Quiet or the La Li Lu Le Lo may hear you

Like I said, you are dismissive of facts. Again, anything that does not fit into your preconceived notions is waived away.
The network that “Uncle Bernie” was a part of

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/vegyes_/secretwar_06.rtf

I am sure you had no idea of the existance of this network, of cource not, just like you had no knowege of the information I had to provide you with already, yet still, you want to act like you know anything..

Being part of this "rest of the world", I can confim that. I doubt that the opinion of the rest of the world would bother the people who voted McCain into office though.

Regarding the original question (i.e. will the US always be a superpower) - obviously, the US won't lose its military edge over night. But military needs a budget to remain competitive - that's what brought the USSR down, their economy deteriorated too much. The US economy lies in shambles, the national debt is nearing the 10 *Trillion* $ marker, and due to this huge debt, the US becomes less and less capable of acting. Historically, such a situation has proven to be highly unstable - the usual exit paths are exonomic breakdowns (and then starting a new monetary system), revolutions, and wars. The US seems to have chosen the third path, which unfortunately is the least viable in its current situation, because the costs associated with the wars exacerbate the problems of the economy, and further limit options in the future.

Unfortunately, the US of today appear to be a deeply divided country incapable of concentrating on the grave economic issues that definitely threaten the future of the country (and I'm not talking about the current financial crisis, this will probably just trigger a temporary recession). The current election is a good example. US citizens face the choice between a ) a party which has deeply divided the populace during the last 8 years, and b ) a party that is deeply divided in itself. Neither of which has enough support to be able to implement the deeply cutting reforms that would be necessary to at least reduce the debt.

Looks like an interesting read.

Before I read it, though, can you tell me anything about the people hosting that chapter? Are they reputable, etc? Is it your site hosting it?

Sorry about that SpacePoney. It seems That I was just faster on the drawl with that comment!  

Not all that likely. If the primaries go the way they're expected to (which they have been), Hillary is going to need something like 4-5 times as many super delegates as Obama. Seeing as so far they've been split pretty even, I just don't see that happening.

ya, and what country is that from? I bet my copy of sins that it's not from a western country.

some bad leardership will slow america down utill it falls and the jelly bean death star kills us all orders by chuck norurs.

some bad leardership will slow america down utill it falls and the jelly bean death star kills us all orders by chuck norurs.

the peopel hosting the chapter no. but here is the information on the authors and a link to the book itself.

Attorney John Loftus is the author of four histories of intelligence operations. As former prosecutor with the U.S. Justice Department's Nazi-hunting unit, he had unprecedented access to top-secret CIA and NATO archives. He lives in Florida. Mark Aarons and John Loftus are the co-authors of The Secret War Against the Jews and Unholy Trinity.

Mark Aarons is an international award-winning investigative reporter and the author of several books on intelligence-related issues. He exposed Nazi war criminals in Australia, where he lives, and prompted changes to Australian federal law.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0312156480/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Only chapert six was ocr'ed. and that only because it was being referenced for some indepth understanding of the ties between certian people that were being chcked.

a person we know was having some difficulty getting their head around the whole "he is jewish, lived in france, was a communist, worked for the Nazis & spied for America" all in the same breath. He just could not get his head past what seemed to him direct contradictions concerning stories about his grandfather. (we are not talking about "uncle Bernie").

Sorry that was my brother how wrote this.

SpacePony, the reason I asked about the people hosting that book chapter, is that they have also archived some other, erm, curious material; pro-fascism material. I'm really not interested in reading anything that comes from a site like that, even if the authors you describe sound more anti-fascist (definitely how I would describe myself). That site is a bit scary...

Check it out here: http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com

There's Ezra Pound's essays in support of Mussolini, a collection of articles on the NSDAP (ie. Nazis), Lawrence Dennis' The Coming American Fascism (hint: he was in favour of it) and others.

Not all of the material is fascist, but enough is that I'm a little creeped out right now, to be honest.

Oh lord, what is this world coming to... you and I agree on something
wanna see a fasist in action? go chck this thred out
https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/310739

OK a few things you are not considering here.

Will America decline? The answer is we already did as an economic power. Back in the eighties the balance of total monetary value exchanged shifted to the Tokyo stock exchange without most people in the US noticing or commenting. The rift has only gotten bigger over time. We produce very little in the way of products any longer ourselves and instead rely on production outside US borders. We don't call the center of our nation the "rust belt" for nothing... take a good look at Gary, Ind. and Alan Town, Penn. if you want to see how far we have fallen in this area.

The vast majority of economists and historians world wide including quite a few nobel prize winners put the hight of the American power in the 1950's. We won the cold war but the damage done to long range economic strength for the US is difficult to understate. We wore the USSR out but at a huge cost. All you have to do is look at the rebuilding of Japan and Europe (yes I know we helped a lot) to see how much can be done if you DON'T spend a huge portion of your GNP on a powerful military. One of the first things I learned in economics class was "You can't plow a field with a tank. Any money you spend on your military is a write off... that money is never really reinvested in your economy. All you get back is the money payed to the workers but you lose the raw materials... they do nothing for you economically."

Right now we have former US companies (yes I say former... most of them went multi-national long ago and the US collects essentially no taxes from the companies that used to be US. Most of them don't even have their headquarters in the US any more and keep most of their money in off shore banks...) producing our goods over seas. Good for us because they are cheaper...except we don't get wages or taxes from those companies. That money stays over seas. Even when you buy the product the money collected by those companies is reinvested overseas for the most part. The result is we are being drained of economic power at an impressive rate. Our economic strength is being used to transform the economies of places like China... all that money they suddenly have had to COME from some where, it didn't just appear, and we are that some where.

Yes it is true that many of these companies were US based once but now most of them owe no loyalty to the good old USA. They are transfering our wealth to places where they think it will do them more good in the long run... and they could care less about what that means for the US. An Example. With China holding sooo much of our loans it would easy for them to just nationialize any remaining US companies holdings there and call it payment on that huge debt which we are increasingly close to defaulting on. They could even in a fit of generosity cancel our debts and take all the factories (we owe much more than they are worth). For the US it would drain even more money but for these companies that hardly even consider them selves part of the US any more what would change? Nothing. The managers and workers in the companies would remain the same. All that would change is who they payed taxes to. They are planning to build the future consumer economies in places like China... they will very soon no longer need to sell products back in the US at all... particularly if our currency continues to devalue this will happen very very fast.

What does the US mean to do about this? Well at the moment we are going to hold it off with our military power. Conventional wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq have one thing in common that no one really considers... it was never a case of total war only limited war. The last total war we fought was WWII. Engaging the US in total war is suicide even for a power like China. In total war if a town resists you you destroy it... level it and leave no survivors. If a country or population resists it is genocide for them. I know a lot of you will be unhappy that I actually said this out loud... we don't like to think of the US like that but there it is. We have destruction down to an art and that is why the rest of the world fears us... we are usually at the top of the rest of the worlds list of "rogue" states and this is why. Add in the fact that our current administration is flaunting these capabilities instead of sort of playing them down as we have done in the past and you can see how the rest of the world might get a little upset.

If destruction of the population was not a factor and the US didn't hold back we would win. No doubt. I am a pacifist and even I know that. No one can field a military that could even slow us down in this situation and I am just talking about Conventional war. Introduce nuclear war and 90% of the world would lose the war in the first hour of the conflict.

Now consider we recently declared publicly that we consider space ours and have forbidden any one to deploy space based weapons... except we fully intend to build all that ourselves. Back in 2005 the Pentagon put out an operational statement clearly outlining our intent that the rest of the world took notice of. The recent destruction of a malfunctioning satellite was a warning... we have the tech to insure space is our play ground alone and we will use it. Currently the warning time for even a ballistic or cruise missile attack from right next door to most nations is 15 min. before impact. From space it is about 5 with almost no possibility of interception. Look for the US to place nuclear weapons in space as soon as it thinks it can. And to continue to work on an effective anti ballistic missile technology like our missile shield to insure we continue to be untouchable.

So we plan to just take the resources we need. And fear is our means to that end.

I could continue but this post will probably give people plenty to chat about for a while... I am gonna go put on a tie and go eat some sushi. Let the flame war commence.

[quote]Back on topic, many people have pointed out the vast foreign debt of the USA as a weakness. However there is a school of thought amongst the asian financial community, (particularly China and HKSAR) that borrowing money works out better for the USA and worse for China.
As the theory goes, China, which holds a trillion in bonds from the USA, is at severe risk of devaluation of the currency and thus of the bonds they hold. The currency devalues when the USA prints more money or when people stop buying the bonds (very simplified explanation, some finance major please correct any mistakes). China is the largest buyer of bonds and the logic goes that if China stops buying, the bonds they currently hold will devalue, as everyone else will stop buying (because they will devalue). Thus, China is in a position where it must keep lending money to the USA to stop losing on their current loans (ie, being shafted). The best solution for China to not lose is for the loans they give to the USA to improve their economy so the bonds they hold become valuable again, so it becomes a win-win (really a small gains-big win) situation.
Derivatives of this theory go to say that this is one of the reasons for their massive overseas and military investments and the Chain-of-Pearls strategy, to convert the bonds they hold into something less likely to depreciate. The Chain of Pearls strategy for those who haven't heard is a string of Chinese funded ports and bases all along the route to the middle east to safeguard their oil supplies. The significance of this is that it is an opportunity for them to quietly get rid of the bonds they hold so in case the USA does the stupid thing of spending their loan on more carriers or wars, China can cut their losses and have some power to resist a belligerent American strategy.
All that being said, it is only one of the many economic theories, but one thing most are sure of is that America insists on going down the path of Military Keynesianism (the belief that military spending will provide sufficient economic stimulus), the future does not look good for anyone.[quote]
sorry for quoting myself but I thought I might spread this interesting theory to complement Aasch's observation on todays geopolitical situation.
Your theory seems to describe the USA following the path of military Keynesianism, but I do not agree with your point that the USA will resort to "hot" wars with large powers to prop up its economy. One idea that Americans have was that fighting and winning a war will not harm, but significantly improve ones economy. This idea originates from WWII where the USA emerged as a superpower over the ruined remains of her former enemies and while it does have its points, it has been largely negated by the deployment of nuclear arms and the fact that for the USA, the war was comparatively brief and not as costly in terms of lives and infrastructure as everyone else (yes flame me all you want for desecrating your sacrifice but you now you casualties pales comparison to numbers and proportion). People might say that I am naive for believing nuclear weapons will deter war, but in this Aasch's case (USA vs China nuclear exchange) I am saying that the cost of such an exchange will far outweigh the gains of reducing a perceived rival to ruin. It is true that in such an exchange, the USA will "win" the exchange simply using its strategic and Naval assets to completely destroy Chinas military assets. Many don't know but the USA's nuclear arsenal is primarily counterforce, ie designed to destroy military forces and nukes. Cities are no longer a primary target but a secondary retaliation target should the inital counterforce attack fails or the USA is pre emptively attacked.
China on the other hand possesses a countervalue arsenal designed for a retaliatory strike against cities. This is designed to deter a counterforce first-strike, for example from the united states, as though their military might be severely crippled, the enemy will suffer far greater losses than are gained by defeating China. A hot war by the USA to destroy their rival China will result in a great loss of civilian lives and infrastructure and little gained in terms of area of influence and access to resources. In a war of attrition in today's multipolar world the victor will likely be the countries which did not participate. This is why MAD is still the prevailing factor today. The more likely form of warfare between superpowers discussed by Military tacticians today is limited regional warfare like the Falklands where neither the Argentine mainland nor the British Isles themselves were attacked. No one seriously considers a ground war on mainland China nor an invasion of the continental USA as likely scenarios of the future. Americas conventional forces are not as powerful as many believe to bring the fight onto the Chinese mainland. Nor is China capable of fighting outside its borders for long. In the likely Taiwan scenario, even those in the US military admit that assistance will take too long to arrive to really rout an invasion, and for all the talk of "preserving freedom" of the current administration it is doubtful of whether it is simply talk or whether future administrations will continue that rhetoric. The powers that be consider Taiwan to be simply a strategically valuable territory in the region, but sell it to the people as a 'bastion of freedom'. On the flipside, the bearers of power in China consider Taiwan as an "Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier USS taiwan" which threatens to cut off their sea lanes at a whim, but I digress.
On the topic of the militarisation of space, it is true that the USA has announced a plan to do so and prevent anyone else from doing so. What many might remember was that China demonstrated their ASAT capabilities shortly afterwards under the pretence of destroying an old weather satellite of course, everyone condemned it as an unprovoked act of aggression, conveniently forgetting the USA's threatening declaration earlier. Of course, not to be outdone, the USA demonstrated their ASAT capabilities against an allegedly malfunctioning satellite which was an "environmental threat". Fortunately bullshit is not an environmental threat because of the amount generated by this ASAT nonsense. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that space assets are extremely vulnerable to ASAT weapons and have been criticised for their poor survivability, so weapons in space are an unlikely future.
As for the missile defense program or "Star Wars", it seems those idiots have finally fallen for their own trap. The missile dense program was an elaborate ruse designed to end the Cold War by causing the Soviet Union to spend itself to death. The plan worked but obviously somewhere along the line someone forgot about it and plans to spend their way to demise. Unless of course, they are using the same ruse against China. Things are looking interesting....