is fun, but lately I've been looking at my clocks and it takes too much of my time. I should really cut back and get back to writing software, which is also something I love to do.

I said not that hard. And only when you know it is going to happen (which is not that likely). And anyway I said smack the child, not beat them like a sack of potaotes, there is a big diffrence. Last time I checked smacking your child was not child abuse.

Err, what?

I must not be understanding you, because this is, by far, one of the most bizarre things I've ever read.

Lemme get this straight: you think kids should be smacked before they do something, just to stop them from doing something they may not have even planned on doing in the first place? And it's OK if you are abusing children, but it's not OK if other people think you are abusing children? Am I getting that about right?

You know, even speaking metaphorically, I wonder if it's wise to compare other countries to unruly children, and to your own country as the parent, abusive or otherwise.

What did you check, Oxford's Encyclopedia of Rationalizing Poor Parenting 1954?

OH GOD. This is way funnier after a few drinks

Lol, couple of touchy people in this thread. I wonder if they have ever been to latin america, smacking is quite common and effective, of course with a limit. its smacking, not beating.

The food shortages are our fault. Bush gets the blame on this one, fucking ethanol push...

Over a fourth of the corn grown in the last year was pissed away on ethanol, a process that out pollutes the gasoline it replaces, and takes massive amounts of petroleum based fertilizer to start with. As even a halfwit knows, when you increase the demand for something, the price goes up. Being the worlds largest exporter of food, well...

Of course, if you're a cynic, it's good for us because our enemies can't feed themselves.

Trade deficits.

First, if our GDP starts shrinking, shit your pants. Till then, we're not doomed. Yes, a trade deficit is bad. No, a trade deficit isn't in itself a problem. If we have a 6% deficit, which is what it was in 2005 if I remember right, and our GDP grows by 5%, then our internal growth was more than double what we actually got after removing the deficit from the total. Without the trade deficit, we'd be in phenomenal shape, instead we're just in decent shape. It's bad, but paper cut bad, not severed appendage bad.

Second, trade deficits might not help us, but they sure as hell help our trading partners. Who do you think is paying to modernize China? If we didn't have a massive trade deficit with China, they wouldn't have nearly the growth they've managed. A large portion of the world owes the top couple points of their GDP growth to our trade deficit.


Child abuse.

For all the positive reinforcement retards out there that think you can keep every child in line with hugs and kisses. I'd be in jail if my parents had tried that shit with me. You've all been kids, I expect a lot of you still are from the posts that show up here, you knew when you were misbehaving. When you got it for misbehaving, you knew you were getting it for misbehaving. A lack of consequences for improper behavior just leads to more improper behavior, and not everyone responds to being sat in the corner or getting grounded. I was grounded for months at a time and it didn't do shit to alter my perspective on whether it was worth the trouble to get into trouble or not. A whipping that made it hard to sit down for a few hours was a much better method of getting my attention. I can't be brought in line through a denial of activities. I'm an irritant to forum moderators just about anywhere I go because of it. Getting banned isn't even a drawback. Spending a few hours a day watching dried paint is a mild inconvenience. A hang nail is more bothersome.

There are kids that are naturally inclined to behave and don't need punished at all, they all grow up to be sheeple. They'll do anything they're supposed to just because they're supposed to. Consequences are irrelevant to the obedience. Unfortunately they are a very small minority of people. If you doubt it, drive the speed limit on the nearest freeway and see how many people pass you.

yeah cultural relativism is for pansy lib'rals until you get to places that aren't Middle Eastern in which case there's a free pass. if it's not X hard, it's not beating! it's loving childcare! the only way to make your children act responsibly is to beat the shit out of them *only a little*.



that's great anecdotal evidence paired with a strawman but not only do you not know what you're talking about (numerous studies over the last 30+ years have shown that hitting children does absolutely nothing and encourages violent behavior) that has nothing to do with the topic.



with a sufficiently large variable "enemies". who are our "enemies"? iraq? afghanistan? i doubt ethanol really has to do with hunger there. states that are vaguely hostile like Venezuela? no, they aren't having a problem. the lower dollar also means it's much easier for foreign countries to buy agricultural imports, so point's moot there too.



generally speaking, the objective we've accomplished is the following: remove Saddam Hussein's government. technically, we could have done that any number of ways. until we achieve objectives like "restoring electricity" or "setting up a government that's not dominated by Sunni extremists or Shiite American puppets" (neither of which look quite on-track), we might as well just have shot a cruise missile into Saddam's house and called it a day back in 2003.

Ok, It appears I used the wrong metaphor since it appears that you guys cant seam to get it, but I cant think of any other metahpor to use for this. And also whats with the "if you slap him its child abuse" crap? I mean you are acting like I am saying that all parents are supposed to beat their children with bats, I am not. I am saying that you need to slap him or her and not the kind of slap that can leaves your vision white for a couple of seconds. It should be the type of slap that hurts a little for a second. Heres a situation, you go into your living room and you see junior on the sofa smiling about something. You ask junior what he is smiling about and he says nothing. You try talking to him and do every thing else, and he still wont talk. So you slap him (its more powerfull than the slaps Italian mobsters give each other in the Godfather, but less powerfull then a slap that kinds of hurts). Then Junior tells you that he was planning to pee into the lemanode. Now let me make my self clear, you only slap the child when you tryd everything else. Works with countrys to, you know some country is buliding nukes and you try negotaiating with them but it does not work. What do you do? you try somethinf else, and if that doesent work you use force and take out the breeder reactor. Clear enough?

Well, no... it's still stupid logic, actually, and I really hope you are not a parent. Or a US president, though it might explain a few things.

Anyway, how does this relate to Iraq? You said earlier that you were for the war in Iraq. Let's hear why.

Can you wait? I need to go to school.

Actually, don't worry about it, Nequa. I didn't realize you were so young... I suppose you can be excused for your opinions on parenting and warfare. So, yes, I'll wait until you're older and have more of an education, and then ask you the question again, heh.

Well no, you should get his opinion to be honest, and then seek to show him your logical side. That's how - if he wants to - he will learn more. Basic parenting?

Wow, great parenting example, "shut up you ignorant kid and don't speak until you grow older"

is that how you treat your children ghostwes, if you have any?

Let him speak freely, its his right.

Lets reverse tactics. Buy ice cream for Bin Laden and waterboard your children.

learn to read. i said smacking, not beating the shit out of them *only a little*

and its not called loving childcare, its called Discipline.



do you know what you are talking about? those "studies" are statistical in nature. they dont show the whole picture. things like their culture, the ambient where they grew up, their education, their wealth, or the parental failures of their parents dont show up in those numbers.



Again, do you know what you are talking about? Venezuela is a enemy of the US. Do you know who is Hugo Chavez? And do you know how he refers to the imperial US? HINT: I just gave you a hint. And agricultural imports are going up in price, you heard of the increase in price of rice?



I'm impressed, you do know what you are talking about here.

America is the world power. It has a powerful military and it's economy is big. It also holds a policy of the "Last Empire." Basically this means that when America falls, it will take everyone with them. They have the weapons and everything to do it. If they start to go down hill then they will live on through fear.

How did I stop him from speaking? He's welcome to his opinions, as is anyone, just as I am welcome to dismiss said opinions as uninformed.

yea, and it is my post.