Haha funny one

From the first page, America has made the world a better place. Things that came from America: Internet, Lightbulbs, the use of electricity, the telephone, toilet paper, the computer, airplanes, the assembly line, e-mail, credit cards, air-conditioning, airbags, artificial hearts, autopilot, barcode, bifocals, bulldozer, calculator, communications satellite, crayons, dental floss, digital camera, dishwasher, the first video game, flashlights, GPS, jeans, computer keyboard, microwave oven, microwave popcorn, shopping cart, touch screen, traffic cone, transistor, tupperware, USB, Vacuum cleaners, weather satellite, windscreen wiper, and the zipper.

USA WANTS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD. SO CHINA CANT

Let's just phrase the situation into songs:

1)One referring to America in particular

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwDnDMdHeXM

2) And one referring to "Empires" in general

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2PWZxG3QJY

3) Oh and let's not forget the lapdog state of Great Britain with regards to the USA politics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5uFS74ZVU

Edited 6/12/2014 09:44:34

I glanced at the name of this thread, mistook it for 'why does Aranka want to take over the world?'
slumped onto the first page with great anticipation. What a let down. :(

Let's take a history lesson:

I cant say that I support everything that the U.S. does (btw I am an American), but you have to be fairly ignorant to say that the nation's best move is to step out of its role as a world policeman. Historically, world prosperity has been seen at its greatest when there is a strong power in that sector of the world (Rome, Greece, height of the British Empire). When a strong, localized "policeman" nation is not present within a certain sector, that area falls to ruin (Western Europe and the feudal era after the fall of Rome in 476 A.D., the 1700's during the fall of the British Empire).

In this new, modern world that is more connected than ever before, there must be a strong, global power that fulfills this role.

You demonstrate your ignorance by saying that the U.S. is trying to take over the world. The last time that the U.S. forcefully captured any land was over a century ago (the Philippines in the Spanish-American War). Since then, the only way that the U.S. has expanded its territory was through peacefully taking various obscure islands in predominantly the Pacific Ocean.

America is a great country,sure,it has its flaws,but what country doesn't...

Also,the Above comment by [M.C.]ARC-77 is totally true,in my opinion

Edited 6/13/2014 07:31:56

I have nothing personally against you but let's make a step by step analysis here:

I cant say that I support everything that the U.S. does (btw I am an American), but you have to be fairly ignorant to say that the nation's best move is to step out of its role as a world policeman. Historically, world prosperity has been seen at its greatest when there is a strong power in that sector of the world (Rome, Greece, height of the British Empire). When a strong, localized "policeman" nation is not present within a certain sector, that area falls to ruin (Western Europe and the feudal era after the fall of Rome in 476 A.D., the 1700's during the fall of the British Empire).

How would one define "world prosperity" in that regard ?? Income per persona ??
Even at the glory days of Rome, Greece and the British Empire the multitude of the people barely had enough coin to get through the day.

With regards to the "Dark ages" one could even see the living conditions of millions of slaves improved drastically and if one is not so blind as to focus only on Europe one can even argue that the arabians were in their Golden Age right after the fall of Rome.
Furthermore I fail to see how the decrease of war and violence actually means an area "falls to ruin". No current historian is going to use the term "Dark ages" since it was mostly an invention of a nationalistic 13th century Italian.

Furthermore, placing the fall of the British Empire in the 1700's is totally ludicrious since that would actually be even before the height of the British Empire during the Victorian Period which is later.

In this new, modern world that is more connected than ever before, there must be a strong, global power that fulfills this role.

What benefit does a "strong" "global" power fulfill ? One could even argue that the United States currently are not a world power but ok:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/07/18/americas-global-image-remains-more-positive-than-chinas/

Luckily at least the USA is seen as slightly more positive then China...so the USA must be great.....right ??

For any global power to have a beneficient effect one would expect judgement to be passed impartially.

How has the USA's policy in the middle east helped things for the better ??
America's constant backing of Israel (for their own gain and jewish lobbying in the White House) helped to spur the Israeli's on to peace talks ?

Even when they do mingle in a conflict it hardly leads to stabilization of a region. At best, the american actions are very often short sighted and at worst just sheer boiling points for disaester.

