Pages: 1 2

 

2006-12-07 16:34:34
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6565
If/when the US mission in Iraq ends in failure or in a less than satisfactory result then is the US really a superpower anymore? I suppose 'superpower' is a very subjective term but my point is: the US has the tools, the power and the influence but if it cannot wield those tools and that power to much effect then is it really that 'super'?

This should give me some interesting reading material at work tomorrow.

PS This is not a flame thread, I suppose it's a discussion on what exactly a 'superpower' is.
2006-12-07 16:36:20
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6559|Southeastern USA
no you've got a point, as opposed to the days when politics ended at the water's edge, DC is too full of grudge toting trolls more concerned with the failure of their opponents than the good of the nation, or our allies
2006-12-07 16:37:28
BigmacK
Back from the Dead.
+628|6761|Chicago.
First of which, you have to define failure. Does that mean total and complete defeat? Or simply a withdrawl?
2006-12-07 16:39:17
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6565

BigmacK wrote:

First of which, you have to define failure. Does that mean total and complete defeat? Or simply a withdrawl?
That is pretty subjective too. It's open. If you define success as having troops there forever then there's something seriously wrong with that though.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-12-07 16:40:12)

2006-12-07 16:40:38
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6694|United States of America
If you are at work- GET BACK TO WORK

However, I would still believe so. A superpower has the capability to do amazing feats and the Iraqi army was routed in conventional "battles." However, the Cold War or WWII are not the only factors that contributed to that label. Think about sports for instance, America is still a leading nation in the Olympics and usually takes home more than a few gold medals. Currently, the only country to land on the moon (or DID THEY dun-dun-duuunnn) and other accomplishments of that nature. Less than favorable results in that country would not constitute revocation of "superpower" status in my view.
2006-12-07 16:40:41
weamo8
Member
+50|6453|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

If/when the US mission in Iraq ends in failure or in a less than satisfactory result then is the US really a superpower anymore? I suppose 'superpower' is a very subjective term but my point is: the US has the tools, the power and the influence but if it cannot wield those tools and that power to much effect then is it really that 'super'?

This should give me some interesting reading material at work tomorrow.

PS This is not a flame thread, I suppose it's a discussion on what exactly a 'superpower' is.
We lost Vietnam, and people still call us a "superpower."  So I guess my answer is - yes.
2006-12-07 16:42:49
dubbs
Member
+105|6642|Lexington, KY
I do not think that the US willnot be a superpower.  The US will still have a major role in world issues.  Failing in Iraq, and saying that the US in no longer a superpower is like saying that the US ceased to be a superpower because we failed in Vietnam. 

Being a superpower, is not about winning all of the wars/conflicts that you are in.  It is about doing a lot in world wide issues.  The USSR quite being a superpower when they could not longer effect world issues in their favor.


Edit:  I am more intrested in how may US citizens say yes compared to the rest of the world.

Last edited by dubbs (2006-12-07 16:43:54)

2006-12-07 16:44:32
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6591|SE London

BigmacK wrote:

First of which, you have to define failure. Does that mean total and complete defeat? Or simply a withdrawl?
Their goal was to install a stable democratic government that the West could do business with. I'd call failiure to do that a failure.

But as CP says, it is very subjective. Though you can hardly call it a success in any sense, apart from the rapid and well conducted invasion. The destabilisation caused has been catastrophic.

Will the US still be a superpower? Yes.

I don't see how Iraq would affect that.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-07 16:45:22)

2006-12-07 16:46:04
Storgie
how about this thread for whiners
+15|6585|federal way washington

CameronPoe wrote:

If/when the US mission in Iraq ends in failure or in a less than satisfactory result then is the US really a superpower anymore? I suppose 'superpower' is a very subjective term but my point is: the US has the tools, the power and the influence but if it cannot wield those tools and that power to much effect then is it really that 'super'?

This should give me some interesting reading material at work tomorrow.

PS This is not a flame thread, I suppose it's a discussion on what exactly a 'superpower' is.
the muck up in iraq has nothing to do with the usa being a super power, we mucked up korea and viet nam and where still called a superpower. course the real question should be what makes a nation a superpower and i hope it is not just the ability to destroy all like on this mudd ball we call a planet.
2006-12-07 16:47:07
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6656

Storgie wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

If/when the US mission in Iraq ends in failure or in a less than satisfactory result then is the US really a superpower anymore? I suppose 'superpower' is a very subjective term but my point is: the US has the tools, the power and the influence but if it cannot wield those tools and that power to much effect then is it really that 'super'?

This should give me some interesting reading material at work tomorrow.

PS This is not a flame thread, I suppose it's a discussion on what exactly a 'superpower' is.
the muck up in iraq has nothing to do with the usa being a super power, we mucked up korea and viet nam and where still called a superpower. course the real question should be what makes a nation a superpower and i hope it is not just the ability to destroy all like on this mudd ball we call a planet.
I would say it's a combination of military power, economy, and cultural influence.
2006-12-07 16:49:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina
Superpower should be based on how a country compares to the rest of the world in both economic and military terms.  Since we have the best military by far and we have an economy so much larger than most of the world, we will remain a superpower until China and India become Second World.
2006-12-07 16:54:31
<[onex]>Headstone
Member
+102|6712|New York
Well this is a loaded question. But my answer would be No, the US will not lose a label.

As for Iraq, It seems that they are use to 1000 years of sectarian fighting, and with saddam out of the way, they are back at it in full force. THATS not a failure on the part of the US, its a failure of the Iraqi people to change there thinking. IF the newer generation would disgard that traditional thinking, then Maybe(and thats a big maybe) Iraq could some day be considered a success. The Iraqi peoples are more loyal to tribal leaders and sects than they ever will be to ANY Govt, so Theres no such thing as success in Iraq, i dont care who fought it No country could have won, its too hard to change centuries of tradition.
2006-12-07 17:30:33
jonsimon
Member
+224|6505

CameronPoe wrote:

If/when the US mission in Iraq ends in failure or in a less than satisfactory result then is the US really a superpower anymore? I suppose 'superpower' is a very subjective term but my point is: the US has the tools, the power and the influence but if it cannot wield those tools and that power to much effect then is it really that 'super'?

This should give me some interesting reading material at work tomorrow.

PS This is not a flame thread, I suppose it's a discussion on what exactly a 'superpower' is.
Our mission fails if we lose control over Iraq or influence over the rest of OPEC. As far as I'm concerned, that is inevitable. So, unless we start major economic reforms (such as disbanding the military to balance the governments budget and trade deficit), we're doomed.
2006-12-07 23:20:09
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6571

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

IF the newer generation would disgard that traditional thinking
Something which Americans themselves fail to do.
2006-12-07 23:26:50
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6781|PNW

The Empire lost the first Death Star, but still remained the Empire.

kr@cker wrote:

no you've got a point, as opposed to the days when politics ended at the water's edge, DC is too full of grudge toting trolls more concerned with the failure of their opponents than the good of the nation, or our allies
https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/unnamednewbie13/tau-codex-cover.gif
FO' DUH GREATAH GOOD!

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-12-07 23:27:55)

2006-12-07 23:36:28
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6571
Heh, I play Tau!

I'll prolly be picking up some of the new Stealth suits, like the one pictured there, very shortly...............
2006-12-07 23:37:42
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6590|the dank(super) side of Oregon

kr@cker wrote:

no you've got a point, as opposed to the days when politics ended at the water's edge, DC is too full of grudge toting trolls more concerned with the failure of their opponents than the good of the nation, or our allies
We still have allies?
2006-12-07 23:50:07
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6781|PNW

Bubbalo wrote:

Heh, I play Tau!

I'll prolly be picking up some of the new Stealth suits, like the one pictured there, very shortly...............
They're great combined with Imperial Guard in the PC game.
2006-12-07 23:57:58
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6611|132 and Bush

Reciprocity wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

no you've got a point, as opposed to the days when politics ended at the water's edge, DC is too full of grudge toting trolls more concerned with the failure of their opponents than the good of the nation, or our allies
We still have allies?
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
France
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
United Kingdom
United States
Greece
Turkey
Germany
Spain
Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Bulgaria
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia

BTW the US is considered a Hyperpower.

I think most Americans could really care less. They just want to do their thing and be safe.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-08 00:01:26)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-08 00:02:56
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6656

Kmarion wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

no you've got a point, as opposed to the days when politics ended at the water's edge, DC is too full of grudge toting trolls more concerned with the failure of their opponents than the good of the nation, or our allies
We still have allies?
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
France
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
United Kingdom
United States
Greece
Turkey
Germany
Spain
Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Bulgaria
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia

BTW the US is considered a Hyperpower.

I think most Americans could really care less. They just want to do their thing and be safe.
Norway but no Sweden or Finland?
2006-12-08 00:35:56
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6571

Kmarion wrote:

BTW the US is considered a Hyperpower.
No, some argue that it should be called a hyperpower, on the grounds that it has a great advantage in all areas (economic/technological/political/military etc.).  Personally, I think that's silly, as that's the definition of a superpower.
2006-12-08 04:02:23
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6529|Πάϊ
I don't think that the Bush administration was caught unprepared by the developments in Iraq. After all, they've had enough experience with the war in Afghanistan to know that things would eventually come to this point.

Either ways, the USA's status as superpower cannot be compromised by such little and controlled economy-boosting conflicts.

Edit: Hyper: Direct translation of the Greek word υπέρ meaning super. Thus hyperpower = superpower.

Last edited by oug (2006-12-08 04:07:06)

ƒ³
2006-12-08 04:38:14
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6571
That's like saying that beef means cow because it comes from the French beouf (sp?).
2006-12-08 04:41:36
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|6839
As it's purely a label with no actual repercussions if the US is technically a super power or not, I choose not to care.
2006-12-08 05:03:32
[HhB]Jonny-JX
Member
+5|6510|Dresden, Germany
Overpower or no power is only the military part of a war...but you can't win a war with pure military power, if the natives don't want you in your land...
If this is the point (like in Iraq), you can't win really....the only way to break ALL resistence is to kill ALL people in the land....or can you tell, who is 100% on your side? NO! But killing all people their is not acceptable...and it would show, that the USA (+ their concern's) only want oil...

In addition, the Mid-East-Region had all the time wars, for over 4000 years...all the time...so they are not fearing the fight or to die, because they learned as kids, that they had to fight for their land or some interests...

And if they US-Government and the UK-Government had thought about this and not only about MONEY, they hadn't started this stupid war...
No they are whining about their fallen soldiers...their fallen son's and daughter's....IDIOT'S think first! (Honor to all fallen soldiers and civilians...)

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard