-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
Obama FTW(for the win)
- Thread starter mrpanda
- Start date
I'm not trying to reduce it's debt or whatever. All I wish for is for the USA to not be such a big player in the world.
What, so you've got more land than pretty much everyone else? So what, that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want with the world.
And considering the corruptness of the so-called democracy in america right now, the only way I see to completely fix the problem of America's power over the rest of the world is to remove the united from the states.
What, so you've got more land than pretty much everyone else? So what, that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want with the world.
And considering the corruptness of the so-called democracy in america right now, the only way I see to completely fix the problem of America's power over the rest of the world is to remove the united from the states.
According to your profile, you don't even live in the U.S. So why exactly do you give a ----?
I've already said, becuase of the immense power that the US have on the rest of the world. For example, it's affected my country by dragging us into the iraq war with them.
And when somebody like George W. is allowed to front this powerhouse of the world, I'll tell you the truth, it frightens the ---- out of me.
Now, if N.America wasn't one country like for example Europe isn't one country, they wouldn't have as much control over the world as they do today.
Because the entire word is sort of important, and the US affects the entire world.
Anyway, Colin, it's a stupid idea. You want to separate the US into 50 different powers, creating a lot of hostility and problems. There would be so much political turmoil, trading problems etc. We just need a revolution, or Obama.
A few counter-arguments:
1. Your country decided to go to war, pressure from the U.S. or not.
2. Nobody likes Bush, he's done a lot of bad for this country, and he'll be gone in another year. But seriously, there hasn't been a good leader in the U.S. since Reagan's day.
3. There is no logic behind your argument for North America being like Europe.
Hmmm, no he wasn't. Granted, he did have more common sense, created an atmosphere of camaraderie, and oversaw what was perhaps the fastest-growing economy in the world (ever!). But, he had some major flaws. The current Bush and his father are even worse. In many ways, Reagan was not that great either - but, he greatly improved the U.S. from its position before he took office.
Why do you keep ignoring what I'm saying?
You brought up the US's debt, not me. But since you keep bringing it up, how would you split up the debt? Would each of the 50 new countries get an equal share? Why? Would you split it up equally by population?All I'm saying is, if you split up the US's economy, you're going to increase poverty by a hundredfold - at least - just for the fact that you're confusing the agricultural economy that exports so much food all over the world. Splitting up this big economy in to a lot of smaller economies will reduce the amount of food that goes out to the rest of the world, because overhead will increase, as those (currently) states in the middle of the country - where all the food is - will have to coordinate with all of the other administrative areas (those new countries) to get the food off of the continent. Increased overhead = more money = less food.
How is that worth it?
Because, historically, Europe as a lot of little countries has worked so well, and doesn't create an enormous bureaucratic mess now.
He wasn't a good president even though he "did have more common sense, created an atmosphere of camaraderie, and oversaw what was perhaps the fastest-growing economy in the world (ever!)."?
^^ Again, those were the positives. There were many other negatives. No President has really nailed international relations since Reagan, and that is what I am getting at. The family Bush sucked with both foreign and domestic policy; Clinton excelled at domestic policy.
EDIT: Precisely because of its position as the world's wealthiest country, I believe it is the duty of the U.S. to excel in foreign relations - above all else.
EDIT: Precisely because of its position as the world's wealthiest country, I believe it is the duty of the U.S. to excel in foreign relations - above all else.
A President's worth should come from his domestic policy, and not his foreign. As prominent as the US is on the world stage, the President is still only the leader of ONE country, and those are the people he is accountable to, not the rest of the world.
Clinton had a much better grasp at that than Bush did, that's for sure, and I'd love to see the next President (not named Clinton) really be aware of what's plaguing the US inside its own walls and be less concerned with why everyone in the Middle East hates each other.
Clinton had a much better grasp at that than Bush did, that's for sure, and I'd love to see the next President (not named Clinton
) really be aware of what's plaguing the US inside its own walls and be less concerned with why everyone in the Middle East hates each other.
Why do you keep ignoring what I'm saying?
All I'm saying is, if you split up the US's economy, you're going to increase poverty by a hundredfold - at least - just for the fact that you're confusing the agricultural economy that exports so much food all over the world. Splitting up this big economy in to a lot of smaller economies will reduce the amount of food that goes out to the rest of the world, because overhead will increase, as those (currently) states in the middle of the country - where all the food is - will have to coordinate with all of the other administrative areas (those new countries) to get the food off of the continent. Increased overhead = more money = less food.
How is that worth it?
You were saying that the US economy was thriving and great, I was simply saying that I don't consider a country to be billions (trillions?) of dollars in debt to have a good economy.
1. Thanks for highlighting the pressure from US. And Tony Blair decided to go to war on Britians behalf, most of us were actually against it.
2. The point that he was allowed to actually get in and pratically govern the world is what I'm getting at.
3. I'm saying that if the US was split up into seperate countries then it would be like Europe. To further this please read my post where I originally mentioned Europe.
Obviously this isn't going to happen and if it was I wouldn't have it be a sudden process, it'd be gradual.
No, but as far as I'm aware we all live in the world.
AND THAT'S WHAT MY POINT IS! I don't live in the US, yet the activities in the US affect our day-to-day lives!
Everybody in the world is affected by America's doings, mostly negatively, and this wouldn't happen if it was a bunch of independant countries.
AND THAT'S WHAT MY POINT IS! I don't live in the US, yet the activities in the US affect our day-to-day lives!
Everybody in the world is affected by America's doings, mostly negatively, and this wouldn't happen if it was a bunch of independant countries.
Colin, do you actually believe that if the United States split into countries -- which is a ludicrous idea in and of itself, especially when just based on "if Europe can be that way" -- that another large and organized country wouldn't move into a "world police" position? People crave power, and subsequently so do countries. If the United States dropped off the map some other country with a large military and the other means of persuasion would move into place.
I know you think America playing the world superpower is a terrible thing but I can't see any other country who would be able to take charge and play big brother to everyone else doing a better job. In fact, the world would most likely be a much more terrible place if any of the countries with the power to take that position did so. If you think that that everyone can operate independently and stay out of the others' business then we all shouldn't be having this conversation because everyone should have learned in grade school that such idealistic ideas for interaction between countries will never be anything more than ideas.
Could America do a much better job? Of course. I'm not saying we're good in all aspects of what we do when it comes to interaction with other countries. I'm just saying there could be worse.
Now we should all stop talking about politics and foreign policy in favor of doing more productive things like.... :beer:
I know you think America playing the world superpower is a terrible thing but I can't see any other country who would be able to take charge and play big brother to everyone else doing a better job. In fact, the world would most likely be a much more terrible place if any of the countries with the power to take that position did so. If you think that that everyone can operate independently and stay out of the others' business then we all shouldn't be having this conversation because everyone should have learned in grade school that such idealistic ideas for interaction between countries will never be anything more than ideas.
Could America do a much better job? Of course. I'm not saying we're good in all aspects of what we do when it comes to interaction with other countries. I'm just saying there could be worse.
Now we should all stop talking about politics and foreign policy in favor of doing more productive things like.... :beer:
