Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 17

 

Poll

Should Europe join the United States?

Yes23%23% - 97
No76%76% - 308
Total: 405
2006-12-16 19:04:38
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7003

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

How so? You claim that the most powerful nation in existence is irresponsible and should become a colony of a tiny country that lost all of its land and colonies, and is only a small shadow of its former self.
I'd say there's a few valuable lessons to be learned there for the 'American Empire'. What goes up, ultimately tends to come crashing down.
The only way the American Empire is going down is through peace. That means that the entire world, or the US and many other countries, would have to unite under one new government. Nuclear weapons ensure that if we go "crashing down" any other way, we're taking the rest of the world with us. History will not repeat itself due to the nuclear element.
The Empire won't fall due to any kind of military development - it will likely result from a shift in economic and power/influence realities where the US will be superseded and suffer as a consequence. They've already shown a lack of ability to meaningfully exert their influence/wield their power in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba and Venezuela. They've also compromised some of their founding principles. This could be the start of the slippery slope.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-12-16 19:06:02)

2006-12-16 19:09:42
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7094

adam1503 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

The only way the American Empire is going down is through peace. That means that the entire world, or the US and many other countries, would have to unite under one new government. Nuclear weapons ensure that if we go "crashing down" any other way, we're taking the rest of the world with us. History will not repeat itself due to the nuclear element.
That attitude is what is so dangerous about the US.  You think you rule the rest of the world because you are a superpower.  That makes you dangerous, and you dont seem to realise this.
The same applies to Britain or any other country with a sizable nuclear arsenal. It ensures your survival. Why do you think so many countries want to develop nuclear weapons? That is why our ICBMs are called "Peacekeepers", even though they do hold 10 nuclear warheads each.
2006-12-16 19:11:09
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7003

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

The only way the American Empire is going down is through peace. That means that the entire world, or the US and many other countries, would have to unite under one new government. Nuclear weapons ensure that if we go "crashing down" any other way, we're taking the rest of the world with us. History will not repeat itself due to the nuclear element.
That attitude is what is so dangerous about the US.  You think you rule the rest of the world because you are a superpower.  That makes you dangerous, and you dont seem to realise this.
The same applies to Britain or any other country with a sizable nuclear arsenal. It ensures your survival. Why do you think so many countries want to develop nuclear weapons? That is why our ICBMs are called "Peacekeepers", even though they do hold 10 nuclear warheads each.
It doesn't 'secure your survival'. It secures you the ability 'to take a few suckers with me on my way down'.
2006-12-16 19:14:14
adam1503
Member
+85|6836|Manchester, UK

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

The only way the American Empire is going down is through peace. That means that the entire world, or the US and many other countries, would have to unite under one new government. Nuclear weapons ensure that if we go "crashing down" any other way, we're taking the rest of the world with us. History will not repeat itself due to the nuclear element.
That attitude is what is so dangerous about the US.  You think you rule the rest of the world because you are a superpower.  That makes you dangerous, and you dont seem to realise this.
The same applies to Britain or any other country with a sizable nuclear arsenal. It ensures your survival. Why do you think so many countries want to develop nuclear weapons? That is why our ICBMs are called "Peacekeepers", even though they do hold 10 nuclear warheads each.
The only reason they "keep the peace" is the concept of mutual destruction.  If one country is stupid enough to use them against another, that country would use them in retaliation: nobody wins.  Thus, noone uses them.  I do not agree that thje world needs nuclear weapons to keep the peace.  Most of the threats we face today are from terrorist cells, and they cant be destroyed or defended against with nukes.
2006-12-16 19:15:38
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7094

CameronPoe wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

That attitude is what is so dangerous about the US.  You think you rule the rest of the world because you are a superpower.  That makes you dangerous, and you dont seem to realise this.
The same applies to Britain or any other country with a sizable nuclear arsenal. It ensures your survival. Why do you think so many countries want to develop nuclear weapons? That is why our ICBMs are called "Peacekeepers", even though they do hold 10 nuclear warheads each.
It doesn't 'secure your survival'. It secures you the ability 'to take a few suckers with me on my way down'.
That is only the case if the country that is attacking you does not care for its survival and is willing to trade its own annihilation for yours. That really only applies to terrorism. With that small exception in mind, nuclear weapons ensure the survival of those who posses them. When a country has the ability to defend itself from any potential nuclear attack (Star Wars), that's when the situation gets really messy.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-16 19:17:26)

2006-12-16 19:17:32
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7003

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:


The same applies to Britain or any other country with a sizable nuclear arsenal. It ensures your survival. Why do you think so many countries want to develop nuclear weapons? That is why our ICBMs are called "Peacekeepers", even though they do hold 10 nuclear warheads each.
It doesn't 'secure your survival'. It secures you the ability 'to take a few suckers with me on my way down'.
That is only the case if the country that is attacking you does not care for its survival and is willing to trade its own annihilation for yours. That really only applies to terrorism. With that small exception in mind, nuclear weapons ensure the survival of those who posses them.
Well my 'empire falling' scenario was more an influence/economic downfall rather than a military one so I don't see how nukes would help there.
2006-12-16 19:17:50
adam1503
Member
+85|6836|Manchester, UK
wtf has star wars got to do with any of this?
2006-12-16 19:20:23
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7094

adam1503 wrote:

wtf has star wars got to do with any of this?
Do some research.
2006-12-16 19:21:33
dubbs
Member
+105|7080|Lexington, KY

adam1503 wrote:

wtf has star wars got to do with any of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_ … nitiative.  That maybe what they were speaking about.
2006-12-16 19:23:24
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|7066|InGerLand

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Mushroomcar wrote:

Well i think that us maybe would join eu?
Think if we worked togheter.
No. The United States is not joining the EU. European nations will become states within the United States. They will pay taxes and build American football stadiums. I can't wait to see the Miami Dolphins play in England and Ireland.
ha! sure we're just going to drop football and do the pussy version of rugby
2006-12-16 19:24:23
adam1503
Member
+85|6836|Manchester, UK
Ah right, that star wars.  Carry on.

Last edited by adam1503 (2006-12-16 19:24:46)

2006-12-16 19:39:37
adam1503
Member
+85|6836|Manchester, UK
Tha fact is that the cold war is over and America really doesnt need its nukes anymore.  Who would you use them on?  Al Qaeda? The Taliban? You have more than enough power with your armed forces and various armaments as it is.  If America ever does need to use its nukes, then things must hve gotten pretty bad, and I hope Im not around to see that day.

Perhaps the only countries that are potential nuclear threats are Iran and North Korea.  But you have to wonder why they think they need nuclear warheads: because the US has them, and they dont feel secure without them.  Like I said, the whole point of having nuclear weapons is the concept of mutual annihilation.  But this only applies if the other side has them too.  Iran and North Korea dont yet.  Therefore, there is no concept of mutual annihilation, which is why Iran and N.K. are so jumpy about the situation.  America holds all the cards.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying that Iran and N.K. should get the bomb:  they never should.  Im saying that the US and other like-minded countries (UK included) dont need them anymore.
2006-12-16 19:49:13
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|7066|InGerLand

adam1503 wrote:

Tha fact is that the cold war is over and America really doesnt need its nukes anymore.  Who would you use them on?  Al Qaeda? The Taliban? You have more than enough power with your armed forces and various armaments as it is.  If America ever does need to use its nukes, then things must hve gotten pretty bad, and I hope Im not around to see that day.

Perhaps the only countries that are potential nuclear threats are Iran and North Korea.  But you have to wonder why they think they need nuclear warheads: because the US has them, and they dont feel secure without them.  Like I said, the whole point of having nuclear weapons is the concept of mutual annihilation.  But this only applies if the other side has them too.  Iran and North Korea dont yet.  Therefore, there is no concept of mutual annihilation, which is why Iran and N.K. are so jumpy about the situation.  America holds all the cards.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying that Iran and N.K. should get the bomb:  they never should.  Im saying that the US and other like-minded countries (UK included) dont need them anymore.
lol meanwhile plans are being drawn up to redo tritan (or whatever the hell it was called)
we don't have the millions for the NHS but we do have the billions for nuclear submarines according to the government :S
2006-12-16 19:57:21
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7094

adam1503 wrote:

Iran and North Korea dont yet.  Therefore, there is no concept of mutual annihilation, which is why Iran and N.K. are so jumpy about the situation.  America holds all the cards.
The difference with Iran is that their President has proclaimed the annihilation of Israel.
2006-12-16 19:58:53
adam1503
Member
+85|6836|Manchester, UK

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Iran and North Korea dont yet.  Therefore, there is no concept of mutual annihilation, which is why Iran and N.K. are so jumpy about the situation.  America holds all the cards.
The difference with Iran is that their President has proclaimed the annihilation of Israel.
Good point, but doesnt he want to do that so others can have the land?  Then he wouldnt use nukes as this would leave the area uninhabitable for a looooong time.  He would (I believe) most likely use military force, which we could fight against without the "aid" of nukes.

