How about we all sit down and settle everything over a nice game of chess...
True, all empires have stretched militaries but America tries to be in more places at once than any previous empire but with fewer personell proportionally.
This is a very good point...to put things in perspective, the US had (at least for some extended time) 160,000 personnel to invade and occupy all of Iraq, and only about 20,000-30,000 of those are actual combat infantry...Persia invaded Greece with more than 200,000...during the Japanese civil war there were battles where each side had 160,000...Russia defended just a single city with ten times that number during WWII...and all those countries had less people to pull from that America currently does today...
Where previous empires economically lost the ability to maintain themselves, I believe you may be on to something...America might lose its grip because of demographics...
[quote who="MichaelCook" reply="493" id="2651769"]
Why such a focus on military strength? Economic strength is more important while the risk of M.A.D. looms.
[/quote]
Military power is simply a representation applying economic strength...if military strength is deteriorating, it is because of economics...a strong military requires a strong economy, however a strong economy does not give a strong military...Japan is a great example (due to treaties after WWII) of a powerful economy not backing a large military...America before WWI and WWII is another example of a powerful economy not choosing to support an equivalent military...having a military is a choice, having an economy is not...
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="495" id="2651834"]
The American military is most definitely overstretched...but so has the military of every empire, it is simply part of being imperialistic...How is America Imperialistic? I am curious where our empire is so I can go visit it.
If you want to know how imperialistic the US is, ask Iraq...or Afghanistan...or Iran...or Japan and Germany (where we still after 70 years have troops there)...or Russia (where we sent troops to prevent a communist victory in the civil war)....or Vietnam...or all of South and Central America...or China (uhm, Taiwan???)...
About the only place that hasn't felt American imperialism is Africa...because America doesn't care about Africa...
Thank you!!! Bonus Points for you!
Sorry about the above post being messy...I can't figure out why the quotes are being the way they are...
"The only way of winning is not to play."
Officially an awesome quote.
Anyway, I'd say that the only way of making the world peaceful is by ending superpowers. However, not through destruction, but through fairness. If every country and every person was free, and everybody was paid what they deserved (eg no cheap eastern labour) then resources would be spread evenly, and the world would be at peace. There would be no more superpowers, as the power wouldn't have to all rest on one country. We'd stop killing each other, or threatening each other, and democracy would reign. Except, of course, it wouldn't, because there's always a few who want more, take it by force, and start a dictatorship and upset the balance. Unfortunately, the lack of superpowers mean that there isn't a military or a NATO to go sort it out, and nothing is done, due to the constraints of democracy. The world returns to square 1.
Anyway, I just typed that off the top of my head, and it isn't completely on topic, but anyway...
NO I think in next 50 years new superpowers will rise
For a second I thought that said Fairyness, could you imagine the fairy godmother coming down and giving us world peace?
Actually we are in ugonda, somalia, south africa and a couple other countries... mostly the ones with diamond mines. So yes we try to impose our will everywhere. We just try to make them think we aren't controlling them so they won't get pissed off.
Agreed
They do care about Africa:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm
There are critics to this book but here is more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
Interesting article, it appears I was wrong...America loves to meddle in Africa too...
I think that USA meddle with all countries that have one of their big companies representation in and where all those companies see profit in. USA is military superpower because its economic superpower. And all those big companies .... they want to get even bigger and they do support and donate money for election campaigns and they do bribe. So far nobody gave anything for free and all those millions aren't for free as well.
Plus there is lobbying and I bet there is also if you do not help us we wont be able to keep that factory, offices .... open and so and so many people will loose their jobs....
And Obama repeatedly criticises Britain over a company that has more American shareholders than British ones.
However, he informs us that it isn't because he hates the British...
So is he just saying this because he needs a scapegoat?
Anyway, his popularity seems to be fading, he can't pass anything through congress, and now he's pulling a Hitler and finding scapegoats.
Anyways, God save the USA! Let's hope Obama starts getting results.
You are talking about BP and oil spill???? Well he sort of has to.
They made a mess out there and America and probably whole world will be paying huge price for if for a very long time. Western society its too money orientated and thats why it will be our downfall. Money is our GOD.
You apparently do not understand the word Imperialism. Again, I would ask you where are the imperialistic territories of the US? I want to visit them (and if still in doubt about the definition of Imperialism, I would suggest dictionary.com, or perhaps a hard back copy of Websters).
He doesn't need to blame other countries. He can simply blame BP. Of course, then people will vote him out, but I'm pretty sure that that will happen anyway now that he isn't the saviour of the world everybody thought he would be