The whole point which makes the united states impossible to have any benefficient effect to the world is traceable back to the Manifest destiny which regards that America views itself above the law. They don't always stick to international agreements on human rights and the Vienna Convention (Guantanomo Bay, drone attacks on civilian targets).

The amount of foreign aid given by the United States 0.17% of the GDP is one of the lowest of the OECD countries. The actual effect the United States has on poor countries is even made worse by the heavy protectional import laws they have in place thus denying the poor countries the chance to sell their products in the American markets.

You demonstrate your ignorance by saying that the U.S. is trying to take over the world. The last time that the U.S. forcefully captured any land was over a century ago (the Philippines in the Spanish-American War). Since then, the only way that the U.S. has expanded its territory was through peacefully taking various obscure islands in predominantly the Pacific Ocean.

The American arrogance is clear in the last few lines of this "argument" as the following words will elaborate : "Peacefully" taking "Obscure islands".

While America might not always have claimed the country for it's own there are dozens of cases of the United States going to war in order to install a puppet regime in place which would be more approving of the United States. Countries such as Dominican Republic, Venezuala and Columbia come to mind to name just a few.

Furthermore having fought multiple large scale wars in the last 50 years hardly seems like the kind of actions of a peaceful nation. Even most Americans won't deny the Vietnam war, the Korean war and the war in Iraq were a waste of good men (American and foreign) and money.

Its the usa or them

USA USA USA USA USA IM FROM THE USA SO ILL DIE IN THE USA
BETTER THEN CHINAS CUROPTED NATION

Its the usa or them

USA USA USA USA USA IM FROM THE USA SO ILL DIE IN THE USA
BETTER THEN CHINAS CUROPTED NATION

Such a narrow vision - you're either with us or against us

I rest my case.........

well traveled european university student arguing with an american high school student whose view of the world is conditioned by fox news, cnn and the like.

no prereqs on the forum.

Edited 6/16/2014 12:22:51

Wow, some threads I don't visit on principle since the name of the thread suggests it was made up by a 5-year old and I expect the thread to die a quick and painless death. I'm going to play around a bit with some quotes.

Richar Sharpe page 1:

The irony in all of this of course is that the US gets criticized for intervening in situations but then also gets criticized for NOT intervening.

That goes for basically every political decision you make.

Wohoo page 2:

The only intelligent way to control population is to allow people to have as many children as they want, but then require those children to compete for available space upon the month of their 21st birthday. They would have to compete with their same age group. They would have to compete against nature, allowing nature to perform its job of natural selection. Each of them must have electronic trackers on them reporting location and vital statistics. Place them in a jungle location naked and unarmed and allow nature to kill off the slow runners, crippled and sick. When the number alive gets low enough to result in a controlled population, we pull out the winners and have Earth's population under permanent control and allow people to have as many children as they please. This is such a good approach, because it provides a large workforce of young workers before they enter the natural selection process and we need this workforce. Also a large population of children is important if we face some kind of natural disaster or ET war.

Hahaha, good one.

Ranek page 2:

overpopulation is real indeed, but

As history showed, Thomas Malthus was absolutely right and we are already on the verge of extinction/economic depression. Oh wait...

Leo page 3:

The USA has no intention of taking over the world, merely molding it to its needs. We could have ended all the African crisis years ago, however we profit from it, by selling arms, and getting cheap goods from Africa. We could stop the drug trade, but it does make America profit to some degree. We can do anything, but we are content to merely pull the strings in the background. We may not have most nukes anymore, but we have to most powerful and the most long range capable, we can put a nuclear missile right in Putin's window if we want, but we just wait.

Hahaha... wait, that actually makes some sense... And he is from rp clan?

One day, one day soon this world of ours is going to fall to crap, and a new World War will begin, war is the only thing that brings stability, in the past after major wars, patriotism in all nations rose, and so did economies, thus creating the post WW1 and 2 booms, then Korea and Vietnam kept patriotism high until desert storm, 9-11 rose it again, now the US is ending Afghanistan, and it will rise ever so slightly and the returning soldiers will add to the economy.

Oh nevermind, hahaha.

Lolowut page 4:

About the whole China vs America argument, I would say China survives by manufacturing things for us and investing in us. We're their main market. In a conflict, not only do we shut down our market to them, but we have a large enough Navy that they won't be able to trade overseas without defeating it. Their government is not as stable as most people in here suggest. If it took a major economic hit I don't think the Government could still hold as much sway.

Yes, US would love to stop trading with China, especially stop Chinese from buying their bonds and exporting debt...

Economically while America may take a hit, it would not be as drastic as what would happen to the Chinese. I'm not sugarcoating it, I'm comparing the two. The hit would be large for both, but America sustains better footing as our hands are in many more markets than the Chinese and we would never be blockaded so overseas trade keeps flowing.

That is actually a very interesting economic point of debate deserving a complete separate thread, I won't even try to sum up all the points in a few sentences.

ARC-77 page 5:

Historically, world prosperity has been seen at its greatest when there is a strong power in that sector of the world (Rome, Greece, height of the British Empire). When a strong, localized "policeman" nation is not present within a certain sector, that area falls to ruin (Western Europe and the feudal era after the fall of Rome in 476 A.D., the 1700's during the fall of the British Empire).

Yes, it's best to make an analogy between current economy and situations that have nothing to do with current economy. Since he used the words let's take a history lesson, i'm going to outsource the rest of his future posts in this thread to Gui in search of historical inaccuracies.

ahahah. Ameriga want world?

USA OR NOTHING FOR ME, AND I DONT EVEN HAVE CABLE TO WATCH FOX NEWS NOR CNN. THERE BULLSHIT, THEN THERES SOME TRUE, LIKE THE WEATHER. ITS ALL WAYS SUNNY IN SOUTH ARIZONA

Well... all this trolling is confusing me. Let me just remind you what happened the last time we tried to take over a region :

1)U.S. goes into Iraq to "topple" the "evil WMD wielding dictator" Saddam Hussein.

2)U.S. and their lapdog Britain along with a few other nations use some Shock & Awe on Iraqi forces, quickly disposing of them, their outdated Soviet Armor, and driving to Bagdad

3)War news goes home, conservative and militaristic Americans get pumped up and excited about tearing up a small, outdated military with a 4 nation, up-to-date coalition.

4)Anti-Bush people feed off of the images they see of explosions, starving and wounded children, dead animals, etc., and get angry over the U.S.'s policy.

5)International communist (FEATURING: P.R. China, Russia, North Korea, India, Western Europe, etc.) catches wind of the news and shows it off as a prime example of American Imperialism ('Oil wars')

6)After Iraq falls, Jihadist groups fill in the power vacuum, making their presence known by ambushing and shocking U.S. and allied soldiers. The Coalition reveals that it needs more troops and more funding to stop these mercenary trained, Soviet Era weapon wielding soldiers.

7)British get ticked off about being involved in an American war.

8)Terrorist activity dies down, much debate in the U.S. presidential election is focused on getting troops out of the "worthless, endless dunes of Iraq, where all people hate us" (I wonder why...)

9) Obama withdraws US troops in I believe 2009. Apparently he leaves Special Forces and U.S. hired mercenaries in the nation though.

---

Now, this seems like a disaster but consider the long term consequences:

a) Iran, enemy #1 of the U.S. Middle Eastern Policy emerges as the last opposing power in the Middle East after its rival, Iraq was destroyed. -1 Enemy for Iran. The worst thing; Iran cannot be bought by U.S. dollars like Saudi Arabia can.

b) Who's still filling the power vacuum? The Jihadist groups are back and better than every guys... They're having a great time picking off ****-trained Iraqi soldiers and liberating the buddies from prison. I'm glad we kicked ol' Evil Saddam out and let the Jihadists in...

One word: Disaster.

Im just saying if WW3 coms whoeyou joining china? russia?
Idont know about you but im with the people of america THE PEOPLE not NWO GOVERNTMENT OF AMERICA
THE PEOPLE

Edited 6/16/2014 17:09:57

1)U.S. goes into Iraq to "topple" the "evil WMD wielding dictator" Saddam Hussein.

You forgot step 0: The U.S. supports Saddam Hussein to get to the power in Iraq

@Aranka the korean War as well as viet nam were both about protecting capitalist countries from communist invaders. While korea was a decent success for America, the NVA's great use of sun tzu tactics made them the victors of their way. I won't argue that after a while the viet nam war was a waste. The war in Iraq was a -facepalm- from the start.

... answer: because people keep making threads like this.