Last edited by adam1503 (2006-12-16 19:59:41)

2006-12-16 20:05:56
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7094

adam1503 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Iran and North Korea dont yet.  Therefore, there is no concept of mutual annihilation, which is why Iran and N.K. are so jumpy about the situation.  America holds all the cards.
The difference with Iran is that their President has proclaimed the annihilation of Israel.
Good point, but doesnt he want to do that so others can have the land?  Then he wouldnt use nukes as this would leave the area uninhabitable for a looooong time.  He would (I believe) most likely use military force, which we could fight against without the "aid" of nukes.
Iran doesn't have the capability to defeat Israel conventionally. Additionally, Israel has a much larger nuclear arsenal than what Iran could achieve anytime soon or ever. It's possible that Ahmadinejad only wants nukes for self-defense, but what kind of world leader these days openly proclaims the annihilation of another country in the manner that he does? A direct nuclear attack on Israel would be suicide, but given their current support of terrorism, it is possible that they would indirectly nuke Israel by supplying the weapons to terrorists. Either way, if Israel gets nuked, Iran will get completely glassed over.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-16 20:06:07)

2006-12-16 20:22:31
chinesemaster006
Member
+3|7128
https://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r114/tcbm7/img/funny/13.jpg
2006-12-16 20:24:14
evilcartman99
The Octagon
+18|6861|da ville, va
Damn that one on the right is fiiiiiiiiiiiiiine.
2006-12-16 20:26:59
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7164

chinesemaster006 wrote:

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r114 … nny/13.jpg
Actually the chick on the left is from Florida.

It would take a long time for the US economy to be taken over since they still have a lot of resources in their own lands.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-12-16 21:25:49
dubbs
Member
+105|7080|Lexington, KY

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

chinesemaster006 wrote:

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r114 … nny/13.jpg
Actually the chick on the left is from Florida.

It would take a long time for the US economy to be taken over since they still have a lot of resources in their own lands.
How do you know she is from Florida?  Also, look beyond the large woman on the right, you see a smaller woman.
2006-12-16 21:38:52
commissargizz
Member
+123|6911| Heaven
I think the US should join the British commonwealth hehehehehehehehehe as an ex-colony why not, instead of Bush as president you will have our Queen as head of state.
2006-12-16 21:40:08
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7049|132 and Bush

commissargizz wrote:

I think the US should join the British commonwealth hehehehehehehehehe as an ex-colony why not, instead of Bush as president you will have our Queen as head of state.
Negative
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-17 02:23:53
artofsurvival
Idiot!
+33|6805|the Great British Queendom :)
Hey fella's, calm down.
Sorry to of brought the "Empire" of Great Britain into the debate, now becoming an arguement! The states is more than welcome to "rule" over Europe as they would have to do deal with the problems that we face everyday, hey I could sit back and relax somewhat more knowing that my nieghbour could buy a gun and accidently shoot me! But in all seriousness isn't this just a case of world domination by any means nesc? Look at what NATO has done and how many problems has arisen from that over the years, in the first instance it was marvellous, cleared up the cold war etc: But where is it now? All you here these days is United Nations Actions against USA England France Germany etc; Do you not think that we should not enforce a western style of life on other nations as they are not western, look at Japan, China for instance, they have evovle into nations that appreciate western living but still remain alluring as of there traditions? So perhaps there is chance for us all as of yet!
2006-12-17 03:21:21
Natte
Member
+12|6972|Sweden

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/ … europe.jpg
Were is Norway on that map?
2006-12-17 04:03:20
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7099|USA

Natte wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/ … europe.jpg
Were is Norway on that map?
yeah they are supposed to be right next to that PENIS shaped country called Sweden.

 

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 17

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard