posted
Worst person in HISTORY? Please, there's far worse than Hitler out there. Charlemagne used to cut off the hands and fit of traitors, and then cut out their tongues just enough so they can eat and swallow but not enough to talk, and then blind and deafen them, so for the rest of their natural lives they would crawl around on their stubs begging for food and help but more or less unable to communicate with the world.
Jacobin dissidents in France just before the revolution killed the King's Swiss guard, chopped them up into little pieces, then killed the staff of the palace in France, and fired their heads from cannons back into the palace. This before dragging the royal family from their home to kill them in a most gruesome manner.
Roman Emperors were brutal beyond Hitler's hopes and dreams, and some of it was indescriminate violence for the sake of it. Massacres and slaughters were the norm, not the exception to rule.
History has produced worse people than Hitler.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
May I point out I said worst PERSON, I agree that Chalemagne was also horrible but your last two were GROUPS. I was wondering about the individual people.
Posts: 1164 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do a little research on Roman emperors, you'll find a LEAST a half dozen who are worse than Hitler. It's not a group, at least, not on the sense that "jacobin dissidents" is a group. But there really are so many INDIVIDUAL Roman emperors that were worse, it was just easier to group them together, but I assure you that individually it still holds true.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, now I get your point. But, unfortunatly, my schools never gave me sources to go on "cruel people" My knowledge is limited in various subjects. So revised list:
1 Charlemange 2 Roman Emporers 3 Hitler
I am willing to revise my list if someone comes up with anyone else.
Posts: 1164 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah but at the same time Charlemagne was great.
That's a tough list, because the lines were blurred back then. Leaders who exhibited intolerable cruelty could also often be the same people who helped the poor and built the Flavian Amphitheater. Hitler was just plain bad, in general and for his people.
I guess if you limited it to the 20th century I'd be okay with a Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin type list.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Depends, if America goes the 450 billion dollar 50 years to build BSG ships to get to the Mars a China-Japan-Russia triangle of space farers will get there first.
If they go the dog and sled meth *points up* then within 5-10 years just to visit and explore, 10-15 to set up outposts and 15-25 to begin terraforming.
posted
I could see Russia, Japan and China getting there before us. But actually I think more likely would be a Euro/Russo union to get there. Europe has the tech and the money, and Russia has the experience and infrastructure. Most of all, Europe wants it more I think.
But China has just as good a chance as any of making it there first I think. If America REALLY wanted to get there, we'd get there first, but our commitment just isn't there. China and others are dedicated as a point of national pride to get there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I agree completely if America burned with the absolute ugre to get there first they would, but they don't its all paper pushing to NASA at this point.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Depends, if America goes the 450 billion dollar 50 years to build BSG ships to get to the Mars a China-Japan-Russia triangle of space farers will get there first.
If they go the dog and sled meth *points up* then within 5-10 years just to visit and explore, 10-15 to set up outposts and 15-25 to begin terraforming.
All entirely practical.
Alright first, 50 years no. PLans, as I said, have already commenced, and the CEV will begin production in July. Russia has the Klipper, but they don't even have plans to get to Mars, or even the Moon. Once again, I don't think those nations will try to get to Mars, without going to the Moon first. Once again they have no plans, and the only one of those three that actually the money for it, is the EU. China, just doesn't have the equipment for it.
So, those plan, set up out post things would never work. It would take MUCH more time, unless those events were that many years AFTER each other, and evem then, it doesn't seem likely.
In conclusion, China, Russia, and the EU have never been to the Moon. They have no plans of doing so, and have absolutely no plans to get to Mars. They also lack the Equipment. Unless they vested Trillions of dollars RIGHT NOW, they wouldn't make it before us.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
China can afford it, and you overestimate the important of on-hand equipment. Equipment can be universally purchased from anywhere. There's no necessity to have it on hand so long as you have the money to order it from whoever makes it.
Timing, I don't know. The amount of time something takes depends entirely on how much they are willing to spend and how fast they want it to get done.
Trillions of dollars? That's vastly overestimating. NASA's budget is in the tens of billions, if that. With that, NASA builds space shuttles, goes to the moon, goes to the ISS, lands on asteroids, blows up comets and sends probes to Pluto with nuclear powered engines. And they plan to go to Mars with that budget too. The EU already has a small space program infrastructure in place, they only really lack the training that the cosmonauts and astronauts have, but that can be fixed, and with the help of the US or Russia, they'd probably get the training at a premium. I can't imagine it would cost more than a hundred billion to get a man to Mars. Probably not even that, but I'm purposely using the extreme high end of the range of what I think it would cost.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
In NASA there are 2 competing plans:
Dog and Sled; put forward by a former NASA engineer. and his suporters
and BSG Style: Vast majority of contractors and pessimists.
The BSG style essentially is the build up of infastructure (space stations, bases on the moon, shipyards, etc) over a couple of decades while doing research on interstellar radiation, long term effect of gravity, etc.
Cost? 450 Billion$ esitmately, this theory is based from Werner Von Braun's plan to get to Mars and this is what the egg heads in NASA seem to be supporting.
It would cost 450 billion$ for all the infastructure and training WHICH could be cancelled at any time depending on which administration and would be vulnerable to cut backs and political events.
Also the amount of time a crew could stay on Mars is about 60 days MAXIMUM before they would have to return home.
Dog and Sled:
Based off of how in the past explorations in inhospitable conditions have been successful for a "dog and sled" method utilizing small cheap equipment, and living off the land.
Which this siberia, northwest, and northeast passages and northern canada have all been mapped out while large expeditions with large expensive modern gallleons have all failed.
The D&S method would rely on cheap off the shelf parts for the vast majority of the program, even the Martian outposts I spoke of can be built from the unused habitat capsols from the ships and linked together.
Only things like the mechanism to turn hydrogen + martian atmo to methane would be need to be built and prototypes costing some 2000$ built by such engineers have already been build.
Energy from a small generater maybe even nuclear powered, + hydrogen/water from earth (or if they land on an area with water) + Mars atmo == Rocket fuel.
So many plans delt with the designs of building a ship fail because of the condition there needs to be space for the fuel for the trip BACK.
But if the fuel can be processed on Mars automatically through a simple high school level chemical proccess then NASA has no need to worry about fuel for the trip back and thus the ship can be crammed with extra supplies.
The first capsol would be sent unmanned just to procude the fuel for the trip back while a second capsol launched when the first one reaches Mars and is successful in converting Mars atmo to methane.
The second with a crew of 3-4 would then be off.
the capsol being circular to begin with can spin to recreate gravity even if its not much gravity enough to reduce the effects of zero g and maybe walk around would be great to quickly adapt to Mars's gravity.
Working conditions? They'ld always be within 6 or so minutes of emailing back home, we'ld always have a feed of the Asto/Cosmonauts. They coul have a flat screen tv and a dvd player and a computer and watch movies, play games do work, they'ld always be busy and would never worrya bout cabin fever.
There is no psycological trauma involved, heck they are traveling in a trip comparable to imigrants first reach the new world in the 1600's BUT 100 times better living conditions and aren't cramped.
Then there's the fact they would be world famous upon reaching home, no psycological trauma to worry politicians.
A bigger advantage is that on Mars with the Martian atmosphere to protect them from stellar radiation they can stay on Mars for a full Martian year, 660 days!!!
And if they're meant to stay that long and explore with land rovers even if the ship has a malfuntion and can't leave they are perfectly capable of waiting the 180 days for the next capsol because heck, 2-3 more can be sent with more crew and supplies while the first crew is down their setting stakes.
An outposts would be perfectly within the realms of PLA, NASA or the EUSA. a scientific community supplied from Earth (the capsuls are resuable its only the booster to leave Earth that isn't), it can be built at first through recycled space habitats and linked together, a small nuclear generator can power it and would be within 6-10 minute time delay from Earth through radio, email etc.
The cost to get it all started and send the first team? 21 billion $ a drop in the bucket for any first rate nation with a spcae agency.
The dog and sled method is far more likely to get results, can be done within 2 years at most (if we started now) and could begin terraforming in 20 years and be done by 2098.
Also once the outpost is established and labour and tools are brought over the outpost can be expanded.
Geuss whats in Martian soil... Pyroethylene, key encrediant in plastic.
The plastic can be processed through simple chemical processes, and turned into massive geodesic doomes that would be able to resist the Martian weather and allow simple farming and manufacturing within the dooms. Farming!!
Also because of the lighter gravity it is also less work to dig, and stuff cheaper to dig underground netowrks of roman style antiums, basically under ground shopping malls, the dirct some 4 meters of it above would eliminate ANY residual radiation to 0, would keep the internal tempurature stable and within control of human beings and would eliminate the need for space suits once under ground.
That was as far as I got I'ld have to look at it again.
But ya 450 Bil, 60 days; vs 20 bil. 660 days
Which should it be?
The next major advantage of the second one is that to get to mars you need some 5.7 km/s of thrust while to get to mars you only need 4.1 or so km/s.
So it means that its actually cheaper and more efficient to go straight to Mars and completely skip the Lunar phase completely, its completely unnessasary to build any kind of base on Mars, a Saturn 5 rocket can reach Mars in 180 days there is no way to concievably shorten the time except for some newfangled breaks in physics but one should not bank on what maybe possible but is possible NOW.
I can compeltely see China and Russia reaching Mars first skipping the Moon and taking the Dog and Sled method is the States tries to do the BSG method. the EU I don't know enough of their space agancy to speak of it.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'd go with the 450 Bill., 60 days, since NASA is filled with highly intelligent people, who have spent their lives studying these things.
They know what they're doing, and since I don't work at NASA I really can't say, but don't you think they considered that? Or something like it?
And yes, there is a REASON they decomissioned the S 5, because they developed something BETTER. And $20 Billion? Just to design, hire engineers, develope, build, attactch to rocket, and get extra fuel, for the "Atmospheric converter for fuel" would cost around $75 Billion dollars. I trust NASA's plan, since they are a Space agency, and you are a high school student. Anyone from NASA could name a hundred billion problems in YOUR plan.
Again, the good 'ole US of A will get to Mars first. *tear of joy* Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Excuse this happens to be a big debate WITHIN NASA, the 450 billion $ plan is stupid because an astronaut will only be able to stay on Mars 60 days and cost billions of unnessasary money from tax payers.
And the main reason why the Von braun plan has so much backing because it would make a fortune for contractors and other businesses who hope to make a profit from this.
the 20 billion$ plan would make the least amount of money from contractors who hope to be given billions of dollars for new parts. The D&S method would require the least new devices to be made and built and is so flexible in the parts it does use.
It is not science guiding the bureaucracy of NASA, its money and self interest. The Space Agency to be least effected by this is whats going to make it to Mars first.
And IMHO I hope America ISN'T the first to make it there just to wipe that arrogant smirk of American faces. First to the moon? Good for you, second to Mars? Good for you.
IP: Logged |
posted
Actually FIRST to Mars. There is no concievable reason why we wouldn't get there first. The Auroaprogramme, (ESA) has plans to get there by 2034. (Contrary to what I said before, because they actually do have plans) But even now, to send men there is under debate because several of the more funding countries are starting to second guess.
The only nation I could stand getting a perosn on Mars first would be the UK, and they never will, so that settles that.
Unlike Canada, of whom's space agenc- Wait, do you guys even have one?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And IMHO I hope America ISN'T the first to make it there just to wipe that arrogant smirk of American faces. First to the moon? Good for you, second to Mars? Good for you.
Oh come on now, don't be that way.
For the record, I think the majority of the world thinks that US citizens think they are better than everyone else on earth, when in reality, I believe most Americans just don't care about most other people on earth. They don't think they are better, they'd just rather not deal with the outside world, a la 1920's. We're isolationist at heart, regardless of what the President has the US doing abroad, the minds of the average person tell a different story.
Reticulous is coming off extremely arrogant, and those people exist. We have them here, I'm sure you have them in Canada, and lord knows China is full of them. I think in general you shouldn't be judging a nation of 300 million based on: A. What you see in the Canadian media. B. Your interactions with a paltry few and secondhand stories from your mom who went to Florida. And C. being a follower to the popular world opinion of how Americans are.
If you want stereotypes, trust me I have a million Canadian ones, I live less than 20 miles away from Canada.
And Reticulum, don't take this as defending you, it's not. I find your attitude about the whole thing rather pompous and annoying, and it annoys me greatly that billions around the world view all Americans as acting as you have here. There's nothing wrong with patriotism, but self absorbed arrogance doesn't make you a decent goodwill ambassador, which I think every citizen of every nation should always strive to be when dealing with the peoples of other nations. Tone down the rhetoric. And also realize it's a good thing for America to be working on scientific projects with other nations. Good for America, and good for humanity.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I must say I have the view as described above, saying we don't care about the rest of the world, as in reality, I really don't. Almost every single American I have ever met in my entire life, (basicly everyone I ever knew) has really not given a single care towards any nation but the United States. I am not exagerating, I simply am stating my expierences.
As for the whole pompous thing, for that I am sorry. I, as many here, do find Blayne to be quite bothersome sometimes. (I am too, quite a bit. ) I simply wished to defend my nation against some of the rather more "strange" things that Blayne ahs brought up. AS many horible things as the United States may do, I don't like hearing bad things about my home nation. I'm sure many can agree. Yes, the US does many horrible and bad things.
And as for the working with other nations thing, I just don't like that. I love my nation, and as extremely nationalist/ arrogant/ whatever term you may wish to use; I 'd rather America get the glory for it. China would say the same, as would Russia, and tens of other nations. It is my view, and mine alone. I don't expect anyone to follow it, or like it, but only to respect it.
So, Blayne: Ceasefire? No more arguing and nation-making-fun-of? Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Those "plans" to get to Mars appear to be taking their sweet time, trust me, the Mars Direct Plan could get a crew of 4 on Mars by the end of the decade, but NASA is so full of bureaucrats and self interest groups that it ain't going to happen the cheap way unless some heads turn in favor the the Dog and Sled Method which means that America won't make it to Mars PERIOD because I do not think the average tax payer is willing to fork 400-500 billion dollars over the next 30 years to do it.
Thus the only way to get America to get its head out of the sand is for a foreign nation to make great strides in the direction of getting people to Mars.
I stand corrected I'll try to have a more open mind of Americans, but people from Ohio are nice, so I'll work on it one state at a time.
Course' also remember Canadian stereotypes also tend to be far more benelevent then American ones. Though on another matter, Arrogant worms has some good canadian on canadian ones as well.
Apparently each province sucks but Alberta.
:EDIT saw Rakeesh's post: yes cease fire but I'll still say China beats both American and Canadian culture buts I'm sure everyone knows hat I'ld say that.
IP: Logged |
posted
Why DO you think that China beats out everyone? I'm interested in why you think so. You saying that DOES answer a lot of questions. When Americans go to Canada do they say Cannadia a lot?
And thanks for the ceasefire. Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I do not know about "Cannadia" but I'm always torn between dismantling their prior misconceptions and fueling the belief that we ride polar bears to work and speak English as a second language.
As for the former question I'm a sinophile, there's really no other explanation.
I'm saying that those "plans" by NASA I doubt will ever see fruit if they go the big and expensive way (which is also the American way) rather then the cheap and low tech way.
The cheap and low tech way r "Dog and Sled Approch" could get us on Mars by 2010, any nation with a major space agency and somethign equivilent or on the books that resembles a Saturn V could do it and for a moderately low price.
Will the American tax payers support a project with a low amount of feed back if you will (60 days vs 600 days) that costs the entire military budget and would take decades to see through?
Anwser me honestly would we have gotten on the Moon if it weren't for the "10 years" alloted by JFK? We had a clear goal in mind and we did it in 9 years.
But geuss what happened after? New presidents kept trying to axe the program, if a program takes more then 4-8 years then what are the chances the next president won't just axe it out of spite or political gain?
A Mars plan has to be executable within a certain span of time or else people lose interest.
Going back to the moon is unnessasary for a plan to go to Mars, it takes MORE effort and MORE thrust to get to the Moon then to get to Mars and would cost far more then its worth.
Going to the moon is good and all if the only reason why we do so is because of going to Mars otherwise its stupid and slows us down.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the moon is not just some novelty, it actually has some strategic importance. Bases would be good for minignminerals of it, to fund, and strengthen the American economy.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
a strengthening that is not at all related to Martian exploration and if it is tied a "must do before reaching Mars" will cause an unnessasary delay costing billions of dollars and delay the program unnessarily for years.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: a strengthening that is not at all related to Martian exploration and if it is tied a "must do before reaching Mars" will cause an unnessasary delay costing billions of dollars and delay the program unnessarily for years.
Actually it is COMPLETELY related. Strengthening the economy will make it easier to go, and make bases, so that we can get to Mars easier. It may delay initally, but it will make it so that we can get there easier for many times to come.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Why would we need a base on the moon a Sat 5 booster is all we need and its actually more fuel efficient to go to Mars then it is to go to the moon.
We can't get to Mars any easier then we already can without a hyperdrive engine, 180 days is the best we can do.
The economy? 20 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket for any space faring power, 450 billion is beyond the USA, with or without the moon which would onyl make it more expensive.
IP: Logged |
quote:Why would we need a base on the moon a Sat 5 booster is all we need and its actually more fuel efficient to go to Mars then it is to go to the moon.
I think you're underrating the difficulty of supporting three or four people for over a year in a cold metal box.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Nope with 2 booster's there can be enough supplies crammed in for 3-4 people for a year especially since we can send more boosters every 180 days or so.
Its 20 billion $ to get to Mars you misread me.
A Sat 5 is dependable, doesn't require multi billion dollar contracts to develope and test, it got replaced for the same reason why NASA is going to BSG route it makes some self loving NASA contractor money, because the more gadgets you add on to a ship the more money is going to be spent and thus the more money a contractor will make over the course of the project.
I will not trust NASA to make intelligent decisions because of all the layers of bureaucracy that they wove around themselves, 180 days is the best that can be reasonably done and carry the amount of supplies needed for a one way trip for 4.
(Two way only considered the first unmanned ship sent to create the fuel for the return trip)
As I stated before if you dont carry the fuel for the trip back you have more then enough space to cram rations.
IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, you really don't have a wide vision. You honestly and actually think that the only reason they would do that, is so that contractors could make money?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fall of the British Empire never happened. Empires have nothing to do with military, they are monetary or they are a waste of effort. The dominance of a currency dictates power in the world. Following WW2 the US tried to force the UK into allowing the dollar to be the international currency as otherwise all transactions were in pounds and could be dominated by the financial institutions of the UK and the Bank of England. Also the UK had a highly prohibitive tax on all non commonwealth imports. Commonwealth countries could trade tax free, anyone else couldnt and as the most powerful monetary entity was the commonwealth power resided within it.
Lend lease killed off british dominance. If the US didnt want to become the dominant international monetary power it would not have demanded these things as a condition when Clement Atlee's government tried to obtain assistance from the US to rebuild Britain.
However the UK had built the Empire as a trade organisation and gave birth to so much of the worlds government that it was and still is utterly entwined in all. There is a difference between being a superpower dominant through the wielding of a sword and power through social and trade partnership. For a long period we brits used military power to get and hold what we wanted until we matured and developed real partnership. Thats why we are at the moment in danger of losing that as we have got drawn into a pure power play where brawn is considered an extension of brain. The USSR declined because it was all brawn and no brain. Sadly western empire (you can call America Rome and Britain Constantinople if you need an analogy, is going to decline because of simple decadence. Our society is selfish and individual more important than state. China and the pacific rim consider the converse more important. The US isnt as far in decay as the UK and still retains a will to sacrifice for the state but give it time, decline is innevitable. And if you dont believe that decline is innevitable then you still believe that the Egyptians should be running things. Language doesnt matter much either. Rome didnt decline because of language, it just matured into a trade alliance as it just didnt need its military (plus the backbone of the military had lost its will to fight. The soldier at Adrianople was not the soldier at Zama or Mons Graupius.) Do our people have the same grit as sixty years ago? Could we fight a power as threatening as germany? or would we sell out in a selfish, Im alright jack kind of way if we were truly threatened? My money is firmly on the latter. The Right Stuff has turned into, "you cant make me go over the top captain, I have my rights."
Egypt, Carthage, Rome, Ottoman, Persian, British, Soviet. All consigned to the history books. So dont go thinking America and the British financial empire is invulnerable, theyre not. The West is making a fool of itself daily.
Iran is just getting on with developing, despite their odd ideas about Israel that they wont actually do anything about other than bang their gums for popular support. How stupid are we to say "you cant have nuclear weapons," but we keep ours? and who has just deployed troops throughout the country on someone elses border? Are there Iranians in Canada? Nope, but we just dropped a huge force right on their doorstep. So, we design our decline. How much effort have we expended to find a small group of terrorists? And we still havent even though we deploy thousands of soldiers and equipment to do so. Finally, no power can remain a power if it just uses force to get what it wants. Britain found that out in India and America. I predict the pacific rim will rise and the west will fall, though in doing so we will lash out and threaten military action to preserve ourselves. Cash buys loyalty, swords just make enemies.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely disagree with everything you just said. First, when you say, "The fall of the British empire never happened", I am less inclined to ake what you are saying seriously. Yes, it DID fall. The British Emprie had its Zenith, and starting the mid 20th century it DID fall apart, break apart, and become "A dinky little island" The British Empire is NO WHERE near as powerful as it was at its Zenith. It controls basicly none of the world, but does have very good influence. Any who deny the fall of the British Empire in my view, are wrong.
Alright, moving on. Empire has a lot to do with military, as it is a lot of the time, how they keep their provinces and municipalities in line. Had the British Empire not a strong military, then they would have never prospered, and become the worlds (by far) most powerful nation. Money, yes a very lot with being dominant and powerful, but it cannot guarentee that you are superpowerful. France, for example has I believe, the worlds FIFTH largest economy. By your logic, this would mean they are dominant to a degree and have some realm of control of the world. By your logic, they would be at the very heart of every single international debate. (They are at a lot, and are very important) Obviously, what I just said is true toa certain degree, but not the way Vesp. said it.
And as for the military thing, I have too disagree with that completely, utterly, totally, and unarguably WRONG. While yes, China and other Asian nations are for more less selfish then us, they are becoming just like us. They are becoming JUST like us. (No pun intended) As for the sacrifice thing. I have to disagree with that also. Have you ever been to America? The U.S. The United States? I say this multiple times to illustrate my next point. Americans are isloationsts. If we could, and want to, we would curl up and only support ourselves without having to worry about anyone else, then we would. We Americans do not care about the rest of the world. We just want to prosper and out-do the Jones. As for soliers. Yes, America is selfish, and VERY selfish. However, do you think 2.5 Million people are in our military because they fear death? NO, my theory, is that when the time comes, people facr up to challenges and will pick up whatever they have to to protect themselves, and their rights. Were a situation like WWII to happen again, I am 100% sure people all over the world, Including the U.S. would gain the courage, strength, and honor to defend their nation. Some may say, we would object to it politically, but we are one of the most war mongering natios in the world. Had the time called for it, people, the nation, congress and all would fight for America so that we could stay around and continue our dominance of the world that no nation in history has ever achieved.
Which brings me to my next point. America hates everyone. We are the most selfish nation in the history of man. We care only for ourselves. We want to be the best and to be on top, and never fall. While yes, another nation will rise and rival us, I am confident we will see it through. If the time comes, Americans will fight for their nation to make sure that no one is better then us, for that, above all, is what Americans REALLY, REALLY hate. When someone is better then us.
As for your saying that the west will fall, I think it will to a degree but not totally, or even partially. Military dominance is something that the U.S. has total control of. No nation in the world can project power like the U.S. can. And you say that economics are the way to make sure you are at the top, and a powerfull person to mess with? China, has the second largest economy in the world. 8 trillion dollar. Second, and growing at a rate of 9%. That is high economic growth. The US is also dominant economically as well as militarilly. We more so use economics and politics to maintain our control. We may be a war mongering nation, but when we use military, we make sure we are astronger then the next guy. The US, has the worlds largest economy by about 5 Trillion dollars. Our currency is worth a hell of a lot more then theirs. 8 to 1. Even if Militarilly, we are destroyed, foiled, and China completley outdoes us, we will still be the worlds, at lowest, second largest economy. And that won't come for QUITE a time. Culturally, we are just to big to fall. Movies? Come from America. LOTS AND LOTS of stuff (culturally) come from America. the United States does not "just use force to get what it wants". We use economics, and politics, and "rarely" force.
And as for delpoying thousands of troops to find one guy? That is just total junk. Media and the internet shade perceptions of the Iraqi war. In reality, the war has been a MAJOR success. We overthrough a disctatorship in less then a year. We organized it into a democracy in a litlle over 2 years. Casualties? We lost around 2500. That is great for a war. And yes, we found Saddam Houssein, and arrested him, as he is now on trial. Al Qaeda is supremely cripled. While yes, we have not found Osama, and that is bad; overall, the war has been "successful".
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Out of interest, what makes you say this? As far as I am aware, there is little evidence that Al Qaeda recieved substantial support from the former Iraq government, and I don't see much evidence that it has been weakened to any meaningful degree in Afganistan, (most of which is still held by rebels and the Talaban) or indeed, worldwide.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Double posteth!
You are correct, I disagree with maybe one or two things I'm pretty sure the average Roman was just as confident that Rome would never fall.
But you are right even if America lost the next war say vs China majorly they would only be at worse 2nd, 3rd if India somehow managed to be third largest economy by that time though I have more confidence that a second Soviet Block would arise again in that time.
You are right in a WWII situation Americans will do what its takes, but I asketh thou, what happens if its just a skirmish far away utilizing only the assets on hand because politically per se, you can't flex your full might without angering world/domestic opinion?
Your military would undobutably fight to the peak of their training and experiance I have no doubt but so would they.
And yes the war is successful, though I must doubt the stability of the current Iraqi democracy if America suddenly left.
Movies? Brands? Culture? China is just beginning to export their culture for example so maybe in 40 years America might find some competition.
In terms of the British Empires share of the world's total economy dropping from some 25% to its national 3% I think is a far far drop for an empire.
Infact America's share fo the world's economy has also dropped likewise, not as much in comparrison but its droping as the 3rd world develops.
I am not saying tis the only reason I'm saying that contractors in NASA are arm twisting NASA to do things that make them money, the resistance against Mars direct comes mostly from those who are in the pocket of those who make the most money from big and expensive projects.
IP: Logged |
posted
"You are right in a WWII situation Americans will do what its takes, but I asketh thou, what happens if its just a skirmish far away utilizing only the assets on hand because politically per se, you can't flex your full might without angering world/domestic opinion?"
That would be a big problem, but if we had a good president, who did not lie, and was, say, as good a speech maker as Hitler, then the people would support it.
"Movies? Brands? Culture? China is just beginning to export their culture for example so maybe in 40 years America might find some competition."
As for that, yes that is happening, but it will only reach a certain extent. The American movie industry is just to powerdful and dominant to be undone. Besides, even IG China got good control, it would never EVER work. Their movies would never be successful on a world-wide scale. Americans, (BY A HUGE, GIGANTIC, BIG, OVERBLOWN, GINORMUS, GARGANTUAN MARGIN) control the movie industry. If we didn't support them, others wouldn't, and they would lose A LOT of money, from America Alone. Besides, I believe the top 150 movies (box office) of all time, are all American made. It would take a VERY long time, to undue that sort of control. Americans wont accept their culture, so much as their technology.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because she's younger than you. And I still say its because they had bad teeth and were horrible at stratagy. They never planed properly for prolonged occupations and they believed in their superiority of their tactics (which they rarley updated).
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
